Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit • Hacker News Board

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#461

Post by akomtu » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 3:50 PM UTC

TFNA wrote: post #389

canelonesdeverd wrote: post #317

A bit concerning how some people in this thread will bend over backwards to defend mass surveillance. Not surprising given who owns the board, but still.

A lot of techies have lived in China and seen how that country has stronger social harmony than the West and is gradually outpacing it, so mass surveillance clearly isn't an obstacle to the general prosperity. The problem with mass surveillance rollouts in the West is that they are incomplete: the cameras might go up, but not all infractions caught on camera are actually punished. Meanwhile, in China vandals and othe…

China is still under a communist regime, and we know how it makes society harmonious: by chopping everyone's fingers to equal length.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#462

Post by Forgeties79 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 3:55 PM UTC

testfrequency wrote: post #439

Forgeties79 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I imagine they don’t reject it though. Inconvenient, should be one click, but I also get it on some level even if that’s not how I’d handle it.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#463

Post by ThePowerOfFuet » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #24

Some ways to help think about this: 1. Privacy is not secrecy. Your neighbours know what you are doing, they just politely don’t mention it, or try to sell you something on the back of it. 2. Almost everything we do we do in public, with our face uncovered for the world to see. 3. The benefits of a mass surveilled world are enormous - epidemiology is gonna rock in 20 years. New medical insights as well as simple stuf…

>The benefits of a mass surveilled world are enormous

Incredible.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#464

Post by sophacles » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #419

harimau777 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that humans use art to communicate difficult or emotional ideas including political beliefs, right?

It makes me feel so much better than someone can be one-shotted into a political belief with a poem. I was worried they would rely too much on reasoning and evidence.

The poem in question conveys not just accurate history, but also it presents an argument in favor of standing for your neighbors . Even more, it conveys the feeling of loneliness when it comes to be your turn - both another argument for community and just a reminder that actual real humans are involves.

Not bad for a few lines of text... very efficient.

Of course your whole statement is ridiculous - the notion that a poem is the foundation of a belief rather than a good conveyance of it, is so stupid that all you are saying is that you can't come up with a good argument and are reaching for bad, unfunny snark to deflect.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#465

Post by pull_my_finger » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

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…

> In the Flock case the entire REASON the cameras are there is the the government (Police or local municipality) has contracted Flock to surveil the public

Do we know this for fact? Surely, the police are they're biggest consumers, but do they sell access to the APIs to anyone else?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#466

Post by jotux » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:04 PM UTC

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…

>I'd be interested to see if opponents of mass surveillance could draft good legislation to curb potential abuses

Isn't this just warrants? We have infrastructure in place, if police have reasonable suspicion a crime has occurred, they go to a judge and convince them they have enough evidence and the judge gives them a warrant. The problem is police and Flock are constantly arguing they shouldn't need a warrant to use the data, and it creates a system designed for abuse.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#467

Post by testfrequency » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

Forgeties79 wrote: post #462

testfrequency wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I imagine they don’t reject it though. Inconvenient, should be one click, but I also get it on some level even if that’s not how I’d handle it.

I should have been more clear. You have to give reasons why, as in - if your identity is at risk, legal issues, company concerns..etc. This was the push back my friends and I have joked about (only two so far who have made this request).

The request is not taken at face value, you have to have it approved.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#468

Post by slibhb » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:12 PM UTC

john_strinlai wrote: post #457

Manuel_D wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it is? If the traffic light timings are controlled by law then they can't be manipulated in that way.

the ones we want to prevent abuse from are the ones making the laws. police and governments break existing laws all the time. > they can't be manipulated if you want something that cant be manipulated or abused, the solution is technical, not legislative.

That's why we have an independent judiciary. What's the alternative to fixing this with laws/lawsuits? Do we riot when "the police and governments break laws"?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#469

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:12 PM UTC

mrtesthah wrote: post #456

Manuel_D wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution does not prohibit government (or anyone for that matter) from recording people in public spaces. ALPRs have been in widespread use since the 90s, I am continuously puzzled where people get the idea that this is new technology.

Notice that the person I responded to was speaking about a military checkpoint near the border. Do you know what that is?

If anything that makes surveillance even less noteworthy. Is it really surprising that a military installation has surveillance?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#470

Post by rc5150 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:13 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #385

wat10000 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and while we're at it, we can stop theft by having the thieves choose not to steal. If your approach is that we can fix abuses by having the abuser write down rules that say they're not allowed to abuse us, why limit it to public surveillance? Stick cameras in everybody's houses while we're at it. Think of all the horrible crimes that go on behind closed doors. Solve the privacy issues with legislation.

If red light cameras are incorrectly calibrated, that seems like something that could be challenged in court and changed. > If your approach is that we can fix abuses by having the abuser write down rules that say they're not allowed to abuse us, why limit it to public surveillance? Stick cameras in everybody's houses while we're at it. Think of all the horrible crimes that go on behind closed doors. Solve the privac…

"People have a constitutional right to privacy in their own homes."

When the current administration is wiping its ass with the constitution on a daily basis, are you really so daft you can't see the direction we're headed in as a society in regard to an unregulated surveillance dragnet?

People have a constitutional right to due process and to not get murdered in the street by ICE (that's pronounced T-R-A-I-T-O-R, btw) but look how well that's been going.