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

231–240 of 324 posts

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

#231

Post by zimpenfish »

huimang wrote: post #212
eszed wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with much more in your comment than I don't, but > It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home. Is pat to the point of naiveté. People get shot turning into the wrong driveway[1], or knocking on the wrong door[2]. If anything, it's astonishingly easy to get shot in the US of A. But, you probably meant something like that when you said > you don't want ordinary people shooting randomly…

Okay: It's astonishingly easy to not get shot from committing crimes specifically home burglary or stealing expensive things from people. Other things may still befall you, because life is random like that, but if you don't do those specific things, I guarantee you won't get harmed as a result of doing those specific things. I make no other guarantees. Doesn't quite roll off the tongue, does it? > If anything, it's a…

> The country has a population of 349,000,000 people. There will be crazy incidents.

By that logic, any country with a similar (or larger) population should have similar (or larger) gun deaths per capita as the USA, right?

Take India - population 4.3x but 15x fewer gun deaths per capita. Or Japan - 0.35x the population and 1500x fewer gdpc.

(Admittedly Brazil scuppers my counter-argument slightly - population is 0.6x but gdpc are 1.3x. Poverty and availability of guns seems to be the key rather than "random chance".)

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

#232

Post by awolf »

alex43578 wrote: post #201
awolf wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alread…

Yes, same outrage: it’s most of what I’ve worked on for twenty years. But “you’re already surveilled” isn’t a defense of Flock, it’s an argument for less surveillance everywhere.

Volume isn’t the distinction that matters, who holds the data and what is possible as a result is. Meta can sell my movements to an advertiser. It can’t pull me over, detain me unjustly, or hand my neighbor over to ICE. With Flock, police aren’t a downstream buyer; they’re the direct customer.

And “you already gave it away” is no longer good law. Chatrie v. United States (2026): Chatrie had opted into Google Location History, and the Court still held that disclosure to a third party doesn’t forfeit your Fourth Amendment interest.

Worth noting where we started, though. Two comments ago there was no plausible connection between public roads and privacy. Now there’s one, it’s just smaller than Meta’s. I'm really glad you have had this anparently eye opening moment here on HN.

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

#233

Post by ElProlactin »

huimang wrote: post #225
ElProlactin wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obvious disclaimer: It is completely obvious that freak incidents occur... Are you really now characterizing incidents of gun violence and suicide as "freak incidents"? They just happen, like a random bolt of lightning in a clear sky that strikes a person out taking a walk? > Out of a population of 349,000,000 people. Sad, but most people can live their lives and be completely unaffected. Stop being sensationalist.…

> Are you really now characterizing incidents of gun violence and suicide as "freak incidents"? Yup, as they basically are. Bolts of lighting would fall under "random acts of god/nature". Talking about whether or not guns should legally be ownable by citizens is an entirely different discussion. > Every year, over 100,000 people are shot in the US. More Americans die every year due to guns than they do because of aut…

> Yup, as they basically are. Bolts of lighting would fall under "random acts of god/nature".

And a person using a gun to kill someone else is a "random act of god/nature" how exactly?

For someone who seems very confident of his knowledge of statistics, here's one for you: ~20-30 people die from lightning strikes in the US every year. Based on the averages, 4-6x that number died due to a gun yesterday alone.

I'm an American. Born and raised in one of the largest cities. I know at least half a dozen people who have been robbed at gunpoint, dated a woman who had been terrorized by a gun-nut ex, and one of my closest friends lost his father to suicide.

With all due respect, there's nothing more callous than believing that something doesn't impact vast numbers of people (proven by empirical evidence) simply because you apparently haven't experienced it yourself.

> Have a day.

You sure are pleasant.

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

#234

Post by Ylpertnodi »

worldsavior wrote: post #143
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.

Weird how people view "Americans" as different species. Never have I seen someone say "Europeans", "Germans"... "These Americans", "Modern Americans".

Just wait until you see someone of a different color!

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

#235

Post by 1970-01-01 »

The only mistake Flock has made in terms of general acceptance is leaving them closed-access. The right way to build this empire is to set all the cameras as public. When they're wide-open and everybody is free to watch (along with ads, of course) not enough will care about the privacy because they want to track their cheating boyfriend, Amazon delivery, and get live traffic and weather info.

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

#236

Post by crossroadsguy »

huimang wrote: post #49
hopelessluca wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment may sound cliché, but I genuinely believe this, no material possession is worth more than a human life. A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot.

> 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…

> don't invade someone's home

And what constitutes "invading" someone's home? You know what, don't answer that.

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

#237

Post by [deleted] »

huimang wrote: post #225
ElProlactin wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obvious disclaimer: It is completely obvious that freak incidents occur... Are you really now characterizing incidents of gun violence and suicide as "freak incidents"? They just happen, like a random bolt of lightning in a clear sky that strikes a person out taking a walk? > Out of a population of 349,000,000 people. Sad, but most people can live their lives and be completely unaffected. Stop being sensationalist.…

> Are you really now characterizing incidents of gun violence and suicide as "freak incidents"? Yup, as they basically are. Bolts of lighting would fall under "random acts of god/nature". Talking about whether or not guns should legally be ownable by citizens is an entirely different discussion. > Every year, over 100,000 people are shot in the US. More Americans die every year due to guns than they do because of aut…

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by diydsp »

alex43578 wrote: post #162
DarmokTanagra wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Glad you mentioned Carpenter. I've been spending a Lot of time getting to know it and related cases lately (Chatrie)

Roberts did use the word 'narrow' in the Carpenter opinion. That part is accurate. But read what narrow actually meant: the Court said it wasn't overturning all of third-party doctrine at once, and wasn't addressing every possible surveillance technology.

It was not saying 'this principle only applies to cell phones forever.' The actual holding was that a warrant is required whenever someone has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party.

That's not phone-specific. Roberts even wrote that the ruling must account for 'more sophisticated systems already in use.' He was explicitly anticipating future applications.

Chatrie v. United States, decided June 29th this year, just 2 months ago, is exactly that next application:

Chatrie v. United States, decided June 29, 2026, 6-3: SCOTUS held that when police use a "geofence warrant" demanding that Google hand over location data from all devices near a crime scene during a specific time window constitutes a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant backed by probable cause.

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

#239

Post by diydsp »

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…

Existing wrongs are not corrected by adding a wrong.

New wrongs aren't justified by existing wrongs.

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

#240

Post by BirAdam »

alex43578 wrote: post #133
defrost wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about "Give me an instant heat map of all of George's movements the past year across all 13 states. With a particular focus on parking up near any and all brothels"

Do you think George parking his horse/car in a public parking lot outside a brothel should confer an expectation of privacy? Can a bank or ATM miles away have a security camera, just on the off-chance that George stops to withdraw cash for said brothel? Can police not stake out the brothel to gather evidence of prostitution because all the patrons have an expectation of privacy? IE, is it ever acceptable to be notice…

The issue is more that an individual has a right to be secure his/her belongings, is free from warrantless search and seizure, and a right to refrain from self-incrimination. All of these are violated by constant surveillance. Further, no such right was granted to government in the Constitution and is thus prohibited by the 10th amendment.
Post reply on HN