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

331–340 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#331

Post by tptacek »

lokar wrote: post #327
chasd00 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or just start fining Flock per camera per day for a brazillion dollars. Sheriff compliance or not, that's still in their power.

And then get a order to take the camera to satisfy the debt

This is all very silly. Flock is not a scheme to install forever-cameras. They get paid primarily by municipalities. If your muni votes to shut the cameras off, they will shut the cameras off. If it votes to take the cameras down, nobody is going to stop public works from doing that.

The problem is that the First Law Of Message Board dictates that the most interesting narrative wins, and the narrative where Flock has deviously come up with a surveillance "forever chemical" to attach to every municipal road is much more interesting than "this is a service and if you stop paying for it it goes away".

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#332

Post by deepsun »

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!

Too few prosecutors. Police only arrests, but the real job is done by prosecutors. However, there's a global shortage of them, and cities don't hire more. I don't know whether that's a popular job nowadays.

So without proper charges judge cannot do anything but release. Police cannot do anything but arrest.

Prosecutors are the main line of defense (defending public from criminals).

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#333

Post by lokar »

Spooky23 wrote: post #303
remarkEon wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious. Why didn’t they want them taken down?

They do have a legitimate purpose and help to solve crimes. The network effect, funded by federal grants to make a surveillance infrastructure nationally is the biggest issue.

This is the part that upsets me. They really could help solve crimes without sacrificing privacy.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#334

Post by lokar »

tptacek wrote: post #331
lokar wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then get a order to take the camera to satisfy the debt

This is all very silly. Flock is not a scheme to install forever-cameras. They get paid primarily by municipalities. If your muni votes to shut the cameras off, they will shut the cameras off. If it votes to take the cameras down, nobody is going to stop public works from doing that. The problem is that the First Law Of Message Board dictates that the most interesting narrative wins, and the narrative where Flock has…

I thought what was going on was they would keep them up after the local contract as they could still get value from them as part of the national network.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#335

Post by kulahan »

ibejoeb wrote: post #243
engineer_22 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not utility. But you don’t have to be a utility to construct in the right-of-way.

Good point. Then, if the contract lapses, who is responsible for that infrastructure? Does flock have to tear it down?

Probably some legal question that won’t get answered until there is a strong pressure to do so.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#336

Post by alex43578 »

chaps wrote: post #318
alex43578 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Details do matter: extensive case law supports a very low standard for privacy in cars and searches on the roadway. Pat downs, being ordered out of the car, free air sniffs via drug dogs, DUI or immigration checkpoints, etc. Furthermore, just being recorded on a public roadway doesn’t constitute a search or seizure. The strongest evidence in support of your position is that Boston aerial surveillance case, which is f…

You really sully your position when you call it a "stupid extension of the idea of viewing = searching." Again, details matter: how is it stupid.

See the two paragraphs before? That lays out my position.

The courts have repeatedly upheld far more invasive searches and encroachments of vehicles, but now confusingly consider simply observing the outside of your vehicle to constitute an excessive search.

The Baltimore decision is stupid because it contradicts 50 years of case law over what constitutes a search and what degree of privacy you expect to have on a private roadway.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#337

Post by kulahan »

thesuitonym wrote: post #198
jonahx wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any realistic road to having them outlawed nationwide? Eg, ignoring probabilities here, could a wildly successful grassroots program where it became an issue as politically salient as immigration or abortion eventually lead to legislation banning them?

A national ban is unlikely to happen. Big companies like Flock are incredibly experienced at paying off enough of the Congress to stop legislation they don't like. You're better off trying to focus your efforts on your local municipalities and the state.

This is true for almost every issue, for what it’s worth.

Almost.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#338

Post by treis »

inahga wrote: post #328
treis wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cameras do address that problem. We live in a country where people go to jail for life because two witnesses they swear they saw pookie shoot dee dee. Where cops beat the hell out of citizens and say they were resisting arrest. That Pookie can show a video from a flock camera showing him somewhere else is a massive boost to his civil liberties. Same with whatever poor sap gets beat by the cops.

> That Pookie can show a video from a flock camera showing him somewhere else is a massive boost to his civil liberties. Same with whatever poor sap gets beat by the cops. Not even remotely. The US is already at the stage where citizens can be brutally murdered, have said murder filmed at multiple angles, and have the officers involved get away with it. Your civil liberties are irrelevant when we can just redefine an…

Of course that's not true.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#339

Post by deepsun »

copper-float wrote: post #95
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!

These high crime areas are predominantly in blue counties/states, and liberal judges are typically soft on crime.

Judges are not soft, it's just liberal cities don't hire enough prosecutors. So judges never receive properly investigated charges, and can do nothing but acquit. Prosecutors defend public (us) from criminals, but for some reason are neglected.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#340

Post by chaps »

deepsun wrote: post #332
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!

Too few prosecutors. Police only arrests, but the real job is done by prosecutors. However, there's a global shortage of them, and cities don't hire more. I don't know whether that's a popular job nowadays. So without proper charges judge cannot do anything but release. Police cannot do anything but arrest. Prosecutors are the main line of defense (defending public from criminals).

And public defenders are the main line of defense against prosecutors yet prosecution budgets are significantly higher.
Post reply on HN