Live data from Hacker News

Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

newyorker.com

91–100 of 459 posts

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#91
> Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on

- Larry Ellison

https://www.businessinsider.com/larry-ellison-ai-surveillanc...

Now, let's hope you agree with Larry Ellison's definition of what constitutes best behavior or they will soon be sending drones after you.

> "You just have a drone follow the car," Ellison said. "It's very simple in the age of autonomous drones."

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#92
post #46

It's pretty clear to be that governments shouldn't be able to 'subcontract' their way out of the limits placed on them via the constitution. Thankfully the supreme court seems to agree here in two ways: 1) Just because a third party (Google in Chatrie case but Flock here) collects the data and the government requests it from them, doesn't mean that that isn't a 'search' which requires a warrant ("obtaining someone's…

So you want the government to recreate the tech and control that flock provides.

I don't think this is going to work out like you think it will...

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#93
I find palantir and flock are more obsessed with rules on data. The seriously insidious companies tend to be international and change names every year or so. The idea that you could get that flock CE to bend the rules for the feds are basically 0. Some random middle eastern country, the issue is trusting them .

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#95
post #46

It's pretty clear to be that governments shouldn't be able to 'subcontract' their way out of the limits placed on them via the constitution. Thankfully the supreme court seems to agree here in two ways: 1) Just because a third party (Google in Chatrie case but Flock here) collects the data and the government requests it from them, doesn't mean that that isn't a 'search' which requires a warrant ("obtaining someone's…

> users have a private relationship with Google where they elect to let Google track them and retain their information

Elect to is a bit strong here. Acquiesce to, maybe, or perhaps suffer to.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#96
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graffiti is amazing. It is protest.

Could I come and spray paint the front of your house? In protest of course.

I mean, if you get consent, it makes the argument irrelevant doesn’t it?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#97
post #38
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never thought of UK as a police state. How about Netherlands w a similar program? Non watchlist plates are kept for 28 days compared to most flock implementations that keep for 7 https://www.politie.nl/informatie/waar-staan-anpr-cameras.ht...

The funny thing is that countries commonly called “police states” aren’t, while countries not thought of as such are. Most Western countries have 2-3 times as many police officers per capita as China and Russia. Many people in China have had not a single encounter with authorities in their lifetime (other than basic administrative tasks). Meanwhile, in some EU countries, you need government approval to add a roof win…

By “police state” people generally mean one where day to day behavior, speech, and thought are tightly controlled by the government. Not so much police per capita or building codes.

We can debate whether the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that rooftop windows don’t make house fires dramatically more dangerous, but I don’t think there’s much debate to be had about whether it should be a crime to own a picture of a man standing in front of a tank.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>China, which is a country with very little street crime, grafitti, vandalism etc And very little ability for anyone or any group of people from any walk of life to resist getting screwed by the government if the government chooses to screw them. The long term cost of putting locks on doors and bars on windows and all the other things that need to be done to deter small scale crime is peanuts compared to the cost of…

> And very little ability for anyone or any group of people from any walk of life to resist getting screwed by the government if the government chooses to screw them. Sorry to break it to you but if the Feds in the US have it out for you, it won't matter how squeaky clean your record is. They'll fuck you up and ruin your life without batting an eye.

There is a huge difference between the feds having it out for a specific person and the feds having it out for a whole class of people.

Society is not rich enough for the government to skim enough off of us to provide itself with the kind of resources it would need to go after every petty deviant or inconvenient activist the way they'd go after a mob boss.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#99
post #46

It's pretty clear to be that governments shouldn't be able to 'subcontract' their way out of the limits placed on them via the constitution. Thankfully the supreme court seems to agree here in two ways: 1) Just because a third party (Google in Chatrie case but Flock here) collects the data and the government requests it from them, doesn't mean that that isn't a 'search' which requires a warrant ("obtaining someone's…

There is not generally an expectation of privacy in public. Things in public can be recorded without consent. Filming a car on a street and giving that video to the government is not the same as me giving private information to a third party, and then them giving it to the government such as Carpenter v United states covers. Edit: Note that this is not an endorsement, rather stating that recent supreme court cases ma…

Private citizens filming in public and police forces setting up arrays of surveillance cameras in public somehow don’t seem equivalent. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t properly articulate what the legal difference is. And if there isn’t one then the law needs change. Clearly the majority of citizens agree with me.

Is it legal for US citizens to all put cameras on their cars and set up a network where we can all see where all police are at any given time?

Seems like a good idea at this point.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#100
post #39
post #3

Already a reality in mainland China, which is a country with very little street crime, grafitti, vandalism etc.

Yeah but when our AI overlords rise up soon we don’t want to have this ready to hand over to them.

I think quite a few tech bros would want their own Samaritan. It wouldn't be "theirs" for very long, but I don't think that dampens their desire.
Post reply on HN