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

351–360 of 366 posts

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

#351

Post by mannanj »

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…

are you assuming that every time you're recorded by a flock it would be capturing your face as well? do you have evidence behind that? i.e. what about on highways or fast moving spaces or far spaces where your face isn't even visible.

sure maybe in store parking lots it sees your face. at least you add a step between it and the car's registered owner and make them do extra work. I don't think falsely equivocating "they track your face so just give up on all aspects of privacy" is true. imho that's you having given up and projecting your opinion and equivalencies on all opposing arguments since you have dissonance from having given up.

also it feels deceptive to then equate that everyone also has a shopper card, credit cards, and personal spending data too - not everyone is giving up their personal data and given up like you. there's plenty of people who would actually be protected from a private car scenario because they might not have shopper cards or personal transactions in some company databases - and either way, protecting your privacy in all these sub scenarios is how you create whole privacy. you don't get privacy by saying "well they already have my face so I might as well give them every thing"

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

#352

Post by mannanj »

StevePrefontain wrote: post #202
toofy wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I use my phone on airplane mode a lot, and also in a faraday cage bag. If you need directions, You can use use radio and pop in the directions then use just airplane mode and navigate and it will still place you via gps. If you want music use an AUX cable.

If you want privacy give up some of your convenience. If you're refusing to give up your convenience, than you have chosen to give up your privacy. I find it distasteful with people who have given up project their failures onto everyone else who haven't given up.

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

#353

Post by disposition2 »

alex43578 wrote: post #340
disposition2 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't we expect some level of privacy in a public place? There are some countries that confer that, to certain levels. The US used to be one of those countries, then 9/11 happened and the loudest folks (or at least the folks with the most money to influence law) started eroding privacy and now more folks just accept our current state and views like OP’s. It’s really interesting…you can even watch a TV crime dra…

That's an erosion of privacy where you have (had?) an expectation of privacy. In the US, you could always be recorded in public, excluding narrow exceptions for things like voyeurism or harassment.

Agree to disagree.

I believe the current status quo is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment.

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

#354

Post by bilbo0s »

rayiner wrote: post #348
bilbo0s wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on who you ask? Are you asking someone who just had their car stolen? Or are you asking a mom who just found out there's a Flock camera that has been filming her 6 year old daughter playing in a splash pad all summer?

> Depends on who you ask? I assume car thieves don’t like cameras. > Or are you asking a mom Have you met moms? They love surveillance.

>Have you met moms?

Have you?

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

#355

Post by ipsod »

rossy wrote: post #82
honeycrispy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just $2k lost here. There's a lot to be said about the immeasurable value of a high-trust society. As another commenter said: It's incredibly easy to not get shot; don't burglarize someone's home the same way you wouldn't jump in front of a moving train.

Holding the threat of death over people isn't the way to a "high-trust society." Maybe you think it's the way to something similar, but you have to give up the word "trust" because it doesn't apply here. If the only reason I think a man isn't going to rob me is because I will shoot him if he does, I don't trust that man. A society which only has low crime because everyone is able to use lethal force to defend themsel…

High trust doesn't mean you can trust that the people are angels. It means you can trust that they will behave as such. The threat of force is only there for those who otherwise wouldn't.

So, either citizens bear force, or they plead with the government to wield their force. But, force is there, either way, keeping people in line. It has never been any other way.

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

#356

Post by krunck »

knollimar wrote: post #255
ergocoder wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because many people agree with having cameras to help reduce/monitor crimes. From their views, the right isn't trampled. It's a win

The whole "government can't spy on you, but can pay a corporation to do it" is crazy. From requesting data from big tech to this, it's just wild. It feels like some juvenile "I can't kill you but I can pay this guy $200k to make you go away"

Government uses the private sector to get around the constitution, the private sector uses government to get around regulation.

Working as it was designed to.

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

#357

Post by ergocoder »

croon wrote: post #345
ergocoder wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are public areas. It's not spying. Almost every house in my neighborhood has 1-2 cameras pointing around their houses. When there's an issue, my neighbors share the footages with the group, and that's so useful. And I live in a very very democrat state/city. Also, we should definitely address the privacy and access control issue with Flock. Removing the cameras isn't the right solution.

If it is/can be used to track citizens arbitrarily regardless of crime, it is spying, regardless where the cameras are. You might be right that the issues could be solved without removing the cameras, but they definitely will be solved by removing the cameras.

> they definitely will be solved by removing the cameras

We'll see.

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

#358

Post by thaumasiotes »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #337
thaumasiotes wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Often this counts as "in your dwelling" Is this true in any context other than a potential fourth amendment violation by an agent of the state?

I think this has applied in the case of self defense in Texas, at least on someone’s porch. Curtilage is a general concept, not specific to the fourth amendment.

Well, I found an analysis by a Texas law firm: https://www.lapinlawtx.com/firearms-blog/2025-001

This does say that

> Arguably, the protections contained in the [self-defense] statute include what is referred to in legal parlance as the “curtilage” of the property (a home’s porch, steps, garage, or yard)

But the reasoning is, specifically, that defending yourself against someone who is in the curtilage must be protected, because defending yourself against someone who is "attempting to enter" your habitation is protected, and it's impossible to attempt to enter the habitation without being in the curtilage.

This is not compatible with your analysis, which assumes that a person present in the curtilage has already entered the habitation.

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

#359

Post by hackable_sand »

giardini wrote: post #315
hackable_sand wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same value. They're the same value.

hackable_sand says "Same value. They're the same value." How do you come by that? By that logic, Joseph Stalin is as valuable as Mother Theresa!

Ask yourself what kind of person places value on a human life.

Yourself, not me.

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

#360

Post by diydsp »

alex43578 wrote: post #256
diydsp wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, and all this ties nicely to Flock: Google/Flock can collect the data - constitutional. Google/Flock can sell the data - constitutional. There’s the potential for searching the database to require a warrant, but the cameras themselves, and being recorded on a public street (which everyone’s crying about) has no reasonable pathway to being unconstitutional.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN