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

Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

11971.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

#31

Post by kotaKat »

ratmice wrote: post #30
Tempest1981 wrote: post #18

> The list includes a school district near Syracuse, a casino's tribal police force in Connecticut, the Fort Worth, Texas police department 1,600 miles away, and Home Depot Corporation, a private company Can any private corporation request/buy access? Or is Home Depot special? Found this: https://corporate.homedepot.com/page/immigration-activity-ou...

> We do not grant access to our license plate readers to federal law enforcement. That sounds very weasel worded, if they get license plate readers from someone who does.

Bingo. Local cop goes in, buddy-buddys with the loss prevention manager, gets access to run plates for the immigration folks outside. "Professional courtesy" strikes again!

Re: Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

#33

Post by phendrenad2 »

protocolture wrote: post #23
phendrenad2 wrote: post #8

The flock discourse is slowly climbing the ladder to real discussion. We're at the "mostly intelligent people who are casually interested in the topic being confidently wrong about it" phase (and I know I'm going to get very angry replies accusing me of being one, hah caught you thinking about it!) > log every trip > This system tracks the whole of everyone's movements, every day Funny, because current lawsuits over…

>Do we ban the police when one goes rogue? I mean worth a shot right? Do we need armed government funded domestic violence perpetrators? Can anyone make the case for the current situation from first principles?

Thank you, I'm upvoting you, because people need to realize that there's no discussing this issue. We probably need to return to state's rights and ask everyone to move to their preferred state based on if they're crypto-anarchists or believe that some government is okay.

Re: Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

#34

Post by phendrenad2 »

zenapollo wrote: post #27
phendrenad2 wrote: post #8

The flock discourse is slowly climbing the ladder to real discussion. We're at the "mostly intelligent people who are casually interested in the topic being confidently wrong about it" phase (and I know I'm going to get very angry replies accusing me of being one, hah caught you thinking about it!) > log every trip > This system tracks the whole of everyone's movements, every day Funny, because current lawsuits over…

Bad faith argument, borderline flaggable. But I’ll bite. Do you not see any issue with mass surveillance of people’s movements? I’m an American living in Turkey at the moment. My airbnb host tells me that as a white collar software guy, he personally knows a large fraction of people who have been detained in prison for 1,2 or 3 months for having parties or fake traffic violations. Of course i don’t love the ever-tigh…

> Bad faith argument, borderline flaggable

Do what you have to do. shrug But when it doesn't have any effect, consider that maybe your bar for "bad faith argument" includes large swaths of completely legitimate differing opinions.

Re: Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

#35

Post by mannanj »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #26
mannanj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LLC’s ownership and Montana registration are not inherently tax evasion. The appropriate party can pay California or New York use tax arising from the vehicle’s in-state use. Whether Montana registration may legally remain or California requires a registration from you for a vehicle you do not own is a separate question. Generally, the LLC registers it. Since this vehicle has had its use tax already paid, the tax…

I don’t think a shell LLC is gonna help you avoid the requirement to register a car you own as a New York resident. The law in New York requires that for the vehicle to be considered non-resident it be garaged at the out-of-state place of business. Taxes are irrelevant.

You are mistaking ownership and falsifying who owns the vehicle. Do you understand how ownership is defined, legally? How can you simultaneously own a vehicle, and the LLC too?

If the LLC owns the vehicle, you do not.

Re: Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

#36

Post by mannanj »

nullc wrote: post #24
mannanj wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Insurance isn't asking for your vehicle registration though, and is not even getting your license plate. You are not being tracked by flock cameras and your license plate linked to your identity through your insurance registration. You are though, through your state registration at the DMV. Unless, of course, you have Montana registrations.

Insurance demands your vin and reports it to LexisNexis, and anyone with a Lexis Nexis account can turn a VIN into a Montana plate so long as they self-certify that their use complies with the DPPA (which includes enough reasons to drive two busses through, even if you want to assume bad actors don't lie).

So what's your argument or point here?

I am arguing that a Montana registration, with registration under an LLC and not you, with insurance even where the vehicle's vin is tied to your name, as a driver of the vehicle (not owner), is still more privacy protection and better for you in reference to Flock privacy-invading-cameras than an in-state registration where it's directly registered under you.

