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

The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 179 posts

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#41

Post by eldridgea »

lordnacho wrote: post #35

I think I may have a minority view about surveillance. At least I need someone to explain something to me. Is the backlash really about privacy, or is the real problem a complete lack of trust in government? Because if I thought someone would actually use the cameras to enforce the law, that's not actually such a bad outcome. You aren't supposed to speed, you aren't supposed to let your dog poop without cleaning up a…

This answer might be US specific but one significant reason for the pushback (at least from me) is the centralizing force.

Generally the things cameras like that are good for enforcing are handled by local law enforcement. Probably at the city/county level, at most the state. So prior to Flock and their ilk, camera surveillance was used by local people in the community to enforce laws enacted by the community.

Flock enables that but also provides a nation wide, searchable database available to local and federal law enforcement. Recently SCOTUS ruled that broad geo-based warrants (law enforcement would ask Google for all devices in an area for a time frame) are illegal and overbroad.

A nationwide Flock network with facial recognition ends up in the same place of being able not only to enforce laws, but track people in a warrantless way.

Conceptually at least, this feels very similar to government attacks on encryption where a government wants to see and have access to everything without cause just in case, which is definitely at least in sprint opposed to the right of free association. Flock does the same kind of thing but in the physical world.

I also think a general computer security rule of thumb probably applies here, where for the best security/safety, trust should be provable. If trusting a human is required to make a system work correctly, the system is flawed.

All of that to say I don't think the majority of pushback is against enforcing laws by camera specifically, but a Panopticon-ness of it and all the downstream effects that causes.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#42

Post by preg_match »

lordnacho wrote: post #35

I think I may have a minority view about surveillance. At least I need someone to explain something to me. Is the backlash really about privacy, or is the real problem a complete lack of trust in government? Because if I thought someone would actually use the cameras to enforce the law, that's not actually such a bad outcome. You aren't supposed to speed, you aren't supposed to let your dog poop without cleaning up a…

Even if our current government is perfect, there's a misunderstanding of the argument here. When you argue for building vast surveillance infrastructure, you're not implicitly arguing the government is perfect. You're arguing every government, until the end of time, including hypothetical unknowable governments of the future, will be perfect.

And that argument is just really hard to defend, so much so that most people feel confident just dismissing it entirely.

I liked president Obama, now we have Trump. It's barely been over a decade. If this stuff was installed under president Obama, I would have protested it then, too. Even though I didn't foresee Trump. And we still don't know if this is "the end". The US could slip into a completely totalitarian fascist state. It's happened to many countries before.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#43

Post by Akronymus »

kurtoid wrote: post #39
Akronymus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAICT, municipalities get paid to put up the cameras, which isn't federal, so flock can then use those cameras to freely gather data and sell it to police

> municipalities get paid to put up the cameras I've read lots of FOIAd flock contracts, and I have yet to see any municipality get paid by flock - they pay flock per-camera. Is that just a hunch, or are there cases of towns getting money from flock?

I appear to have misread some things. I'll have to re-research the stuff.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#44

Post by dyauspitr »

beloch wrote: post #27

Flock was pitched as the triumph of technology over criminality. It's surveillance network was supposed to end crime. However, when people witness extreme criminality thriving unpunished at the top levels of U.S. politics, the lie becomes evident. Flock isn't about ending crime. It's a tool of control to be used by criminals. Who watches the watchers? Everyone .

I put privacy over ending crime. That’s the unspoken stance everyone needs to decide on. Ubiquitous surveillance will end most crime but do we want that if the cost is our privacy?

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#45

Post by [deleted] »

preg_match wrote: post #42
lordnacho wrote: post #35

I think I may have a minority view about surveillance. At least I need someone to explain something to me. Is the backlash really about privacy, or is the real problem a complete lack of trust in government? Because if I thought someone would actually use the cameras to enforce the law, that's not actually such a bad outcome. You aren't supposed to speed, you aren't supposed to let your dog poop without cleaning up a…

Even if our current government is perfect, there's a misunderstanding of the argument here. When you argue for building vast surveillance infrastructure, you're not implicitly arguing the government is perfect. You're arguing every government, until the end of time, including hypothetical unknowable governments of the future, will be perfect. And that argument is just really hard to defend, so much so that most peopl…

[deleted]

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#46

Post by EA-3167 »

dyauspitr wrote: post #44
beloch wrote: post #27

Flock was pitched as the triumph of technology over criminality. It's surveillance network was supposed to end crime. However, when people witness extreme criminality thriving unpunished at the top levels of U.S. politics, the lie becomes evident. Flock isn't about ending crime. It's a tool of control to be used by criminals. Who watches the watchers? Everyone .

