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

211–220 of 567 posts

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#211

Post by bko »

FinnKuhn wrote: post #191
bko wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In the UK overall, 64% of the population support police use of facial recognition technology to some degree and only 11% were opposed to its use [1]. The survey also looks at support for different szenarios, but overall many generally did not oppose it, while in the US 47% oppose the use of flock cameras [2]. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-attitudes-... [2] https://www.reuters.com/legal/governm…

The Flock stat is interesting because 46% of Americans believe widespread use of facial recognition would be a good thing (27% unsure).

Maybe people oppose Flock because it's not going far enough! Or maybe there is a coordinated campaign against a license plate reader for some weird reason

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/public-more-...

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#212

Post by bko »

fmobus wrote: post #184
bko wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Apples to oranges. Sure, there are ANPR systems in other countries, but they have to operate under very different regulations, and cannot collect information haphazardly like Flock. Using your exact suggested query for Germany will quickly tell you that mass retention of ANPR data is illegal, and only matching against "targeted suspect databases" is acceptable. Even usages of the technology in private areas have to c…

That's funny because ANPR systems are much looser in other countries including much longer retention. It helps that you don't have national newspapers printing negative articles around the technology every day!

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#213

Post by throwaway235125 »

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…

> "You're thinking Chinese surveillance. US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims" [1]

- Garry Tan

[1] https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#214

Post by cyanydeez »

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…

America's supreme court's consistency will not protect anyone from this problem, no matter how much history says so.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#215

Post by simonwsimonw »

apexalpha wrote: post #161
noir_lord wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#216

Post by Lord-Jobo »

bko wrote: post #174
harimau777 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly not, but even that would be better than unaccountable corporations having the tech.

Corporations are more accountable than government agencies. A government agency can switch vendors or you can drag their CEOs in front of Congress. Try that with some internal bureaucrat in an agency you've never heard of.

Not even remotely true, Idk how you can say this with a straight face after all we have seen in Trump 1 and Trump 2.

Elected officials are basically the CEOs of each of these agencies, they have massive unilateral control and, apparently, can simply choose to unmake the agency at any point.

Except unlike CEOs, they require regular voter approval or they get punted out. If they make a stink the public hates the next president can easily axe their ass. That alone is infinitely better; how many of these horrible companies have 10-20 year CEOs pushing all this shit?

>drag their CEO into congress.

So they can lie and stick their tongue out for days, or just not show up? There is never any consequence for this, congress is functionally toothless. Only the courts and the executive can actually use punitive action.

The fact that there is an avenue of redress at all for public officials makes them so much more accountable than any corporation. Which is exactly why corporations spend so much money influencing public election and congress, they need to subvert the only system than can keep them in check.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#217

Post by tmpz22 »

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…

Were pretending we can still have a socratic discussion about this with any consequence.

There will be numerous unevidenced accusations about fraud this midterms. It will blanket the internet and air waves.

Despite republicans being incredibly nervous about trumps chances these midterms, republicans will win the house and the senate. Trump will reaffirm a supermajority, and policies he decreed will only be expanded.

Emboldened, tariffs will continue and expand. The Iran war will continue and expand. Flock cameras will continue and expand.

The supreme court will acquisence slowly piece by piece to ever more draconian constitutional violations.

This is only the beginning.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#219

Post by WaitWaitWha »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #157
someguyiguess wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The quickest way to get dragnet surveillance banned would be for citizens to collaborate and create a massive publicly-available surveillance network.

... of politicians. Because they are the ones who could write the laws to ban privacy invasive solutions.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#220

Post by ryandvm »

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…

I could probably be convinced that some sort of panopticon license plate reader network could be a net positive for society IF it had the necessary and demonstrably infallible audit and oversight systems - especially with respect to the 4th amendment in the United States (i.e. search warrants).

But honestly, law enforcement is the least of my concerns because the industrial surveillance complex has shown time and again that the commercial entities are the ones with the never ending thirst for squeezing ever more profit from every person they can. To me, the far more insidious problem is what happens when Flock needs to keep showing growth? What's to stop them Flock from selling data to any and all comers?

The possibilities are literally endless:

  * Perfect price discrimination. Parking garages, stores, car washes, fast food places perfectly adjusting price based on what you can afford (based on where you've been).
  * Car insurance shadow telematics. You don't want a GPS-tracker installed on your ODB? Fine. They'll still know where you drive and how fast.
  * Clinic-visit based healthcare inference. "Looks like this guy has been going to a cancer clinic. NO HIRE."
  * "Where has your spouse been?"
In an age where your TV is spying on you and your fucking refrigerator is showing you ads, do you really think Flock doesn't already have thousands of ideas on how to monetize commercial surveillance data in the post law enforcement phase?
Post reply on HN