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

351–360 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#351

Post by alright2565 »

tptacek wrote: post #292
alhirzel wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't know about sunshine request - the website[1] - until I searched for this term! [1]: https://www.sunshinerequest.com/

This is just FOIA. You don't need any special website or process; just Google [(your state) FOIA] or [(your municipality) FOIA officer]. In Illinois, you can simply email free-form requests for documents and start a 10-day clock on the public body's side.

The problem is following up. It's hard to understand the process, and what to do when the public body doesn't respond.

If nothing else, the Sunshine Request site is a good place to get form emails for these requests from.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#352

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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.

County commissioners are generally legislative officers. While the legislative body is smaller, this really no different than a member of Congress deciding that the they don’t like the way DOJ is enforcing federal law and deciding that gives them arbitrary power to take whatever action they feel is appropriate to manifest the intent of the law.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#353

Post by [deleted] »

chasd00 wrote: post #308
ryukoposting wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious how they could prevent taking them down if the local gov doesn't renew the contract? IANAL but based on the facts available to me, they can't. It's a sham held up by intimidating local officials. The cameras were installed on public property, that's that. If they somehow keep this nonsense running for very long, I'd anticipate a Meigs Field-esque incident at some point.

If the cameras and poles are private property then, contract or not, taking them is theft is it not? You'll get in trouble taking lime scooters and throwing them in the lake regardless of whatever contract exists or doesn't exist.

[deleted]

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#354

Post by dragonwriter »

smalltorch wrote: post #269
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Ultimately, as a member of a legislative body, if you don’t like the way the executive bodies charged with inplementing a law are doing so, your choices are:

(1) Work with other members of the legislative body to hold the executive accountable for failures, via hearings, sanctions (often, if at the same level, including removal), etc., or

(2) Work with the same body to file a lawsuit as a body to compel compliance, which has additional enforcement provisions (including contempt orders by the court for noncompliance) not available with the bare law and no court case,

(3) Taking any avenue open to the public at large (including individual lawsuits, public advocacy including including electoral advocacy against any elected executive officers involved, etc.).

What is not generally an option is unilaterally assuming the role legally assigned to the executive in inplementing the law, or simply assuming whatever other powers you imagine are best to realize the intent of the law even if they are outside of its letter.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#355

Post by johnsmith1840 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #136
copper-float wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in California my whole life, and I'm just basing it off my experiences over the years. California enacted a law in 2014 that turned all theft under $950 into a misdemeanor instead of a felony (reverted last year). Theft became so common that police wouldn't even respond to theft calls unless it was over $950, which enboldened theives. During covid especially, entire stores would be looted and robbed consta…

>California enacted a law in 2014 that turned all theft under $950 into a misdemeanor instead of a felony (reverted last year) So all states with $1000 Felony cutoffs or higher should have this issue, right? So why don't they? You know the National Retail Federation had to stop posting their annual shrink numbers after they demonstrated that shoplifting was not meaningfully higher than previous years.

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

Those other places are just lying they don't have clean streets and stores without bars over the windows they're secretly just like us we have the numbers to prove it!

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#356

Post by krupan »

lokar wrote: post #333
Spooky23 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How? Whatever the system is now is clearly not preserving privacy

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#357

Post by drnick1 »

someperson wrote: post #8

Are there any privacy-first security camera provider where it's the city that manages data access and uses it purely for local law enforcement purposes?

There is no need for mass surveillance of public spaces. The moment data is collected, it can be misused, so it is better that nothing be collected in the first place. This is what a truly robust privacy policy looks like, unlike absurd laws like the GDPR that don't address the root of the issue.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#358

Post by cucumber3732842 »

8note wrote: post #34
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Said by someone who's clearly never tangled with civil enforcement. Nearly your rights go out the window when it's non-criminal prosecution. The organizations also aren't nearly as robustly structured to limit damage by "bad apples" as real police departments are. I know this sounds insane in light of how bad the cops are. That's because it is. Civil enforcement is essentially 50yr behind policing when it comes to tr…

how many times does civil enforcement shoot people in a year though? do they have the power to assault you and then have it be your fault?

Of course the civil enforcers aren't shooting people. That's the cop's job. The civil enforcers are basically threatening to send the cops after you.

How many people get shot by cops because something civil escalated into a bench warrant?

Walter Scott's child support comes to mind.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#359

Post by polshaw »

wilg wrote: post #312
mcdonje wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is naïve. The US government is less democratic than advertised, and there are many factors for that. Not going to write a tome, but if you're going to point a finger at one group, it shouldn't be private citizens.

This is a common coping mechanism, but the US is quite democratic and almost any objection you have about corporate control or whatnot can be easily overridden by getting like 100,000 more people to agree with you.

>Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

especially note figure 1.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#360

Post by mistercheph »

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…

> If your muni votes to shut the cameras off, they will shut the cameras off.

That's simply not true: there are numerous instances of municipalities having to fight flock to get cameras removed or shut off, and instances where local governments pass ordinances that local law enforcement refuses to enforce because the cameras, which have been banned, are not off, as you allege is what happens, and law enforcement continues to use the data the cameras provide despite the contract being terminated.

Just google e.g. "flock trash bag" to see how cities are having to deal with Flock.

There are links elsewhere in this thread to a few of the many instances where this happens but I'll link to something that hasn't been mentioned yet, where flock cameras are turned back on and used by law enforcement in Springfield after contracts are cancelled, and cameras are left up that flock pinky swears are off that turn out to be on and accessible by law enforcement:

https://www.kezi.com/news/local/stolen-car-found-in-springfi...

And again, that is just talking about the instances where the municipality actually wants the flock cameras turned off or removed, there are many instances, like TFA, where the local government wants them on or doesn't care, and they remain on and used by other agencies, despite the termination of the contract with one of the client agencies.

Post reply on HN