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

Deflock Casa Grande

deflockcg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: Deflock Casa Grande

#91

Post by polotics »

rsoto2 wrote: post #56
collabs wrote: post #22

I know this is preaching to the choir but from the article on the person holding the skimmer > Police can also use the cameras to surveil protestors and stalk ex-lovers—or strangers they find attractive. I didn't believe police actually did this until a roommate's new classmate told me her story. She has recently moved in to the neighborhood (an HOA at that). She was walking her dog one evening when a police officer…

The Flock CEO Garret Langley called people that didn't want his unsecure surveillance state in their own communities "terrorists". A term that has a very loose meaning but is always used to invoke state violence. So he wants to create a strong police state and violence against regular people for money aka he's a fascist. (but HN will flag me for "name-calling" a person promoting and creating violent state oppression)

Doing his job as a CEO he's making noises, desperately trying to move the overton window now that enough concerned citizens have been made aware of how much malfeasance his product enables, and how little safety it brings. I think at this point a few more inane statements from the guy are to be expected, desperately trying to shift the hate onto his well-protected person and away from his fragile electronic boxes & the malware they run.

Re: Deflock Casa Grande

#92

Post by cucumber3732842 »

collabs wrote: post #22

I know this is preaching to the choir but from the article on the person holding the skimmer > Police can also use the cameras to surveil protestors and stalk ex-lovers—or strangers they find attractive. I didn't believe police actually did this until a roommate's new classmate told me her story. She has recently moved in to the neighborhood (an HOA at that). She was walking her dog one evening when a police officer…

It's way worse than that. It runs full stack top to bottom. Your local municipal clerk is using that shit to look up the Applebees manager that told them to shove it.

Re: Deflock Casa Grande

#93

Post by cucumber3732842 »

tokioyoyo wrote: post #24

I do find it very funny how over the past couple of decades US has been talking about how awful Chinese government is wrt surveillance, but now doing exactly the same but through private industry contracts instead. I hold a semi-middle ground view to CCTVs/plate readers, and understand how it can deliver improved QoL to most citizens. But a bit weird how a core American "surveillance = big no no" belief was thrown ou…

[dead]

Re: Deflock Casa Grande

#94

Post by Cider9986 »

whalesalad wrote: post #12

Coincidentally I was just watching this video and felt it was a pretty decent way to communicate this to old boomer city councils. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6oKX1w7k5w

Great video thanks. That guy is well spoken. Always find occasional really great speakers at these meetings.

Alan McLintock comes to mind:

https://youtu.be/KgEe22H3phg?t=2012

Re: Deflock Casa Grande

#95

Post by cucumber3732842 »

jameslk wrote: post #69
tokioyoyo wrote: post #24

I do find it very funny how over the past couple of decades US has been talking about how awful Chinese government is wrt surveillance, but now doing exactly the same but through private industry contracts instead. I hold a semi-middle ground view to CCTVs/plate readers, and understand how it can deliver improved QoL to most citizens. But a bit weird how a core American "surveillance = big no no" belief was thrown ou…

> But a bit weird how a core American "surveillance = big no no" belief was thrown out in a few years. I can't speak for China since I'm not as familiar with that culture, but as for the US, the culture has not changed, as you can see by protest campaigns like this and many similar types of protests (e.g. public destruction of Flock cameras). The culture in the US was founded on minimal government interference based…

The useful idiots were happy to bury their heads in the sad and ignore the broader trajectory so long as the state threw them a bone from time to time. A few speed cameras here or there, environmental violation lead generation via location data there, maybe even a shotspotter deployment or two. It didn't take much to not just keep HN quiet, but to get their active support, as every brick in the road to hell was laid down.

Re: Deflock Casa Grande

#96

Post by IncreasePosts »

happytoexplain wrote: post #80
IncreasePosts wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I have thought it through. Is this how you view the world? "Smart people agree with me and thoughtless people disagree with me"

There is no implication of that in the parent post. This is uncharitable to the point of trolling. Edit: Actually, it's such an extreme misconstrual that I'm wondering if you thought you were replying to a different post?

