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

161–170 of 548 posts

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#161

Post by apexalpha »

noir_lord wrote: post #159
apexalpha wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You elect to buy an Android and not an Apple I suppose.

While I'd generally agree that Apple is the better of the two on the privacy side it's still a false choice because you pretty much have to pick one as a regular person as things currently stand. It becomes harder over time to function in society without a smart phone (I know this because I barely use mine and it usually lives at home but my partner runs her life off hers).

I agree but it's clear why you could argue it should be elect from a legal standpoint.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#162

Post by FlockIsYC »

vrganj wrote: post #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 a…

The best part is when he’s talking about them going to the bathroom

”We don’t really turn it off… without a court order”

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#163

Post by [deleted] »

mrngld wrote: post #104

The political left has really decided to go nuclear over Flock, but I'm not understanding the fundamental principle from which this view arises. Libertarian sorts don't like it either -- but that's entirely consistent with their entire existence. Is this a broad-based phenomenon on the left, or are sections perfectly fine with it? Some of the other comments here seem to endorse full on 1984-style surveillance, so per…

[deleted]

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#164

Post by fmobus »

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. Things in public can be recorded without consent

This is _not_ universal. Many jurisdictions take a different view on this.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#165

Post by ga_to »

bko wrote: post #26
ga_to wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Flock is privately owned while ANPR seems to my cursory research to be government owned. And we all know what private corporations do to peoples data.

I'm not sure about your exp w government agencies, but in my experience, I much prefer private companies. Much easier to hold to account. Just as an example, NYC mayor is going after landlords for violations and tenant rights. He has hearings regularly. However there is no enforcement of the law when it comes to government owned housing projects, which are very often not kept up to code and are outright dangerously m…

What big-tech companies have been _actually_ held accountable for data misuse, as in, 'consequences that actually mattered'? Being able to absorb fines just turns them into a cost-of-doing-business tax.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#166

Post by ceejayoz »

vrganj wrote: post #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 a…

With an asterisk on citizens, of course, that excludes Ellison.

Do this to him and you'll likely be in deep trouble.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#167

Post by FlockIsYC »

gyanchawdhary wrote: post #109

As a non american, can someone explain the Flock story from a US perspective (ideally a reasonably centrist one)? .. i keep seeing them in the news here on HN .. apparently ~178 results in the past month . and it seems to get a disproportionate amount of front page coverage

[dead]

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#168

Post by MSFT_Edging »

mastermage wrote: post #82
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which is a great argument for Less Surveilance and Overreach.

Big time. The harder the feds have to work to ruin someone's life the better.

The more power granted, the heavier the collar and chain should be.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#169

Post by harimau777 »

GlacierFox wrote: post #55
ncr100 wrote: 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.

What are you protesting? Why are you targeting an individual's residence rather than a corporation's property? What is the artist merit of your graffiti? How does damaging someone's house help your cause? Is the gain from damaging someone's house sufficient to justify the cost to them?

In other words, you are trying to make things much more simplistic than they actually are.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#170

Post by leonidasrup »

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 third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties, such as banks and phone companies, generally have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information. This precedent, established in Supreme Court cases in the 1970s, allows the U.S. government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

Post reply on HN