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

91–98 of 98 posts

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

#91

Post by wookmaster »

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.

I think the point is these home systems are controlled centrally and can be used the same way flock can. I personally removed ring and installed my own system that doesnt export video out of concern with the governments lack of checks and balances anymore.

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

#92

Post by ethbr1 »

m4ck_ wrote: post #88
BatFastard wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question for me is "Will something you can do free now, be suspicious in the future?" Like voting, or taking your kids to a private school, or going to an EFF meeting? As long as you feel fine having the government know absolutely everything you do, then keep supporting surveillance. I personally have nothing to fear, but I hate the idea that I am being surveilled by a private company.

Flock had some prompts (/queries or something like that) leak and apparently something as innocuous as visiting multiple gas stations after hours within a short period of time could have it's system mark you as an armed robbery suspect. I think we all have to fear police responding violently because Flock's sycophantic AI system told them with 100% confidence that we're the bad guy.

The fundamental issue here is the same one that led inevitably to Google's corruption: profit motive.

Flock's customers are data consumers.

Flock has every financial incentive to knowingly over-represent the reliability of their predictive analytics and actively conceal any issues with it.

If legally empowered and often armed end users are taking those representations at face value... well, there's the fundamental problem with Flock's business model.

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

#95

Post by Refreeze5224 »

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.

Privacy absolutely should be a human right. But currently it isn't, and part of why is there is lots of money to be made with surveillance on ordinary people. And things will not change unless the people who exploit the privacy of other for monetary gain feel the effects of their privacy being violated.

Like the CEO of Flock.

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

#96

Post by stackbutterflow »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #84
jquery wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, is that even a strawman? You can oppose mass AI surveillance and acknowledge the price of that is more crime.

Exactly. Freedom isn't free. If I have to pay for it with locks on my doors and having to be discerning about which truck I buy $5 steaks out of the back of lest my house get burgled or I get ripped off that seems like a pretty fair deal.

Better five guilty people free than one innocent in prison.

I'd like a national poll on this principle. My guess is a vast majority would disagree with it.

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

#98

Post by bitcharmer »

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.

[dead]
Post reply on HN