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

201–210 of 326 posts

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

#201

Post by alex43578 »

awolf wrote: post #159
alex43578 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've yet to hear a convincing connection between driving down a public road and having privacy - in fact, the outside of a registered motor vehicle on a public road is about as non-private as you can expect. You already have a unique plate tied to the registered owner of the car, and a range of court cases have held you can be stopped, ordered out of the car, questioned (by both police and immigration enforcement), e…

It's not about your vehicle being seen in public at a single point in time, it's the fact that this system captures everyone's patterns of life. School, doctor, shooting range, church, play, protest. When, when, how often. All tracked and packaged up in a commercial database, without warrant or justification. If you happened upon me on a public street, I'd say "that I'm here on this street now is not private informat…

Is the same outrage present for your cell-carrier, credit card issuer, email provider, and the dozen other data-collecting orgs you assumably interact with throughout the day? They've built a more comprehensive pattern of life on you than a few points in the city you may have driven past. All that is subject to search and all of it is being sold now to random people.

The panic over Flock is silly unless you're already living in a hut in the woods, because it's not capturing 5% of what you describe. But, I guarantee your phone provider, Meta, and email provider do know all those things.

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

#202

Post by StevePrefontain »

toofy wrote: post #150
mannanj wrote: post #76

So to fight abuse and overreach by your leaders, you can: - give up your car/vehicle propery - let an LLC take ownership - reside in the privacy protections of LLC and corporation I don't think any successful case has happened yet where flock et al have pierced the corporate veil to get address information, nor dug into insurance records to find who the LLC-license plates belong to.

i don’t think that will help anything. surely flock and similar companies use facial recognition features? particularly at every stores parking lot that has these in it? and i’d be more shocked if the same stores weren’t already sharing their own inside cameras facial recognition directly with companies like flock already. and from what we’ve seen, these companies cameras are linked up with names from frequent shoppe…

These camera also monitor the ambient Bluetooth output of phones in cars that pass by to identify who exactly was in the car at the time. Don’t think the LLC will hide that unless your phone is also owned under an LLC

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

#203

Post by phoghed »

ssl-3 wrote: post #127
budman1 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I kill you over a $2K catalytic converter, my sanity is gone. I could never sleep at night without thinking about what I have done.' A life is worth a lot more than $2k for my sanity.

I was once beaten senseless by a group of 3 young men when I decided to take an early-morning walk to get some smokes from the store down the way, in a sleepy small city in Ohio. There was nothing that I was doing that was wrong in any way. I was quietly minding my own business when they came up from behind me with other ideas and one of them hit me in the side of my face, from behind, with an intensity that I'd neve…

[flagged]

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

#204

Post by DarmokTanagra »

alex43578 wrote: post #200
DarmokTanagra wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing that there isn't a court in the United States that exists solely to make those kinds of distinctions and revise previous interpretations of the law in order to apply them to an evolving legal landscape. Flock cameras using facial recognition to surveil citizens in public spaces without a warrant is a 4th amendment violation under any rational reading, and it is up to the American people whether they want t…

Good thing the courts are already upholding the constitutionality of Flock in US v Jackson and Schmidt v. City of Norfolk. If it reaches the SC, I think it'd be easy to see a limit similar to Carpenter on scope and duration of the searches of the database without a warrant, but recognize fundamentally that collecting the data itself is not violating anyone's rights. As just mentioned, being watched in a public space…

[flagged]

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

#205

Post by nilamo »

alex43578 wrote: post #123
DarmokTanagra wrote: post #60

For a country that staged a revolution over a tea tax modern Americans sure seem to love having their rights trampled.

What right does a Flock camera violate?

That's a great point. We should roll up some of the privacy laws we've made into actual rights secured by amendments, instead of just wishing we weren't living in a police state.

I'm still upset that we have a TCPA to protect consumers from spam calls, and then refuse to ever enforce it.