I put privacy over ending crime. That’s the unspoken stance everyone needs to decide on. Ubiquitous surveillance will end most crime but do we want that if the cost is our privacy?

That's a HUGE assumption about the ability of surveillance to succeed, and it goes against the evidence of the most surveillance-heavy states in the present and history. There are flaws in systems that go beyond collecting evidence, for example corruption can undermine any technical approach as we see in places like China where surveillance is omnipresent.

Hell if "total surveillance" was the secret to ending crime, prisons would paradise. The panopticon would have been a great success. In reality the only way to make it work is to assign people two-by-two to watch each other 24/7, and that only works if they're both honest, attentive, and incorruptible.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#47

Post by dyauspitr »

EA-3167 wrote: post #46
dyauspitr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I put privacy over ending crime. That’s the unspoken stance everyone needs to decide on. Ubiquitous surveillance will end most crime but do we want that if the cost is our privacy?

That's a HUGE assumption about the ability of surveillance to succeed, and it goes against the evidence of the most surveillance-heavy states in the present and history. There are flaws in systems that go beyond collecting evidence, for example corruption can undermine any technical approach as we see in places like China where surveillance is omnipresent. Hell if "total surveillance" was the secret to ending crime,…

Total surveillance would be watching people all the time, indoors too aka Fahrenheit. It would absolutely end 95% of crime.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#48

Post by dvdkon »

lordnacho wrote: post #35

I think I may have a minority view about surveillance. At least I need someone to explain something to me. Is the backlash really about privacy, or is the real problem a complete lack of trust in government? Because if I thought someone would actually use the cameras to enforce the law, that's not actually such a bad outcome. You aren't supposed to speed, you aren't supposed to let your dog poop without cleaning up a…

Our laws only work because of a hidden assumption that trivial or victimless crimes won't be prosecuted. This assumption isn't always upheld, but automatic surveilance would break it pretty much every time.

Even if our laws were actually written with perfect enforcement in mind, only outlawing what's actually antisocial, I don't think I could ever trust a government enough to give it that kind of power. Mass surveillance makes it easier to enforce any law, just or not, and most countries haven't been able to go even one lifetime without turning into a totalitarian hellhole or at least persecuting part of their population.

Another part of it may be that emigrating is so costly (not just in money) that most people won't ever be able to do it. When you're de facto forced to live in a country whose laws you (partly) disagree with, it's easier to add barriers to law enforcement than to get those laws changed.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#49

Post by theendisney »

esseph wrote: post #30
ElProlactin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Violence and destruction are perfectly natural ways of communicating. Some animals use sounds and almost all use body language. Except that animals don't have knives, guns, bombs and nuclear warheads. > Sometimes you have to make people listen. Get them back in the program :) Works great until you're the one being made to listen.

> Except that animals don't have knives, guns, bombs and nuclear warheads. Yeah, animals will spill your intestines out on the ground and start eating you asshole first while you scream. And they may even do it for fun and not even eat you, and just let your fleshy bits rot in the sun.

The rhinoceros are still wondering what part of stay away we dont understand.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#50

Post by onetokeoverthe »

Jaxkr wrote: post #31
beloch wrote: post #27

Flock was pitched as the triumph of technology over criminality. It's surveillance network was supposed to end crime. However, when people witness extreme criminality thriving unpunished at the top levels of U.S. politics, the lie becomes evident. Flock isn't about ending crime. It's a tool of control to be used by criminals. Who watches the watchers? Everyone .

This is a perspective I hadn’t heard or considered before. Often times common crime (petty/violent) is viewed as a totally different area as white-collar crime or corruption. But they’re related. As someone who’s had bikes stolen and car broken into, I sympathize with the desire for surveillance (especially in San Francisco). But Flock has no safeguards against cops using it to stalk ex-wives or misusing a partial ma…

[dead]
Post reply on HN