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

101–110 of 179 posts

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

#101

Post by eth0up »

So they knock out Flock. Then Axon comes in and replaces them with superior versions, built into streetlights and municipal infrastructure. The sentiment seems reasonable but any expectations that our overlords will ever abandon total control and surveillance is delusional. Something far more sophisticated than vandalism would be necessary, and I'm not sure anything exists. The value of public opinion is at an all time low and scheduled to continue dropping.

Edit: Our society begged for a technocratic rulership. We largely supported the process through our hardware and software purchases, but facilitated it too through decades of indolence and indifference until it got kinda too late. Aside from a few micro victories, mostly more symbolic than effective, I think the future is easily enough foreseen by imagining something a lot worse.

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

#102

Post by fool0 »

c22 wrote: post #57
Avicebron wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We had one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule isn't the same thing.

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

#103

Post by NopIdoN »

dymk wrote: post #51
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.

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

also check out the bombardier beetle for the rest

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

#104

Post by Verdex »

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…

At least for me, the technical chops to be able to program a computer was always just table stakes for software engineering.

The majority of my job more or less reduces to mitigating the consequences of having all the stakeholders dreams come true. Most normal people consider rules as run by people. They expect them to ignore rules that don't make sense, apply rule of thumb, get the gist, and do what it takes to achieve success.

When you take these sorts of rules and try to put them into silicon, the end result is often an undesirable result despite all the rules being successful implemented.

The law are these sorts of rules. They're designed to be "executed" by people using judgement. Part of the reason why the law works is specifically because we don't have a bunch of computers watching everyone all the time. Secure in your person and papers is literally right there in the constitution. Like they didn't know about computer surveillance when they added that amendment but they knew that without privacy the law doesn't work as intended.

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

#105

Post by fool0 »

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.

You are distinguishing between Freedom and Civilization, the latter is, of course, rule by the strongest gang.

   Freedom doesn't exist, except perhaps in your personal allodium, and war is necessary to obtain one. However, the average gang doesn't have the muscle.

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

#106

Post by fool0 »

altcognito wrote: post #22
ungreased0675 wrote: post #2

When people feel like their voice isn’t heard, this is the inevitable result.

NO! Even if your voice is heard, the state doesn't need to track your every move.

Ever hear of Total Information Awarness, or Eric Snowdon?

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

#107

Post by eth0up »

jjav wrote: post #67
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?

> Ubiquitous surveillance will end most crime It doesn't even do that, is the worst part. So the trade is to give up all privacy, but low-level crime continues unchanged. Anyone who has tried to get the police interested in a theft where you have clear HD video of the action and a clear view of their faces and/or license plate, has lived this experience.

Yeah, and notice all the critical surveillance footage that happens to conveniently disappear? I could start a list, but anyone who knows it won't need one.

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

#108

Post by anigbrowl »

trinsic2 wrote: post #64

This isn't a vigilante movement. These cameras are being installed without any constitutional basis. And people don't need legal authority to correct an unlawful camera installation problem that cities are not handling.

Perhaps you meant it's not a vandalism movement?

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

#109

Post by attila-lendvai »

the problem with pitching Flock as "the triumph of technology over criminality" is that because of all the bogus edicts, an average american commits three felonies every single day. and whoever picks who gets prosecuted for what, is the owner running the plantation.

Three Felonies a Day http://www.harveysilverglate.com/books/ In 2006, the Code of Laws of the United States of America: 200000 pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code) with 500 pages/week it's about 10 years just to read it, i.e. to have a chance not breaking it (but this wrongly assumes that it's not growing meanwhile). In 2012: Federal Code: 75000 pages, Tax Code: 72000 pages.

The Criminalization of Everyday Life http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=42372 http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175781/

John Stossel's Illegal Everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ John Stossel - Technically, That's Illegal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf-uPAItVtM

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for me to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed or enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.” — Ayn Rand (1905–1982), 'Atlas Shrugged' (1957)

Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal: War Stories from the Local Food Front by Joel Salatin https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Want-Do-Illegal-Stories/dp...

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

#110

Post by try_the_bass »

dualvariable wrote: post #76
Jaxkr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> As someone who’s had bikes stolen and car broken into, I sympathize with the desire for surveillance (especially in San Francisco). That isn't what it is being used for. That would still require cops to be investigating petty theft as if they cared about it.

> That isn't what it is being used for.

I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about? Flock cameras have definitely involved in detecting people who come into SF in stolen cars or with stolen plates, who proceed to go on sprees of breaking into cars and stealing things.

I really dislike Flock as a company, but their cameras absolutely do get used in the way they're publicly pitched.

Flock doing bad things does not justify coming into this thread and stating as fact things that are patently false.

Post reply on HN