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

#206

Post by spolitry »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #106
logicchains wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I feel like it's a mistake for the legal code to distinguish between what are fully interchangeable terms in the language the code is supposedly written in. They're not at all fully interchangeable, just many Americans have a poor grasp of the English language.

The language is solely defined by what people think it means. The terms are in fact fully interchangeable. If you'd like it packaged in something that looks authoritative, you might consider the following definitions from Merriam-Webster: burgle: to commit robbery rob: to take away as loot : steal thieve: steal, rob

So? Are you proposing that huge classes of law simply must not exist just because laypeople are casual with language?

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

#207

Post by spolitry »

aidenn0 wrote: post #36
nonethewiser wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Legal” murder makes absolutely no sense. If its legal its not murder. You mean “legally kill”

It can also mean unjustified/immoral killing, which can be a useful definition (otherwise e.g. a true dictator can never murder anyone).

“Legal” always means with respect to a designated authority.

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

#208

Post by huimang »

ElProlactin wrote: post #94
huimang wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to homes. This situation likely could've been avoided by not engaging in recklessly stupid behavior like road rage and escalating the situation (with one's family present, to boot). Also, a news article of some random altercation doesn't change anything about what I said: It's simply impossible to be shot (or clubbed, or beaten up, or whatever) by someone in their home for invading, if you never invad…

In your original comment, you stated: > It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home. The clear, plain-English implication of what you're suggesting is: your risk of getting shot (in the US) is, to a large extent, directly correlated to your invasion of other people's homes. Except that there's no evidence to support this. According to FBI data from 2015-2019, the ratio of criminal gun homicid…

Is the context of this discussion unclear to you? Do I need to place conversational guard clauses for you? Or are you just interested in nitpicking? Do I really need to clarify that there are other ways of dying or getting harmed, including other ways of being shot, that have nothing to do with this? Do I have to preface every comment with an obvious disclaimer?

Obvious disclaimer: It is completely obvious that freak incidents occur, that there are other ways to die, that there is no way to guarantee the future or that harm will never come to someone, and that there are exceptions to just about every statement.

But one CAN choose to avoid deliberately putting themselves in situations where harm can befall them, such as comitting crimes like breaking into someone's home, or stealing someone's property. It should be completely obvious that one stands better chances in general by not doing things that make other people obscenely angry.

> Over 10,000 innocent people are killed by guns every year in the US, including more than 1,000 young people. This excludes suicides, which itself is a number that you'd probably be wise to pay attention to.

Out of a population of 349,000,000 people. Sad, but most people can live their lives and be completely unaffected. Stop being sensationalist.

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

#209

Post by spolitry »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #117
floralhangnail wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it helped much directly. The nationwide ring that was dismantled recently was busted partially due to surveillance from a pole mounted camera though. The article title initially baited my rage, but I can plausibly see how LPRC's could be used to track catalytic converter thieves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_catalytic_co...

Jeez, in not normally cynical but the Japanese buyer faced no charges and this has bad optics: > Janice Ayala joined Dowa Metals & Mining America as their Chief Compliance Officer on March 3, 2023. During Ayala's 27-year tenure at the Department of Homeland Security, her most recent role before joining Dowa was as Director of Joint Task Force – Investigations. This agency oversaw the investigation into both DG Auto P…

This angle never gets attention in the debate over to kill in theft cases.

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

#210

Post by lenkite »

ssl-3 wrote: post #122
Scrapemist wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why would someone risk his live and become a thief instead of a doctor?

Some combination of desperation and sociopathy. I might suppose that it's usually more the former than the latter, but there's degrees to each characteristic. They perceive that they need things, and they don't necessarily care who they harm to get the things that satisfy this need. (When we dress it up all nice and back it with corporate layers and an army of lawyers, sometimes we get CEOs.)

Or basic simple profit for sociopaths. Organized criminal rings have turned catalytic converter theft into a multi-million to billion dollar+ industry. Its basically steal from the POOR middle-class and make the sociopaths even more rich.

Nobody desperate will dare steal from the gangs since its not just death, but PAIN before death.

Post reply on HN