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

Flock CEO's Address Spread Online as Surveillance Backlash Explodes

gadgetreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: Flock CEO's Address Spread Online as Surveillance Backlash Explodes

#71

Post by [deleted] »

refactorAbraxas wrote: post #67
Manuel_D wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're calling me daft yet you couldn't be bothered to answer the question. What is going the be legalized, as the above commenter wrote? What law is Flock breaking presently? Like it or not recording and photographing people in public, then selling that information is not illegal. Paparazzi do it all the time. You can point a webcam out your window, run ALPR software on the video feed, and sell access to query that…

That will notion of an individual’s right to photograph a person in public held against the rights of the person being photographed, to conduct their business and affairs undisturbed, is likely to be challenged successfully before the Supreme Court when it can be shown a majority of people are under perpetual persistent technical surveillance.

[deleted]

Re: Flock CEO's Address Spread Online as Surveillance Backlash Explodes

#72

Post by 15155 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7
mullingitover wrote: post #6

I worry that Flock is going to take the fall, and some other bad actor with political connections (my money would be on Palantir) will just quietly pick up where they left off while everyone's patting themselves on the back for defeating Flock. The stuff Flock is doing is going to be standard AI-driven surveillance in the future, and unless the actual practices are made into political third rails and made into crimin…

Legislation guardrails around surveillance technology are a necessary component to defend against future corporate surveillance apparatus establishment and operation, as this surveillance could take many forms (video, audio, geolocation, RF signatures, etc). Flock and Axon today, whatever unsavory folks come along in the future. “Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of moti…

As an exercise, write the statute: how do you legally prevent Home Depot or Wal-Mart from videotaping their parking lots and adjacent streets as they've been doing for the past 3+ decades?

I'm genuinely curious how whatever you propose wouldn't be prior restraint.

Re: Flock CEO's Address Spread Online as Surveillance Backlash Explodes

#73

Post by 15155 »

frogperson wrote: post #54
consumer451 wrote: post #21

I have to say, I wish we lived in a society where tools like Flock were not problematic, due to abuse and other factors. However, if we lived in such a society, we wouldn't want tools like Flock to begin with. edit: to be clear, we are far too corrupt a society to have things like Flock. The point of my comment was this irony.

i have a RIGHT to privacy, and so does everyone on American soil. end of argument.

In public? I have an (actually-enumerated) First Amendment right to record you. End of argument.

Re: Flock CEO's Address Spread Online as Surveillance Backlash Explodes

#74

Post by zaptheimpaler »

amazingamazing wrote: post #44
m4ck_ wrote: post #32

Doxxing is bad of course but does "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" apply here? Or is that only for us working folk?

Do you believe anyone with a surveillance camera should have the owners name and address published if in any way a “public” area is recorded? I suppose we can start with all Blink, Ring and Nest Cams. Then we will continue with dash cam owners.

It sounds like you think Flock is just another home camera system, but it’s not and you could read up on that.

Re: Flock CEO's Address Spread Online as Surveillance Backlash Explodes

#75

Post by zaptheimpaler »

nazgulsenpai wrote: post #14

Our local governments are enabling Flock. Get involved in your local politics. Find out who made the decisions to put these cameras in the neighborhoods and hold them accountable. Until that happens they will just find another vendor if Flock folds. Just like Flock will find a new CEO if theirs is forced to resignation.

You should see how the datacenter companies operate. They have massive teams of lawyers bigger than the entire city staff threatening all sorts of lawsuits and even pressure cities into signing NDAs against discussing their negotiations with any other city. They have buckets of money and perks waiting to bribe a defector or fund an election campaign. Any old scummy company with a couple of billion dollars is frequently more sophisticated and powerful than a piddly local government.

Re: Flock CEO's Address Spread Online as Surveillance Backlash Explodes

#76

Post by zaptheimpaler »

legitster wrote: post #22
mullingitover wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recent WIRED[1] article goes in depth on this exact problem: > Another prompt instructs the system to list everyone arrested more than twice in two years for “any offense,” exempting only narcotics arrests, and then says to map where those people live, retrieve the calls for service at their homes, and “do a workup on the top three individuals.” The prompt begins with everyone in the area who has an arrest record and…

> This stuff is beyond the wildest fantasies of East Germany's Stasi I feel like that's a bit of a false equivalency. The soviet secret police had surprisingly little hard evidence on anyone - part of the terror of these regimes is that they could act decisively with little more than a rumor or gossip and be free from scrutiny for any mistakes.

Right the US government definitely isn’t detaining people, sending them to foreign gulags or sending mobs of masked morons shooting innocent people like Pretti in broad daylight. We don’t even know the names of the ICE officers who did that to this day so they seem pretty free of scrutiny as well.

Re: Flock CEO's Address Spread Online as Surveillance Backlash Explodes

#77

Post by amazingamazing »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #74
amazingamazing wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe anyone with a surveillance camera should have the owners name and address published if in any way a “public” area is recorded? I suppose we can start with all Blink, Ring and Nest Cams. Then we will continue with dash cam owners.

It sounds like you think Flock is just another home camera system, but it’s not and you could read up on that.

You should read up on police use of the cameras I mentioned

Re: Flock CEO's Address Spread Online as Surveillance Backlash Explodes

#78

Post by amazingamazing »

Refreeze5224 wrote: post #46
amazingamazing wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe anyone with a surveillance camera should have the owners name and address published if in any way a “public” area is recorded? I suppose we can start with all Blink, Ring and Nest Cams. Then we will continue with dash cam owners.

I don't. But I do think the CEO of a company who sells spying as a service to cops should have a taste of his own medicine.

So much for privacy should be a human right lol.

Re: Flock CEO's Address Spread Online as Surveillance Backlash Explodes

#79

Post by peterm4 »

amazingamazing wrote: post #78
Refreeze5224 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. But I do think the CEO of a company who sells spying as a service to cops should have a taste of his own medicine.

So much for privacy should be a human right lol.

Human rights are routinely revoked from those that impede on the rights of others. This is the premise that underpins prisons. Privacy being a human right still holds true.

Re: Flock CEO's Address Spread Online as Surveillance Backlash Explodes

#80

Post by card_zero »

peterm4 wrote: post #79
amazingamazing wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much for privacy should be a human right lol.

Human rights are routinely revoked from those that impede on the rights of others. This is the premise that underpins prisons. Privacy being a human right still holds true.

From which I conclude that prisons are wrong, but also if I don't like someone I can revoke his rights and push him downstairs.
Post reply on HN