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

241–250 of 324 posts

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

#241

Post by alex43578 »

awolf wrote: post #232
alex43578 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

I never said that there was a plausible connection between public roads and privacy - I still maintain it’s the most clear cut example of a public place without an expectation of privacy imaginable. Unfortunately your eyes weren’t open enough to see that from previous comments.

Nice to see we got to what this really was though: not a genuine privacy concern, but an “Orange Man Bad” concern because ICE could use Flock to deport illegal immigrants.

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

#242

Post by alex43578 »

mcmcmc wrote: post #229
alex43578 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? All of these require a search warrant.

Not for the data brokers, advertisers, and employees of the orgs. Every feigned panic because some cop Flock-searched an ex rings a little hollow when you consider the reach and lack of accountability present across the data collection schemes I mentioned.

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

#243

Post by naijaboiler »

phoghed wrote: post #198
phil21 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. There were times in my life I would have put my life on the line (and that of the thief) to defend my vehicle and the tools within it. Those fed myself and my family. I would have had no reasonable means to replace my tools, and barely reasonable means to replace the damage a catalytic converter theft would have caused me. Today it's trivially easy for me to say "property can be replaced, a life cannot" since I…

> to defend my vehicle and the tools within it This is a very normal commercial insurance problem. Sure, you can supplement it by buying a gun and staying up all night defending your truck, but the family ain’t gonna be happy if you bought the gun in lieu of insurance, especially if you lose that gunfight.

I agree. Insurance is generally a better solution for this than engaging some burglar

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

#244

Post by crossroadsguy »

phil21 wrote: post #88
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…

Yeah. There were times in my life I would have put my life on the line (and that of the thief) to defend my vehicle and the tools within it. Those fed myself and my family. I would have had no reasonable means to replace my tools, and barely reasonable means to replace the damage a catalytic converter theft would have caused me. Today it's trivially easy for me to say "property can be replaced, a life cannot" since I…

> I would have had no reasonable means to replace my tools, and barely reasonable means to replace the damage a catalytic converter theft would have caused me.

But if you had died in the interaction, and let's say the thief at that point even left the goods and decided to leave, that would have totally been a win outcome, because the property with which you provided your livelihood was saved… wait…

> Only someone who has never lived a hard day

Yeah right…

I never understood why people forget this:

- Life is more valuable esp. if "you + property" combo is the livelihood. Okay, let's make this simpler. Probability of tools replacement ≠ 0; definitely >0. Possibility of you being replaced after death =0. Yup, it's not >0 yet, folks.

- When you are going for a life-losing/taking-possibility escalation level, maybe don't forget it's a two-way street..

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

#245

Post by diydsp »

alex43578 wrote: post #137
moralestapia wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right to privacy, is this not mega-obvious?

"Right to privacy" isn't a specific right in the US. Furthermore, being in the middle of a public roadway in a registered vehicle shouldn't confer the expectation of privacy, per Katz. Probably the closest case law is Carpenter, which only covers cell data and was specifically meant to apply narrowly to that type of info.

I discussed above how Carpenter is not narrowly restricted to cell phones.

The fact of being in public or on a vehicle isn't the key point. It's that electronic systems aggregating location data are 4th amendment protected. Which was established in Carpenter.

The aggregation creates a comprehensive system.

Aggregated location data over months creates a comprehensive chronicle of your life that's categorically different from someone observing you on one street corner. Aggregation changes the constitutional analysis.

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

#246

Post by crossroadsguy »

earth-tattoo wrote: post #71
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…

All lives are not equal. The value of the life of a thief whose only impact on the society is negative, cannot be compared to e.g. a doctor.

Now let's talk about a doctor-thief, or a thief-doctor - your preference. Let's not get into the reasons/circumstances, because I'm pretty sure those won't be on the cards when a gun is drawn, or two.

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

#247

Post by alex43578 »

spicymaki wrote: post #222
alex43578 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What right does a Flock camera violate?

> What right does a Flock camera violate? The first amendment, fourth amendment, and the fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution. You should read it.

Can you name the specific right?

For the first, assumably you think you can’t be observed coming or going from a riot? That’s not true.

For the fourth, a Flock camera existing is not inherently a search, just like how a database of cell records is not unconstitutional (Carpenter, Chatrie, Katz).

Is the 14th just a nebulous due process argument? Again, the camera existing is not an unconstitutional, see 4th.

You should read them again.

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

#248

Post by diydsp »

bigbinary wrote: post #165
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

I hate flock and similar violations...

But I can't find any evidence of this claim. Who here can help lead to it?

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

#249

Post by GaryBluto »

carlob wrote: post #125
GaryBluto wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is forcing people to risk their lives to infringe on other people's rights. Whenever I see a news article about a criminal killed in the act, I never think "I wish they were alive.", I think "I wish they never went down that path in the first place that lead to that scenario."

> Nobody is forcing people to risk their lives to infringe on other people's rights. Except poverty, ignorance, hunger, addiction, untreated mental illness...

Those people are still in control of their actions, with the exception of those with untreated mental illnesses who are even more likely to be a danger to you and others if apprehended.

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

#250

Post by awolf »

alex43578 wrote: post #241
awolf wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

I never said that there was a plausible connection between public roads and privacy - I still maintain it’s the most clear cut example of a public place without an expectation of privacy imaginable. Unfortunately your eyes weren’t open enough to see that from previous comments. Nice to see we got to what this really was though: not a genuine privacy concern, but an “Orange Man Bad” concern because ICE could use Flock…

Doctor, church, shooting range, protest. ICE was one item on a list. Build the infrastructure and it stays built for whoever’s in charge next.

Trying to discredit my substance based on a single of many examples tells me you're not arguing authentically here, nor elsewhere in this thread. We are failing to be productive past this point.

Post reply on HN