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

141–150 of 467 posts

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#141

Post by YCIsComplicit »

whilenot-dev wrote: post #66
afarah1 wrote: post #7

They want to make money. Their buyers want a closely surveilled world with no exits.

Multiple things can be true at the same time... do you think the seller doesn't want a closely surveilled world with no exits? Besides, money keeps businesses in the economy afloat, it's an artificial good with (more or less) constant value. Money's a systematic means to an end and rarely an end goal, its purpose is the transportation of value, and not the communication of value.

The sellers are people like YC and other investors

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#142

Post by ceejayoz »

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.

Surely we can agree the point of this technology is to change the level of privacy one should reasonably expect in public?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#143

Post by duskdozer »

blitzar wrote: post #108
whilenot-dev wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple things can be true at the same time... do you think the seller doesn't want a closely surveilled world with no exits? Besides, money keeps businesses in the economy afloat, it's an artificial good with (more or less) constant value. Money's a systematic means to an end and rarely an end goal, its purpose is the transportation of value, and not the communication of value.

> do you think the seller doesn't want a closely surveilled world with no exits? I don't think they care beyond being rich. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower

It's hard to see how you wouldn't at least be okay with that outcome if you were actively making it happen. But maybe this is just explaining why I'll never have that much money.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#144

Post by lionkor »

afarah1 wrote: post #7

They want to make money. Their buyers want a closely surveilled world with no exits.

This is the drug-dealer justification -- "if I don't [sell drugs|provide mass surveillance at an unprecedented scale|crush these kittens] someone else will"

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#146

Post by maxerickson »

mahrain wrote: post #3

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

There's very little of those things in most places.

It would be nice if there were less, but that change shouldn't come at a significant cost.

As an example, the FBI has data on $10-20 billion in property crimes per year in the US. Wow, that's a lot. Of course, there's probably $5-$10 trillion dollars of personal property.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#147

Post by harimau777 »

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…

I don't think that's actually true. Follow someone around reading their phone over their shoulder and see how people react.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#148

Post by JoshTriplett »

brookst wrote: post #79
pintxo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reasonable regulation, focusing on personal freedom, would just forbid building such a network in the first place.

How would you specify this regulation? It’s very hard to regulate outcomes when the component steps are legal. Not saying we shouldn’t try, just saying that path is well-trodden and rarely works. See: media consolidation, etc IMO it is much more practical to regulate and penalize the activity of using such a network than to preempt its creation. Heck, BitTorrent can be seen as a surveillance network. But intent and u…

We can absolutely say that, for instance, taking pictures in public is legal but surveilling is not. We could say that recording public spaces systematically, for the purposes of surveillance, is not permitted. That does not require us to say that individuals cannot record in a public place. We can even say that individuals or companies are not allowed to collude to effectively turn individual recordings into systematic public surveillance (e.g. you can't build a product that searches everyone's personal videos of spaces and turns them into a spotty surveillance network).

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#149

Post by ceejayoz »

pmdr wrote: post #67
GlacierFox wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As long as it's a mostly peaceful prostest, you're also allowed to set a few cars on fire and loot local businesses.

As long as you say "I feared for my life", you're apparently also allowed to shoot random civilians if you're a cop.

Which is kinda why people are upset enough to set shit on fire.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#150

Post by FlockIsYC »

lionkor wrote: post #144
afarah1 wrote: post #7

They want to make money. Their buyers want a closely surveilled world with no exits.

This is the drug-dealer justification -- "if I don't [sell drugs|provide mass surveillance at an unprecedented scale|crush these kittens] someone else will"

It’s not a justification he’s just pointing it out
Post reply on HN