OP knows only a very basic opinion of mine, and they tell me I'm wrong because I haven't thought about it, what else should I think? Do you think they know how much I thought about this?

Isn't the implication "if only you thought more and better about this topic, your opinion would match mine"?

Re: Deflock Casa Grande

#97

Post by tokioyoyo »

jameslk wrote: post #69
tokioyoyo wrote: post #24

I do find it very funny how over the past couple of decades US has been talking about how awful Chinese government is wrt surveillance, but now doing exactly the same but through private industry contracts instead. I hold a semi-middle ground view to CCTVs/plate readers, and understand how it can deliver improved QoL to most citizens. But a bit weird how a core American "surveillance = big no no" belief was thrown ou…

> But a bit weird how a core American "surveillance = big no no" belief was thrown out in a few years. I can't speak for China since I'm not as familiar with that culture, but as for the US, the culture has not changed, as you can see by protest campaigns like this and many similar types of protests (e.g. public destruction of Flock cameras). The culture in the US was founded on minimal government interference based…

Thanks for explanation. To be honest, that's what I've heard from my American friends as well, and I genuinely respect this position (as I agree somewhat agree with it). But at the end of the day, the results speak for themselves. Since it's a democracy, if it was an issue people cared about, they would have voted in someone in local/state/national level who would oppose surveillance, no?

I understand that it sounds a bit condescending to paint the whole nation in such manner, but this is what it looks like to me an observer with no skin in the game. And I understand that when you're in political minority, you can't really do much to change it.

I can't respond to a couple of dead comments under my post, like the one says "Difference is china uses to police speech. Police in US use it to catch scumbags". And this is exactly what I meant in my post. There's an interesting perception of "when X does it, it's definitely for bad stuff, but when WE do it, obviously it's for good". Again, sorry, I think I woke up in a shitty mood, and picking up fights.

Re: Deflock Casa Grande

#98

Post by IncreasePosts »

happytoexplain wrote: post #70
IncreasePosts wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we need laws and oversight to stop these actions. Do you realize that people use phones to stalk innocent people? And yet you probably have a phone. Why is that?

This is like the "why drive if it's so dangerous" fallacy. We trade cost for value, downsides for upsides, risk for reward. Cars and phones are highly valuable to normal people. Virtually all people do not experience immediate, constant, concrete benefits from public camera surveillance. And this is not even to mention that Flock cameras are more abused than phones (although scale makes that subjective, it's kind of…

This was my exact point. I don't actually believe in banning phones and was just using it to point out how poor the argument is. I'm curious why you're jumping on me, but not OP. Is it because you agree with their opinions but not mine?

Saying "surveillance is bad because it has been abused in these instances" is not a particularly compelling argument because it doesn't talk about the "cost for value, downsides for upsides, risk for reward" aspects of flock.

Re: Deflock Casa Grande

#99

Post by Cider9986 »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #28
ARandomerDude wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because you haven't thought it through. "We only want info on the bad people" might not alarm you personally until any government entity changes the definition of bad and now you're a "bad guy".

There are all sorts of powers we afford law enforcement that could be abused; I hardly think cameras would be at the top of the list of concerns, honestly. NYC has had thousands upon thousands of cameras for quite a while without much fanfare, along with other major top cities worldwide.

They are abused.

They can be abused in the future even more.

Mass surveillance is abuse within itself.

There has been controversy in NYC.

No controversy doesn't make things right.

Re: Deflock Casa Grande

#100

Post by fragmede »

Cider9986 wrote: post #87
alwa wrote: post #54

I’m familiar with cities that conduct time-bounded surges of policing in reaction to specific outbreaks of criminality. When inter-faction violence in a neighborhood escalates to the level of a murder, for example, they surge for a couple weeks. Massively increased visible patrol presence—cops on every corner—portable light towers attached to generators, to provide near-daylight-level illumination on the sidewalks an…

It's okay to enable mass surveillance to fight crime that's already decreasing? The optimal amount of crime is not zero.

Not all crimes are equal. I'd like very much for my stuff to not be stolen. I'd like it even better if I didn't get murdered. Optimally, no murders would happen.
Post reply on HN