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

71–80 of 90 posts

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

#71

Post by Tostino »

NegativeLatency wrote: post #19
Tostino wrote: post #3

I posted this in another thread, and had my comment instantly flagged. Love this site. Worth looking at how these cameras got approved in the first place. My county's ALPR interlocal passed on the consent agenda in December 2024, one block vote alongside forty other items, no discussion, and went through consent again in April 2025. Nothing was "hidden", it's just that "public" here means a 300 page agenda packet and…

Looks neat, any chance you'd be willing to share how much this costs to run?

You need a GPU for the ASR and diarization. I have an unraid box with an old GPU that I threw it on. So it's sitting in my closet and the ongoing cost is practically nil. There was a few dollars in LLM calls on initial ingestion using deepseek flash. Only fractions of a penny to ingest new data as it comes.

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

#72

Post by Tostino »

estearum wrote: post #8
Tostino wrote: post #3

I posted this in another thread, and had my comment instantly flagged. Love this site. Worth looking at how these cameras got approved in the first place. My county's ALPR interlocal passed on the consent agenda in December 2024, one block vote alongside forty other items, no discussion, and went through consent again in April 2025. Nothing was "hidden", it's just that "public" here means a 300 page agenda packet and…

You should start with the lede: "I built a tool to help you understand how/if your community has agreed to deploy Flock cameras. You can try it out here: [ ]. The hardest part of this was..."

Yeah, that would have been a smarter way to get my point across.

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

#73

Post by vaylian »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #65
vaylian wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In the USA? Any café you go to is reasonably likely to have cameras, both inside and outside. If you mean driving to a doctor's office, you probably pass by hundreds of cameras along the way: video doorbells, dash cams, Teslas, Waymos, gas stations, ATMs, traffic-flow cameras, etc. If you are in one of the many cities with tens of thousands of existing non-Flock cameras, you are likely passing many more.

To put it bluntly: That's dystopian.

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

#76

Post by dredmorbius »

Tostino wrote: post #3

I posted this in another thread, and had my comment instantly flagged. Love this site. Worth looking at how these cameras got approved in the first place. My county's ALPR interlocal passed on the consent agenda in December 2024, one block vote alongside forty other items, no discussion, and went through consent again in April 2025. Nothing was "hidden", it's just that "public" here means a 300 page agenda packet and…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7807998>

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

#77

Post by dredmorbius »

moritonal wrote: post #31
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.

You managed to say everything but the difficult bit. People don't generally have a problem with cameras, all our computers and phones have one. The problem is who can use them and when.

There are some of us who do have problems with cameras on computers/phones, and will take steps to disable or obscure them, if removal or purchase without such a feature isn't an option.

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

#78

Post by Tostino »

dredmorbius wrote: post #76
Tostino wrote: post #3

I posted this in another thread, and had my comment instantly flagged. Love this site. Worth looking at how these cameras got approved in the first place. My county's ALPR interlocal passed on the consent agenda in December 2024, one block vote alongside forty other items, no discussion, and went through consent again in April 2025. Nothing was "hidden", it's just that "public" here means a 300 page agenda packet and…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7807998 >

I'm not saying downvoted, i'm saying flagged. Like almost anything posted related to this surveillance state YC is invested in building.

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

#79

Post by veec_cas_tant »

totallygeeky wrote: post #68
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.

The cameras have categorically not helped with investigation, as is shown time (1) and time (2) and time (3) again. This is just a vibe that supporters like and Flock loves to spin data however it can to support their continued expansion. Also, people do absolutely still have an expectation of privacy when it comes to regular travel, what an insane thing to say. (1) https://futurism.com/future-society/flock-surveilla…

Do you think every store in the Western world is just dumb for installing cameras? Cities like NYC, London, Singapore, etc.? I can't believe the number of people who want to argue that video footage is useless.

If you drive through any commercial area, you're captured by dozens of cameras. There are over a dozen doorbell cameras on my residential block alone. Cameras are absolutely ubiquitous, for good reason. In the United States, at least, it would be foolish to assume that driving on a public street is anything resembling privacy.

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

#80

Post by dredmorbius »

Tostino wrote: post #78
dredmorbius wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7807998 >

I'm not saying downvoted, i'm saying flagged. Like almost anything posted related to this surveillance state YC is invested in building.

Irrelevant distinction per this guideline.
Post reply on HN