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

341–350 of 571 posts

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#341

Post by conductr »

quacked wrote: post #30

I've been very pleased to see the reaction to Flock in the US. I was talking to a younger guy, very normal kid who keeps his nose clean, studying criminal justice in his junior year at college. I jokingly mentioned to him that maybe he could bring some anti-surveillance awareness to whatever law enforcement agency he goes to work for and he said, very seriously, "oh yeah, definitely. I've only gotten two cameras so f…

Honestly, most the flock cameras are installed on a fence post that is easily vandalized. This movement will be matched by sturdier construction and the resistance will likely sigh, get bored, and move onto something else.

I do like the spirit of it all though.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#343

Post by idkithought »

15feetOfclay wrote: post #251
amazingamazing wrote: post #171

Whine about flock on the forum created by their funders. Ironic.

From 0 ("rain on my wedding day") to 10 ("Oedipus fulfilling his prophecy by evading it"), I'd give this a 2

Seems more scandalous to me.

I can’t trust that HN articles or high karma accounts here are anything more than lies and deception

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#345

Post by DrScientist »

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.

It's legal to film publically - what's not necessarily legal is what you then do with that.

There are already precedents - for example it's legal to film ICE agents in public spaces, it's not necessarily legal to use information to dox if that can be construed as harassment.

Even if you crowd sourced the identification of somebody involved in a potentially criminal act, you can only share that with the police and not the wider public.

The law is asymmetric here because the police have powers reserved for themselves to stop vigilantism.

Perhaps an interesting angle here would be if you can make the case that companies like flock are involved in harressment themselves...

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#347

Post by dns_snek »

apexalpha wrote: post #132
gnfargbl wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 .

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

This style of argument is nonsense because deciding between Android and Apple has about a hundred unrelated but equally important consequences. There is no choice that aligns with all of your wishes (and rights).

Privacy? Just buy Apple (largely an urban legend at this point, but regardless).

Actual ownership? Just buy Android.

Security? Just buy Apple (or Pixel with GrapheneOS).

Repairability? Just buy one of these 4 Android models.

Headphone jack? lol.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#348

Post by slibhb »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #339
slibhb wrote: post #335

I'm generally in favor of mass surveillance, as long as it's in public . I think it can prevent a lot of crime and I don't believe we have a right to "privacy in public". Red light cameras, for example, strike me as unalloyed good. However, I'd be interested to see if opponents of mass surveillance could draft good legislation to curb potential abuses. For example, the laws around who owns/controls data from cameras…

> draft good legislation to curb potential abuses No such thing. Unless it is mathematically impossible for the government to abuse you, then you will be abused.

That sounds like an argument for anarchism. I am very unimpressed by political philosophies that take arguments to their logical conclusion.

What seems to me to have worked is understanding that a government is necessary, that it has the potential to misbehave, and therefore we should carefully design laws and processes to constrain it. I would like to see opponents of mass surveillance do this, which seems more productive than what I normally observe.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#349

Post by WakeUpHN »

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…

It’s almost like the left/right political dichotomy is completely useless!

YC invests in Flock.

They’ve worked together over the last 10+ years while lying on HN about “the government” being behind it.

Be mad at that by itself. No need for a left/right saga.

Narrow down your real political enemy and define them by name, and lose the mythology.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#350

Post by DrScientist »

pydry wrote: post #123
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…

already happening and it seems it is legal https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/citizens-are-tracki...

Another area that's also existed for quite a while is the crowd-sourcing of the positions of mobile speed traps.

Though bizarrely in the UK that's legal if you do it via Waze, not if you do it via whatsapp.

Post reply on HN