Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#261

Post by the_real_cher »

wilg wrote: post #127
gxs wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t know this but it’s the kind of stuff our tax dollars pay for and ultimately why I’m so disgruntled about the high taxes we pay - especially in the middle class No problem paying taxes - my entire gripe is with what what the moneys spent on

The US has below average middle class tax rates. But luckily we can just choose what our tax dollars are spent on through democracy! The main problem is nobody agrees about anything and lots of people are really dumb and can't handle the responsibility of electing competent people into government.

Im not sure I agree that a two party system for 400 million people allows us to choose what our taxes are spent on.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#262

Post by chaps »

loeg wrote: post #216
undersuit wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the police are part of the problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs

The problem GP is describing is mostly with the courts, not the cops.

Friend, that's a.... deep, deep mischaracterization of how the courts work. The cops, prosecutors and judges have deep relationship with each other. Yes, these are "courts problems", but you can't have these courts problems without cops, without prosecutors, without judges, etc.

Ask yourself: why do public defenders have a tiny fraction of the budget of prosecutors?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#263

Post by stackskipton »

MikeTheGreat wrote: post #183
riedel wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just out of curiosity: doesn't the US have any laws against private surveillance of public spaces? As a European I find this quite irritating (not saying we do not have problems as well with more and more cams installed and risks related to an increasing number of e.g. parking lot cams)

I'm not a lawyer and I think this varies state by state, but I think that in general anyone is allowed to record in public spaces. I think the general idea is that if you could (legally) go stand in that public space (sidewalks, roads, parks) and watch something happen then you're allowed to record what you see. This is probably good - I think it's the basis of being able to record misbehavior (by private citizens an…

You are allowed to record stuff happening in private spaces depending on the situation and state you are in.

For example, you could photograph or record the dance floor in nightclub since dance floor is very public. However, the bathroom would not be allowed. Of course, the venue could make up rules and eject you for doing so.

Most of "Warning signs" are deterrence, maybe someone will behave better if they know cameras are watching. Also, it's cheap insurance dictate by the lawyers who think "Signs are 100 bucks total but someone filing privacy lawsuit is thousands, put up the signs."

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#264

Post by the_real_cher »

gxs wrote: post #105
declan_roberts wrote: post #83

I don't understand flock cameras in high crime areas. Every time somebody commits a heinous crime it's always like "they were arrested 72 times and were well known by the police" What's the point in helping the police catch criminals when they don't do anything after the fact!

Because this kind of stuff is used for way beyond this It’s used for surveillance in the truest sense Heaven forbid you are on someone’s watchlist, they will just track your movement across the city This isn’t some fake CSI pop dream - this kind of tech isn’t used to catch the people breaking into your house

Also used by repo men to track people behind on payments

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#265

Post by tptacek »

smalltorch wrote: post #229
tptacek wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can definitely take the cameras down. We did, there was zero drama. On the other hand, it wouldn't be surprising if a single county commissioner got in trouble for just deciding by fiat to take civic infrastructure down himself. That's not a power county commissioners have. Was there a county board vote authorizing that action?

In this case, law enforcement selectively enforced local laws. So the commissioner exhausted his options. And flock didn't seem to be bothered by breaking the local laws and their action was inaction . So what else are you suppose to do? I think it's reasonable to decide that if no one is enforcing the new local law, that it may be the commissioners purview and authority to enforce after exhausting all his options. C…

Again: if it's one commissioner, he doesn't have any options. The only power a county commissioner has that you don't is voting on motions.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#266

Post by chaps »

alex43578 wrote: post #178
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #171

it needs to be illegal for the government to buy data or intelligence that it could not otherwise legally collect itself.

Why do you think the government couldn’t collect this information themselves? ALPRs are legal, cameras covering a public roadway are legal, and the 4th amendment doesn’t extend to driving on a public roadway.

Of course they can and of course they do. It gets much more complicated when you consider that each state has different laws about records sharing.

And, lol, yes the 4th amendment extends to driving on a public roadway... roads aren't international waters. Probable cause and such are still important. I recognize what you're saying but -- details matter, dammit.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#268

Post by tptacek »

mistercheph wrote: post #238
tptacek wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can definitely take the cameras down. We did, there was zero drama. On the other hand, it wouldn't be surprising if a single county commissioner got in trouble for just deciding by fiat to take civic infrastructure down himself. That's not a power county commissioners have. Was there a county board vote authorizing that action?

re: the commisioner: > In January of 2024, the Camden County Commission passed a county ordinance banning the use of all automated license plate readers in the county (a 2023 ordinance had banned all static license plate readers, but the 2024 ordinance expanded that to include all automated license plate readers). In that ordinance, commissioners cited "numerous complaints" about the cameras "and the potential of unw…

I don't know much of anything about any other jurisdictions. I'm saying that my municipality took the cameras down with zero drama. I'm on one of its commissions with oversight on this.

(More precisely: there was drama, but it was all public drama from residents who didn't want the cameras taken down.)

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#269

Post by smalltorch »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #247
smalltorch wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, law enforcement selectively enforced local laws. So the commissioner exhausted his options. And flock didn't seem to be bothered by breaking the local laws and their action was inaction . So what else are you suppose to do? I think it's reasonable to decide that if no one is enforcing the new local law, that it may be the commissioners purview and authority to enforce after exhausting all his options. C…

> So what else are you suppose to do? File a civil suit and get a court order for their removal.

Silliness. Who enforces it then? The local law banning it was already equally as valid as a court order would have been. Would the county need to ask the judge to take it down?

Someone has to physically take it down and I'm guessing flock didn't put that in the budget.

Post reply on HN