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

Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

texastribune.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 328 posts

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#161

Post by BoingBoomTschak »

qlte wrote: post #63
huimang wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot. So don't go around stealing catalytic converters. Same deal with states with "stand your ground laws". It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home. And on the "replacing" part- on whose dime? What if someone's only means of transportation is affected, and they lose wages or outright lose their job? Are you going to pay for it? Of course…

> Same deal with states with "stand your ground laws". It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home. Florida road rage incident leaves 2 girls shot after fathers' stand-your-ground gunfight https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/florida-road-rage-incident-...

Come on, these maniacs would have used knives or clubs in any case. Or you one of these "the blade itself" guys?

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#162

Post by alex43578 »

DarmokTanagra wrote: post #148
alex43578 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What right does a Flock camera violate?

Carpenter v. United States and the supporting opinion written by John Roberts in 2018 reaffirms that ongoing electronic surveillance requires a search warrant and constitutes a violation of the 4th amendment. I don't live in the US, but it seems that constant monitoring via government sanctioned facial recognition technology falls under that umbrella.

Carpenter only covers cell data and was specifically meant to apply narrowly to that type of info.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#163

Post by crote »

butvacuum wrote: post #119
bulbar wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deadly force can be lawful in Germany as well, reading Texas law I wonder which nuances of the laws make the biggest difference (assuming there's one). Could also be that the difference comes from owning land works differently in Germany (because it's much more densely populated) and of course owning anything except small guns is completely forbidden.

people freqently conflate Stand Your Ground vs Duty to Retreat... with the entire rest of the debate. I'm trying to keep this neutral, so I'm using a rather cut and dry example: Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. investigation finds a sabatoged eng…

Your example isn't quite as cut-and-dry because in a lot of cases that's going to involve the Castle Doctrine as well, and "starts shooting" means there is an actual danger merely than a perceived potential danger.

Counter-example: You're walking on the streets, at night, in the "bad part" of town. Someone walks towards you with their hands in their pockets, and their head covered with a hoodie. They say "Hey, what are you doing here?". You perceive this to be a threatening situation and fear for your life. Are you supposed to: a) pull out your gun and shoot them, or b) run away?

Some proponents of Stand Your Ground would say that option A is perfectly fine, some proponents of Duty To Retreat would say that you must attempt option B first, and fall back to option A only as a last resort.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#164

Post by crote »

dmurray wrote: post #152
butvacuum wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off- Texas has an explicit law making copper and catalytic converter theft a "Jail felony"- but if you break any other laws on the way, it's upgraded to a class 3 felony. See: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE... And. if you really want to play cops and robbers, a personally witnessed jail felony seems to be enough for a citzen's arrest. Second: "(B) the use of force other than deadly…

Afraid for your life if you were to confront the thief . That reasonably covers pretty much all cases, especially in a state where lots of people have guns.

In other words: don't be an idiot and call the cops instead. That's what they are supposed to be for!

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#165

Post by bigbinary »

SwellJoe wrote: post #149

Given how unpopular these cameras are, and how sloppy their security has been, I have come to assume there's boatloads of bribery happening. I can't come up with any other explanation for how willing police chiefs and city councilors and mayors are to get yelled at at city council meetings and how wantonly they're giving away the privacy of their constituents. I'm guessing that as scrutiny increases, we'll begin to h…

It’s been proven (at least in the Minnesota flock conference) that flock pays politicians and police as private contractors and commissions them on any potential contracts they bring to flock

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#166

Post by crote »

Scrapemist wrote: post #97
earth-tattoo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much more safe for a law abiding citizen to assume that all thieves are armed, because they most likely are.

Burglars in particular tend to target empty houses precisely to avoid confrontation. To bring a weapon only make sense if there is a chance of getting shot at.

Isn't "crime, done with the involvement of a firearm" also often more harshly punished than the plain crime itself? If a burglar is targeting empty houses, this would give them a strong incentive to not bring a firearm, just in case they get caught.

As the saying goes, only break one law at a time!

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#167

Post by tough »

SwellJoe wrote: post #151
bob1029 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that world largely exists. There are some counties in Texas where crime is essentially negligible. I live a few minutes away from one of the facilities where capital punishment is administered. The local community is extremely pleasant. I don't bother locking my doors at home or at the grocery store. The only place any real crime occurs is within a few hundred yards of the interstate. Target and Home Depot ge…

Texas has among the highest crime rates in the country, 17th for violent crime, even worse for property crime. Given the wealth of Texas, having such high crime rates is even more embarrassing (crime and poverty go hand in hand, but Texas doesn't have that excuse). In short, you're talking out of your ass.

wealth and inequality (and so poverty) also go hand in hand.

For a few to be very wealthy, the many may remain impoverished.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#168

Post by derriz »

butvacuum wrote: post #119
bulbar wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deadly force can be lawful in Germany as well, reading Texas law I wonder which nuances of the laws make the biggest difference (assuming there's one). Could also be that the difference comes from owning land works differently in Germany (because it's much more densely populated) and of course owning anything except small guns is completely forbidden.

people freqently conflate Stand Your Ground vs Duty to Retreat... with the entire rest of the debate. I'm trying to keep this neutral, so I'm using a rather cut and dry example: Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. investigation finds a sabatoged eng…

> Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge.

Which jurisdictions? Is this in the US? I’ve lived in a bunch of European countries and in none would you be charged with murder in that situation.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#169

Post by bluecalm »

moralestapia wrote: post #134
alex43578 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What right does a Flock camera violate?

Right to privacy, is this not mega-obvious?

To have a high trust society you need to know who you are dealing with. That's why we don't cover our faces when interacting with others or walking around. Same with driving. If anything there is too much privacy - we should know who drives irresponsibly, is a danger etc.

Privacy is about being in your home away from others, correspondence etc. Once you are interacting with others it's not a feature.

Re: Lawmakers added $1 to car insurance policies. That money paid for Flock cameras

#170

Post by AngryData »

alex43578 wrote: post #142
defrost wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the individual threads, it's the tapestry made whole.

That's a pretty nebulous answer. Just to help solidify my understanding of your position, can the government ever operate a camera recording a public roadway?

Not if its purpose is to surveil or monitor innocent people, that is the whole reason flock exists, to get around that restriction as a private entity. The government only has public cameras now because it is for other purposes like monitoring traffic congestion or things like floods.
Post reply on HN