Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surreal in what way? Edit: thanks for the downvotes? Genuinely curious on GPs experience.
Surreal in the way that your constitutional rights are being casually violated?
Please see my reply to the other response
Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit
431–440 of 568 posts
Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 soc…
It's the same with all of these issues; the frog always gets boiled. In the same way the people who drafted the Constitution/Bill of Rights couldn't have imagined AR-15s, they could never have imagined a (practical) surveillance network capable of tracking people (historically and in real-time) in the way Flock, Axon and these other shady fucks do.
Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit
#433I'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.
There are other ways of attacking the camera directly, I think.
Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reasonable regulation, focusing on personal freedom, would just forbid building such a network in the first place.
You just need to reasonably predict the future 20 years ago.
More like 30 years ago when I got my first webcam and have been deeply considering today's exact scenario, along with many alternatives ever since.
Had nothing to do with any regulations though, actually didn't want to give anybody any ideas either way.
There were so many better things to do back then, and now even more variety of opportunities although not every "ecosystem" turns out to be a net positive if you're not careful.
Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit
#435It'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…
All that means is that the ends (and not the means) are the determining factor.
A private company can have plenty of legitimate reasons to film in public spaces, and to incidentally film people.
Flock's ends are to explicitly track people, and to use that data to accuse them of criminal activity. Those are the ends that the 4th amendment is written to explicit protect us from that, and not exclusively from governments, either.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
The funny thing is that countries commonly called “police states” aren’t, while countries not thought of as such are. Most Western countries have 2-3 times as many police officers per capita as China and Russia. Many people in China have had not a single encounter with authorities in their lifetime (other than basic administrative tasks). Meanwhile, in some EU countries, you need government approval to add a roof win…
By “police state” people generally mean one where day to day behavior, speech, and thought are tightly controlled by the government. Not so much police per capita or building codes. We can debate whether the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that rooftop windows don’t make house fires dramatically more dangerous, but I don’t think there’s much debate to be had about whether it should be a crime to own…
Yes, instead the UK and Europe “debank” and sanction opposition journalists so that they can’t continue functioning, without so much as a public hearing and with no way to contest it.
Not sure which is worse, actually. At least everyone in China knew that you shouldn’t mention June 4th. When there’s a clear line, you can avoid it or use indirect references to make your point.
Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Try that with some internal bureaucrat in an agency you've never heard of. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/testimony-of-anthony-f... How many Americans had heard of internal bureaucrat Anthony Fauci and NIAID before 2020?
I doubt the president of the United States would be so quick to grant a full pardon to the Flock CEO for any past (or future) crimes committed. Thanks for proving my point.
Do you genuinely think this is the only case of a government bureaucrat being called to testify before Congress?
The current President would be happy to give Flock's CEO a pardon, if the price is right. (For example: https://www.newsweek.com/ceo-pardoned-by-donald-trump-arrest...)
Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit
#438I just watched this week how John Oliver went over how the cops are using it to look children's playgrounds and hotel pools.
And in the same week, I also watched how some protester showed up to talk in favor of Flock, dressed in a Darth Vadar costume.
Honestly, all of this "we're just doing this for your own good" stuff sounds like a explicit loophole to not get a warrant. Fourth Amendment be damned I guess???
Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t even do that with your HN account..you think Flock, with its lucrative gov contracts…would ever?
You can email dang and co and they’ll delete your HN account (maybe even remove your posts? Might be making that up?) they just prefer folks not IIRC.
Per friends who have done this, you apparently need to explain why and have reasons™. It’s not just a quick “hi forget me” request. All of which I find a bit absurd.
Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other thing that's going on is that Flock is essentially an always-on "dragnet." A "dragnet" is when you set up police checkpoints everywhere and essentially put entire cities under watch to find a fugitive. This happened in Boston after the bombings. "Dragnets" are illegal except in extreme circumstances (like a bombing). Flock is a "dragnet on demand." You have a digital dragnet in place not just in one city bu…
No. It is not and to claim otherwise is hyperbole. The key difference is police stopping and/or questioning people en masse without reasonable suspicion is in fact illegal unless under extreme circumstances. Simply noting everyone’s license plate is wholly legal, and more importantly for this conversation, is drastically less intrusive and qualitatively different from a so-called dragnet. You don’t get to just confla…
Dragnets have been constrained on both fourth and fifth amendment grounds. It's not merely the inconvenience of being stopped and questioned that makes a dragnet illegal, it is also an illegal search.