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

51–60 of 90 posts

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

#51

Post by cucumber3732842 »

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.

Exactly. People don't trust the government the police serve.

The whole "state/feds decree stuff that's bad for you but your city/town enforces it on you anyway because they'll lose grant bucks if they don't" regulatory paradigm has a lot to do with this because it's why so much of the government's interaction with everyone and everything is so net negative.

Edit: For example stuff like passing police harassing someone for smoking alone in a park because the grantbucks are dependent on it being smoke free happens because of all this.

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

#52

Post by pj_mukh »

geitir wrote: post #46
pj_mukh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

“I wonder if maybe the speed limit is too low”

Super curious how anyone could think this. It’s not a highway, and there's pedestrians crossing. The buildings aren’t dense and the setbacks are large so maybe it “feels” like you should go faster but doesn’t mean it’s safe to.

And Oakland especially has really bad driving culture so I’m glad for this automatic enforcement.

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

#53

Post by estearum »

treis wrote: post #49
estearum wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's play this out: Cops don't exist. On video, you catch a person beating the hell out of a citizen.

...

...

...

Welp, sucks to get the shit beaten out of you, better luck next time.

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

#54

Post by colechristensen »

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…

"I mean ALPR's have worked wonders in my town"

Among those wonders being nearly 200,000 tickets.

There are claims of safety improvements but strangely zero actual statistics about improved safety, measured speed is a proxy for safety but it has to be matched with actual casualty numbers and it is quite suspicious that these don't exist. Did the accident rate go down? Number of deaths or serious injuries?

>Police are now no longer able to (or are refusing to) solve crime "the old fashioned way"

This is pathetic, and I don't want to be controlled by robot overlords because local governments can't get their ducks in a row.

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

#55

Post by treis »

estearum wrote: post #53
treis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's play this out: Cops don't exist. On video, you catch a person beating the hell out of a citizen. ... ... ... Welp, sucks to get the shit beaten out of you, better luck next time.

I don't understand your point

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

#56

Post by eks391 »

bdamm wrote: post #41
redwall_hp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So long as it is configured to be a mass surveillance apparatus, then yes. It is possible to have lots of data without organizing it in a way to enable mass surveillance. Google, Facebook, and recently Ring, are excellent examples. I don't know what AccuWeather is to comment on it, but I would say your ISP (what I'm assuming is what you mean when you say "the internet" since "the internet" is not any single entity) is likely not a mass surveillance apparatus, since with the implementation of https, the spying they can do is superficial at best

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

#57

Post by estearum »

treis wrote: post #55
estearum wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's play this out: Cops don't exist. On video, you catch a person beating the hell out of a citizen. ... ... ... Welp, sucks to get the shit beaten out of you, better luck next time.

I don't understand your point

You responded "I don't know, sometimes cameras catch cops beating people up" to the statement: "It is better to have cops than cameras."

If you have no cops, the cameras don't mean anything. It is now de facto legal for big people to beat up smaller people. Your cameras mean nothing. You can now film yourself getting beaten up every single day forever, and congrats, there's nothing to be done about it because there's no apparatus of the state to physically protect you.

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

#58

Post by fusslo »

vaylian wrote: post #32
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.

> There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets. Strong disagree. Life in public areas is often still part of private life. And we should treat it with the respect and privacy that it deserves. You going to the doctor? That's part of your private life. You meeting with an old friend to catch up? Also private, even though you do it in a public cafe.

I also disagree with OP.

It seems like (to my very uneducated mind) the founders were worried about the tyranny of government. We have the bill of rights and a constitution designed to limit government powers.

But then there are people who weaponize rights against the people in favor of the government.

A private company creating a mass-surveillance network of tracking everyone in public is absolutely a weaponization of rights. Rights designed to keep our government accountable. Our rights that give us tools to prevent government from weaponizing privacy against us (secret juries, secret trials, secret government employees, records etc citing 'privacy' as a reason for secrecy).

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

#59

Post by treis »

estearum wrote: post #57
treis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point

You responded "I don't know, sometimes cameras catch cops beating people up" to the statement: "It is better to have cops than cameras." If you have no cops, the cameras don't mean anything. It is now de facto legal for big people to beat up smaller people. Your cameras mean nothing. You can now film yourself getting beaten up every single day forever, and congrats, there's nothing to be done about it because there's…

I'm responding to the idea that police in the absence of flock is totally fine.
Post reply on HN