Live data from Hacker News

Flock Credibility Lost as It Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police, & Public

aclu.org

101–110 of 184 posts

Re: Flock Credibility Lost as It Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police, & Public

#102
post #59
post #45

People always want high trust societies. They are incredibly hard to create and incredibly easy to destroy. However, once the cameras go up, you will never ever create one there. High trust requires, well, actual trust. You can’t build real trust in a panopticon just a sickly police state facsimile of it. Society and progress moves at the speed of trust. Without it many uniquely human and beautiful things disappear.

> However, once the cameras go up, you will never ever create one there. This is directly refuted by Singapore, Japan, arguably the UK, and others. Singapore is very interesting to visit. Externally there's somewhat of a narrative of a harsh police state but when I visited I almost never saw a single police officer and they don't have particularly many police officers on a per capita basis (170/100k vs 440/100k in NY…

Does making millions in profit from bitcoin while being a president or getting private jets from other countries count into that?

Re: Flock Credibility Lost as It Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police, & Public

#103
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, once the cameras go up, you will never ever create one there. This is directly refuted by Singapore, Japan, arguably the UK, and others. Singapore is very interesting to visit. Externally there's somewhat of a narrative of a harsh police state but when I visited I almost never saw a single police officer and they don't have particularly many police officers on a per capita basis (170/100k vs 440/100k in NY…

Saying the UK is a "high trust society" is definitely an interesting choice

Most standards for “high trust society” are astonishingly low.

Respect for private property rights? A court system that’s broadly seen as following the law? Elections where the outcomes are not disputed? Officials not soliciting or accepting bribes from normal citizens? High trust society.

The UK certainly has its problems, but the tricks are often technically legal, and they’re nowhere near as bad as in third world countries.

Re: Flock Credibility Lost as It Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police, & Public

#104
post #59
post #45

People always want high trust societies. They are incredibly hard to create and incredibly easy to destroy. However, once the cameras go up, you will never ever create one there. High trust requires, well, actual trust. You can’t build real trust in a panopticon just a sickly police state facsimile of it. Society and progress moves at the speed of trust. Without it many uniquely human and beautiful things disappear.

> However, once the cameras go up, you will never ever create one there. This is directly refuted by Singapore, Japan, arguably the UK, and others. Singapore is very interesting to visit. Externally there's somewhat of a narrative of a harsh police state but when I visited I almost never saw a single police officer and they don't have particularly many police officers on a per capita basis (170/100k vs 440/100k in NY…

That sounds great! Maybe not so great for the occasional person sentenced to death for selling weed, but that's just the price of freedom.

Re: Flock Credibility Lost as It Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police, & Public

#105
post #85
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authoritarian are not high trust. And people who call for authoritarian societies are not calling for high trust. They call for control and subjugation.

Rules for thee, not for me. Whoever call for it usually thinks they are rich or influencial enough to never ever be affected. They really do believe in it right until they take a flight out of some office window.

One fascist guy who took part on the murder of a socialist MP when fascism had just gotten in power was jewish. Ended up being killed by nazis later on.

Yep people really delude themselves.

Re: Flock Credibility Lost as It Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police, & Public

#106
post #12

they (and others like them) also make zero effort to install poles complying with highway safety standards

Not just that but I would also be very skeptical that whatever free standing poles they're erecting are fully compliant with TIA/EIA 222H (or engineer stamp approved drawing for each unique installation location, which will vary with local climate of snow/ice and wind loading), which is the engineering standard for self supporting tubular steel monopoles that have antenna, camera, solar panel appurtenances attached t…

They began strapping them to existing light poles here. I took a photo of one and it was gone a few days later. I didn't report it, it just vanished, which I noticed the next time I went for a walk. I want to know why they decided to put one up on my street, it feels like an intrusion.

Re: Flock Credibility Lost as It Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police, & Public

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My counter argument is that you only need 1% of the population to be bad apples in order to destroy a high trust society. Hell, even a single serial killer on the loose will make a lot of people too afraid to walk alone at night. One or two burglars can be responsible for 50% of the burglaries in a town. And so in and so forth. The other problem you have is that a lot of crime tends to be financially rewarding, so if…

The thing is I think if you give people the choice between a 0.001% chance of getting murdered on the street or a 100% chance of being surveilled 24/7 you will find that people will take their chances with the murderers

You may do. And I may do.

But most people won't.

See how they react to terrorism, despite the fact they amount to almost nothing compared to any other cause of death.

People are NOT rational.

Re: Flock Credibility Lost as It Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police, & Public

#108
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, once the cameras go up, you will never ever create one there. This is directly refuted by Singapore, Japan, arguably the UK, and others. Singapore is very interesting to visit. Externally there's somewhat of a narrative of a harsh police state but when I visited I almost never saw a single police officer and they don't have particularly many police officers on a per capita basis (170/100k vs 440/100k in NY…

There's a glaring lie of omission when Singapore is cited as a "safe society" in a surveillance context without also mentioning that those same surveillance systems are used to aggressively suppress political dissent ( https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/sou... ). Super safe society, unless you happen to express disagreement with any part of it. Then, not so safe for you. So I guess the question…

There are two separate types of events with associated probabilities: 1) the probability of being harmed by criminals, and 2) the probability of being harmed by the government.

For most people in most places, police are ineffective and therefore the first is orders of magnitude more of a problem. For example in the Bay Area, car break-ins are incredibly common and police are incapable of solving it. This would be unthinkable in Singapore.

> unless you happen to express disagreement with any part of it

On the other hand, the government in Singapore is genuinely popular. A majority eligible of voters chose to re-elect the incumbent. For reference, only 32% of eligible American voters chose the current US president.

Re: Flock Credibility Lost as It Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police, & Public

#109
post #45

People always want high trust societies. They are incredibly hard to create and incredibly easy to destroy. However, once the cameras go up, you will never ever create one there. High trust requires, well, actual trust. You can’t build real trust in a panopticon just a sickly police state facsimile of it. Society and progress moves at the speed of trust. Without it many uniquely human and beautiful things disappear.

The idea that surveillance undermines high trust societies seems insane to me. Widespread petty crime, lack of shared cultural norms and traditions, lacking of missing social reinforcement of expectations of a society - those are what prevent high trust societies from forming. I consider those things a much worse problem then Flock cameras.

I don't think surveillance prevents crime. Not having so many poor people prevents crime.

Some people will always be antisocial due to tendencies and possibly mental illness, but having a society that is so rich and yet has so many poor people as the USA will of course create criminals. No amount of cameras will solve that.

Re: Flock Credibility Lost as It Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police, & Public

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying the UK is a "high trust society" is definitely an interesting choice

Most standards for “high trust society” are astonishingly low. Respect for private property rights? A court system that’s broadly seen as following the law? Elections where the outcomes are not disputed? Officials not soliciting or accepting bribes from normal citizens? High trust society. The UK certainly has its problems, but the tricks are often technically legal, and they’re nowhere near as bad as in third world…

A high trust society is not only a measure of the relationship between civil population and the state, but also the interpersonal relationships among citizens.

That said, bribery is quite common in UK nowadays: https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/millions-people-uk-are-being-d...

Post reply on HN