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

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

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 184 posts

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

#141

Post by pandaman »

pclowes wrote: 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.

I am fine without a "high trust" society (which, apparently, cannot exist with people seeing each other in public), the society where people don't commit crime without any fear of the repercussions would be a great start.

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

#142

Post by tancop »

lostlogin wrote: post #128
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the argument here is that people are too stupid to realize that they are being manipulated into being controlled, therefore it’s ok? Sit someone down, a normal average person, and explain to them the actual implications and then do you think they will agree? Reality shows that when people actually understand what surveillance means they reject it wholeheartedly

> Reality shows that when people actually understand what surveillance means they reject it wholeheartedly They certainly say they do. Then back they go to Amazon, Facebook, Instagram et al.

[dead]

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

#143

Post by KaiserPro »

mlrtime wrote: post #137
KaiserPro wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UK is not a high trust society. sorry but data and experience does not bear that out. Denending on which source you look at, the Uk is a "high trust" society. Now, your assertion about surveillance, sounds true but kinda rings a bit false. The places where there are less CCTV cameras tend to be rural areas, and let me tell you, they do not trust anyone they don't know (I used to live in rural england) why? because…

So if I leave my bike unlocked in London city, it will not get stolen?

yes, more that likely it will

If you leave your bike unlocked in Amsterdam will it get stolen?

yes, and its a higher trust country than the uk

remember that trust and crime are not 100% correlated.

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

#144

Post by adrian_b »

daymanstep wrote: post #67
pclowes wrote: 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.

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…

I see no problem with every private citizen having a video camera that records everything around their home or business, and when a crime happens the police can solicit the recordings.

Also it is fine if such a private surveillance system alerts the police when a crime is in progress.

What I find completely unacceptable is to have such ubiquitous surveillance means that are networked and available to the police or other such institutions for real-time surveillance of whatever they choose. It is absolutely certain that whoever will have access to the centralized control will abuse of this power.

I have grown up in a country occupied by foreign invaders, who have installed in power a government of their choice, who have robbed and murdered whomever they wanted, and then for almost a half of century nobody could do anything against them, because everybody was under surveillance, so that no opposition could be organized.

Americans do not really understand how frustrating it is to live in this way and they fail to recognize how quickly their country becomes more and more similar to the former "communist" countries.

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

#145

Post by adrian_b »

vkou wrote: post #124
paol wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How meaningful is that in a society where political dissidence is suppressed?

It's somewhat meaningful. No society can go on for very long when a supermajority of it actively hates the government.

Even in the recent past, all the countries dominated by the Soviet Union have gone for a half of century without problems, while a supermajority of their citizens actively hated their government, and by "hate" I mean like really wishing all of them dead.

This was made possible with traditional surveillance.

With the modern surveillance means and with drones and robots, there will no longer exist any way in which even a great supermajority could remove a government.

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

#146

Post by red-iron-pine »

Gud wrote: post #140
fodkodrasz wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reality shows otherwise. Take a look at Google and free-for-ads-and-surveillance everything. People are willing to make compromises on privacy for less important things than the change of them or their loved ones getting murdered, as mentioned as an example. But back to Flock: public cameras are not 24/7 surveillance, as those don't surveil people at home. ps: I'm not for a panopticon, enforcement needs to come with…

People aren’t “making compromises” they are totally oblivious to the evil shit Google, Meta, etc is doing.

aye, the average joe has no idea wtf data mining is, or how its risky for them

my educated, medical professional in-laws have some vague idea about it but love their instagram and lose chasing the related trends. they have no real, direct understanding as to how this could impact their privacy, or how marketing works, or how propaganda is similar to marketing, etc.

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

#147

Post by pclowes »

pandaman wrote: post #141
pclowes wrote: 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.

I am fine without a "high trust" society (which, apparently, cannot exist with people seeing each other in public), the society where people don't commit crime without any fear of the repercussions would be a great start.

There are high trust communities all over America. Fewer every year.

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

#148

Post by Steltek »

LtWorf wrote: post #109
DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not having so many rich people will go a lot farther in reducing crime, at this point.

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

#149

Post by pclowes »

CurtMonash wrote: post #70
pclowes wrote: 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.

Why do you think David Brin's Transparent Society proposals can't work?

Because it is naive to think that the people with the power of absolute surveillance would ever permit “sousveillance”. People already survey atrocities committed by regimes and reporting them does less and less every year.

Camera towers may benefit the populace in the short term, but eventually they will be used as a choke collar.

Think of every story, historical or fiction, where a rebellion or resistance struggled against entrenched power. Now imagine that with constant surveillance everywhere. The story gets really short: “then they were all rounded up”.

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

#150

Post by pclowes »

47282847 wrote: post #126
pclowes wrote: 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.

This discussion reminds me of a valuable and yet rarely discussed book by Bruce Schneier, Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liars_and_Outliers

This looks very interesting, thank you for the recommendation.
Post reply on HN