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

51–60 of 179 posts

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

#51

Post by dymk »

ElProlactin wrote: post #23
theendisney wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violence and destruction are perfectly natural ways of communicating. Some animals use sounds and almost all use body language. One could even argue communicating over the phone or internet lacks the destructive component. Irl behavior is heavily modified by it. Verbal communication is a work in progress. We really want it to work. Sometimes you have to make people listen. Get them back in the program :)

> 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.

They certainly have knives, go look at what a tiger is sporting on his paws

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

#52

Post by anakaine »

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…

I'd like to point of the recent case where a women crossed state lines for reproductive healthcare and the local police used flock to track those movements and prosecute.

The cameras enable good and reasonable prosecutions as much as they do oppressive political ideologies.

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

#53

Post by BoxwoodSeed »

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…

You know how animals in captivity behave differently from animals living in the wild and why this is judged to be a bad thing for the animals? Humans under surveillance also act differently from free humans and it's a bad thing for the same reason.

It is in essence an attack on the human spirit.

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

#54

Post by ornornor »

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…

I think this is reason enough. The US (and others) are turning a little more despotic and totalitarian every day. Imagine what they can do with such tools?

Same reason why for example banning encryption “to save the children” is laudable but it would weaken the ability to exchange messages privately so much that it’s unacceptable. The powers that be would very much like messages not to be private, partly because it would neuter any ability people would have to organize and challenge the current powers.

It’s unfortunate that giving up these cameras or the ban of encryption would also empower other types of crime but to most the trade-offs are too big and so we’d rather have stronger privacy at the cost of (potentially) a little more unpunished crime.

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

#55

Post by EA-3167 »

dyauspitr wrote: post #47
EA-3167 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Again by this logic prisons should be free of crime, rather than hotbeds of it. Insisting that something is true because it makes sense to you doesn’t make it true.

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

#56

Post by Teever »

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]

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

#57

Post by c22 »

Avicebron wrote: post #40
felixgallo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to amplify your particular post.

Is there any historical precedent for a defacto public square? We can't relegate (unwillingly even) every bit of our lives to the private sector and suddenly say rights shouldn't exist.

If we want a digital public square we should fund one with public tax dollars.

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

#58

Post by brookst »

mannanj wrote: post #12
goodmythical wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this thought just the other day. It is not possible for any governing body to completely ignore the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action. There will always be a petition/revolt/exodus which results in the governing body hearing the governed.

> the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action What about if the speech is censored, shadow-banned, limited etc in some other ways? Where the governed does not know their speech was limited in reach, censored etc? (which btw is a real approach social media companies are taking today).

You’re getting at the distinction between the right to speak and the right to be heard.

There are tons of time-and-place limitations that make perfect sense. I can’t interrupt a city council meeting to give a speech about, well, anything not on the agenda.

And of course social media companies have no legal obligation to allow free speech at all, which is their own right to speech.

Core freedom of speech means the government cannot arrest you for what you say. Going beyond that to private companies being obligated to ensure your reach can be a moral argument but not a legal one.

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

#59

Post by [deleted] »

BoxwoodSeed wrote: post #53
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…

You know how animals in captivity behave differently from animals living in the wild and why this is judged to be a bad thing for the animals? Humans under surveillance also act differently from free humans and it's a bad thing for the same reason. It is in essence an attack on the human spirit.

[deleted]

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

#60

Post by ahartmetz »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #34
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 .

It's a nice idea. Everything is backwards right now. It should to be the other way around: random citizens should be essentially anonymous while all members of the government are surveilled 24/7. Surveillance should scale with power.

Yeah, this is really messed up. I think our instincts ("tribal leader is powerful and has extra rights") are doing us a disservice. In democracies, all politicians are our employees: They are supposed to do our bidding, and if they act on their own, only in our direct or indirect (no bullshit interpretations please) interest.
Post reply on HN