Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 566 posts

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#111

Post by brookst »

bko wrote: post #31
FinnKuhn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US isn't the UK or China and different cultures deem different things as acceptable. The UK for example is also a monarchy, which would rial up people in the US if proposed there. Additionally the trust that the government uses these cameras as intended is apparently higher in the UK than the trust of Americans that Flock will not misuse their surveillance technology.

Doesn't UK arrest a few thousand people a year for social media posts? What are you basing this high degree of trust on?

Source for “a few thousand”?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#112

Post by perlgeek »

harporoeder wrote: post #83
furyg3 wrote: 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…

>There is not generally an expectation of privacy in public.

And that's the problem, because if there isn't an expectation of privacy, and we record everything that's "in public", we land in a dystopic hellscape.

The problem is really that "privacy" vs. "public" isn't a binary choice. Yes, I expect people to see me in public if they happen to walk by. That's quite different from every movement being recorded and made searchable. Most privacy laws don't really account for that being possible.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#113

Post by dakolli »

harporoeder wrote: post #83
furyg3 wrote: 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…

Cool we should maybe change those laws then, these definitions of privacy came about in a world where there weren't cameras on everyones face and front porch.

The US government, the 4th reich, cannot be trusted with these tools, especially their law enforcement.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#114

Post by bko »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #62
bko wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget Belgium, Netherlands, sweden, Germany, France and many others! Google national ANPR [country]

There is a difference between ANPR and what Flock does.

Which is...

I like how you're so nuanced when I'm pretty sure you never heard the acronym ANPR before

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#115

Post by unethical_ban »

harporoeder wrote: post #83
furyg3 wrote: 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…

Yes, there is an expectation in the history of free society that the government is not proactively observing every person on every block, asking for ID, and following them down the streets, then documenting that and correlating it with other people's activities and making it accessible to law enforcement personnel without a warrant across the country.

I retch when people say there is no expectation of privacy in public as some naive defense of the panopticon.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#116

Post by gnz11 »

none2585 wrote: post #90
LightBug1 wrote: post #35

Hey HN ... use your mega brains to make the following kind of thing realistic, effective, and widespread for all: https://urban-privacy.com/pages/anti-surveillance-clothing fock flock

I love this but "Follow us on Instagram!" is maybe a little counterproductive.

Also behind Cloudflare's moats.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#117

Post by gizajob »

mahrain wrote: post #3

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

One person’s graffiti and vandalism is another persons freedom of artistic expression. Like how music magically turns into “noise” when someone buys an apartment next to a lively gig venue.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#118

Post by brookst »

presentation wrote: post #73
bko wrote: post #4

I was surprised to learn that many countries have what amounts to a flock equivalent. UK for instance has a National ANPR Service w 12k fixed cameras and 90-100m plates read a day. They also store it much longer. Never understood why the outrage of flock in particular is so big online. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-anpr-ser...

Putting aside how disproportionately noisy some activist types are, it probably has to do with Americans having practically no trust in one another, corporations in particular, and their government by extension. At the same time, Americans tend to value some positive forms of liberty - like the ability to say and do what you want in one moment - far more than other forms of liberty - like the ability for all people t…

In the US flock is routinely used by law enforcement personnel to stalk exes and for other abuses. Are police in those other countries equally untrustworthy?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#119

Post by chinathrow »

edot wrote: post #70
lazycatjumping wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been to many places in Italy that have scary much CCTV.

Let's think about the first two letters of CCTV and what that entails.

Point is, CC as for closed circuit, is no longer the key here - the circuit is very much open and in the hands of providers, governments and tech providers.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#120

Post by stuaxo »

harporoeder wrote: post #83
furyg3 wrote: 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…

The language doesn't really cover things correctly.

You don't expect privacy in public in the sense that you might bump into other people that know who you are.

That doesn't automatically mean that you expect walking into a public area means a system will start investigating you and seeing if you match with crimes.

Assuming everyone in public is a suspect and continually investigating them, is a big change in how society works.

Post reply on HN