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

WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

winonapost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#41

Post by bdamm »

redwall_hp wrote: post #17
colechristensen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EFF is wrong. The clear solution is NOT COLLECTING THE DATA. There is no reason or justification for us to live in a surveillance state, "protecting" the data with a warrant doesn't cut it. Cutting down and destroying mass surveillance equipment is a patriotic action and should be applauded.

It should be a criminal act to attempt to build a mass surveillance apparatus, whether it's for law enforcement or private use.

Would Ring be considered a mass surveillance apparatus? Accuweather? Facebook? Google? The Internet?

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#42

Post by barbazoo »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #28

Obviously an unpopular opinion on this site, but I wish we had speed cameras, red-light cameras, and ALPRs everywhere. Cars are incredibly dangerous and large numbers of people drive them like absolute lunatics. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets. That position doesn't even account for the footage helping immensely with other investigations.

Personally I have nothing against municipally operated red light/speed camera system because those are triggered by a sensor rather than continuous so privacy is less of an issue.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#43

Post by barbazoo »

Groxx wrote: post #39
steviehicks78 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would totally agree with you if I trusted the government

Yeah - this is the important part. With a truly benevolent government I think this may in fact be the best option... But not only do you have to trust the government now (and you likely should not), you also need to trust the government far into the future (which you absolutely cannot do) because the tools will still exist. Don't accept tools that are also strong weapons for oppression.

OP made the mistake and included ALPRs in their list IMO. Because I'm having a hard time imagining how a sensor triggered red light camera could be used for oppression.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#44

Post by ethin »

pj_mukh wrote: post #12
lokar wrote: post #6

A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the public just barely trusts the local police, and a new surveillance system pushes them over the edge into hostility. They need to be working to gain much more trust.

But also, I dont understand all this hand-wringing. EFF has a clear easy solution [1]: Put all the data behind a Warrant. Problem solved. No trust required. Wanna look up where a murderer drove? Go get a warrant Wanna look up where a robbery suspect drove to? Go get a Warrant. Divorce case hinging on one party's whereabouts on a certain date? Warrant. Speeding tickets are automatically filed anyways. [1]: https://www…

The problem is that the fourth amendment at least for the US has been filled with so many exceptions it might as well not exist. And even if an officer does violate your fourth amendment rights, good luck getting them punished for it, because qualified immunity.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#45

Post by arjie »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #28

Obviously an unpopular opinion on this site, but I wish we had speed cameras, red-light cameras, and ALPRs everywhere. Cars are incredibly dangerous and large numbers of people drive them like absolute lunatics. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets. That position doesn't even account for the footage helping immensely with other investigations.

I agree. I was able to talk to my local SF supervisor the other day and congratulate him on his work with speed cameras and red-light cameras. He shares the same position as you: there is no constitutional right to drive one's car on public streets without enforcement of the rules.

We recently got permission to expand red-light cameras and I'm hoping that this kind of neutral machine-based enforcement of laws helps move us to a more law-abiding society. Civil liberties require civilization. Abdicating public space to the anti-social only allows for a de-facto rule by the uncivilized.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#46

Post by geitir »

pj_mukh wrote: post #18
colechristensen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EFF is wrong. The clear solution is NOT COLLECTING THE DATA. There is no reason or justification for us to live in a surveillance state, "protecting" the data with a warrant doesn't cut it. Cutting down and destroying mass surveillance equipment is a patriotic action and should be applauded.

I mean ALPR's have worked wonders in my town [1]. So I'll keep supporting them until we restructure all our cities to drastically reduce car speeds. Plus post 2020 police backlash, detective work has basically disappeared and clearing rates have cratered [2]. Police are now no longer able to (or are refusing to) solve crime "the old fashioned way", and the public has no real leverage to "make them do it". So I get it…

Have you driven 7th St. between Adeline St. and Linden St? I wonder if maybe the speed limit is too low. One good thing about not having automated systems like this is it allows natural breaking of rules that are poor rules to begin with, and there is effort in manually enforcing, eventually leading to change

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#47

Post by Groxx »

barbazoo wrote: post #43
Groxx wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - this is the important part. With a truly benevolent government I think this may in fact be the best option... But not only do you have to trust the government now (and you likely should not), you also need to trust the government far into the future (which you absolutely cannot do) because the tools will still exist. Don't accept tools that are also strong weapons for oppression.

OP made the mistake and included ALPRs in their list IMO. Because I'm having a hard time imagining how a sensor triggered red light camera could be used for oppression.

Have them take pictures of every car, now you've got half of what flock offers.

It's the widespread remote camera installs that are the main problem there. If they kept data locally and had to be collected by hand, it might be fine - that's difficult enough to grow to monitor everyone all the time. Aside from using film though, I'm not sure how that would be achieved.

(To be clear, I really do think we should be prosecuting speeding (and tailgating) MUCH more than we do. Far more death and damage occurs from it than we should allow. But ubiquitous networked cameras are not the way we should do that.)

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#48

Post by jkestner »

matherial wrote: post #10
lokar wrote: post #6

A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the public just barely trusts the local police, and a new surveillance system pushes them over the edge into hostility. They need to be working to gain much more trust.

Winona, MN has a population of 20k. I've never been there, but if it's like any of the small towns I lived in, most people trust the local police. If anything, the usual small-town complaint is that the police are not doing enough about , where are the homeless dudes in front of the library, or package theft, or whatever. In small towns, people distrust the federal government and big tech a lot more.

The wonderful thing about Flock is that you also get to be watched over by all the outside police you don't trust.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#49

Post by treis »

estearum wrote: post #20
matherial wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police have SWAT teams, guns, and jails, Flock does not. So I think the state security apparatus is a part of the problem, because if they don't like you and have access to surveillance technology, the outcomes can be far more severe than if Facebook doesn't like you, or the CEO of Flock doesn't like you.

People, broadly speaking, are totally fine with police having guns and jails. Flock in absence of police is not that bad except for the whole "now we have no police" problem. Having police in the absence of Flock is totally fine, we've done it since forever.

I don't know. Since the advent of cameras we've caught a lot of cops beating the hell out of citizens. It probably happened a lot more before cameras. And then you'd catch a charge for resisting instead of the payout today.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#50

Post by izacus »

pj_mukh wrote: post #18
colechristensen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EFF is wrong. The clear solution is NOT COLLECTING THE DATA. There is no reason or justification for us to live in a surveillance state, "protecting" the data with a warrant doesn't cut it. Cutting down and destroying mass surveillance equipment is a patriotic action and should be applauded.

I mean ALPR's have worked wonders in my town [1]. So I'll keep supporting them until we restructure all our cities to drastically reduce car speeds. Plus post 2020 police backlash, detective work has basically disappeared and clearing rates have cratered [2]. Police are now no longer able to (or are refusing to) solve crime "the old fashioned way", and the public has no real leverage to "make them do it". So I get it…

Did clearing rate crater because there was a change or because the police is throwing a toddler tantrum strike and refuses to work?

Since outright refusal to do their jobs is more common than any real difficulty.

Post reply on HN