Seems your whole post may fall under my original "Straw Man" camp that I was referring to. edit: And the whole "bad actors lie" comment feels to me like a bad faith, Ad hominem style statement that attacks credibility rather than substance.

Re: Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

#37

Post by nullc »

mannanj wrote: post #36
nullc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance demands your vin and reports it to LexisNexis, and anyone with a Lexis Nexis account can turn a VIN into a Montana plate so long as they self-certify that their use complies with the DPPA (which includes enough reasons to drive two busses through, even if you want to assume bad actors don't lie).

So what's your argument or point here? I am arguing that a Montana registration, with registration under an LLC and not you, with insurance even where the vehicle's vin is tied to your name, as a driver of the vehicle (not owner), is still more privacy protection and better for you in reference to Flock privacy-invading-cameras than an in-state registration where it's directly registered under you. Seems your whole p…

Sorry to offend, my point is that the necessity of auto insurance will stick your name (as the insured party for that vin) in a place accessible to flock (or at least flock's users). And as such I don't think it provides the results your post suggested "Montana vehicle registrations give you privacy".

I really wish it did and I hoped you had some solution!

Re: Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

#38

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

mannanj wrote: post #35
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think a shell LLC is gonna help you avoid the requirement to register a car you own as a New York resident. The law in New York requires that for the vehicle to be considered non-resident it be garaged at the out-of-state place of business. Taxes are irrelevant.

You are mistaking ownership and falsifying who owns the vehicle. Do you understand how ownership is defined, legally? How can you simultaneously own a vehicle, and the LLC too ? If the LLC owns the vehicle, you do not.

Good luck with that. It’s bad advice. But people will have to read the law and take risks as seems appropriate to them.

Re: Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

#39

Post by mannanj »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #38
mannanj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mistaking ownership and falsifying who owns the vehicle. Do you understand how ownership is defined, legally? How can you simultaneously own a vehicle, and the LLC too ? If the LLC owns the vehicle, you do not.

Good luck with that. It’s bad advice. But people will have to read the law and take risks as seems appropriate to them.

So you called my advice bad. Then ignored my questions before retreating. You stated something as thought it were fact earlier (ownership) and then didn’t back it up.

How can you own something that is owned by another company?

Or said another way, do you have any sound basis to say you are on the hook to register property in New York (you linked to a New York statue) that you do not own. Or is it the LLC’s responsibility. Genuinely curious as every state is a bit different.

Re: Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

#40

Post by mannanj »

nullc wrote: post #37
mannanj wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's your argument or point here? I am arguing that a Montana registration, with registration under an LLC and not you, with insurance even where the vehicle's vin is tied to your name, as a driver of the vehicle (not owner), is still more privacy protection and better for you in reference to Flock privacy-invading-cameras than an in-state registration where it's directly registered under you. Seems your whole p…

Sorry to offend, my point is that the necessity of auto insurance will stick your name (as the insured party for that vin) in a place accessible to flock (or at least flock's users). And as such I don't think it provides the results your post suggested "Montana vehicle registrations give you privacy". I really wish it did and I hoped you had some solution!

Ah. I understand now. Thank you for clarifying.

And my bad too for assuming bad faith there and/or projecting onto you.

I don’t want to believe it’s true that you compromise privacy by registering a vehicle under your name, particularly in regards to flock. I admit you could be right, but I want to investigate this more. Do you think it’s possible there could be car insurance agencies that offer you privacy protection of some sort or that there’s another way to keep yourself private?

Some ideas I have: - get a cheaper vehicle and get it insurance coverage from the company or someone else - get yourself insurance for another car, and get the coverage for Liability ie to protect the other persons car if you hit someone else and don’t worry about your own car. For example; a $5k car pays for itself after 1-2 years of no significant claims and now you have what your insurance would have offered for your car anyway. (“The cost of privacy”.) - I am not convinced your insurance company would data sharing with flock or its subsidiaries if they only have your vin. What are your data sources for this?

Edit: as a legitimate need; perhaps the market will reveal itself large enough to surface an insurance company that offers privacy protection and refuses flock data sharing. However just because this could true that insurance companies would share with flock today, doesn’t mean it is.

Post reply on HN