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

471–480 of 564 posts

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#471

Post by Manuel_D »

mypalmike wrote: post #458
Manuel_D wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that your example involves physically stopping and searching people. This is not the case with Flock, which records images in public. The government does not and never did require any warrant or justification to record people in public spaces. Not just the government, but normal people too: you can whip out four phone and start recording people in public any time you want.

Recording equipment didn’t exist when the constitution was written.

The Supreme Court has set precedence that video recordings of public spaces fall under the plain view doctrine: police don't need a warrant or probable cause to record things in public view.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#472

Post by MisterTea »

HEmanZ wrote: post #421
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.

I still am opposed to anything capable of mass surveillance because of how easily it is abused. But living in Seattle, my car has been broken into 4 times this summer alone (with nothing taken, because we leave nothing there), thiefs dug up the side of my house to steel copper wires, on my block someone dumped gasoline all over a tree and lit it on fire just because, people went around the neighborhood smashing front…

> What else would you suggest proper support when they are harassed by crime this much?

How would a flock camera deter a thief from breaking into your garage? It's a false sense of security. I had a guy break into two tenant spaces with a screwdriver with cameras pointed all over the place. He just wore a surgical mask and hood while keeping his head down. Nothing could ID him. I had all the locks upgraded and one tenant installed an alarm system. That's all we can do.

A better question to ask is why is there so much blatant and rampant crime? Have you attended any community meetings with local representatives and voiced concerns? Have you spoke to your neighbors about these incidents (do you know your neighbors?) Maybe you live in an area who's government takes some silly light handed approach to policing, justice and reform. You either deal with it or move.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#473

Post by cindyllm »

youlosealot wrote: post #319
s_dev wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree YC funding Flock is bad but I don't think you're helping. You're making it seem like there is an orchestrated effort to discredit YC rather than articulating this is poor form on their part.

bro are you retarded??? Seriously??? More people should be doing this. Give them hell

[dead]

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#474

Post by Manuel_D »

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.

The ones making the laws are your elected officials. If you want a city to pass a law prohibiting changing the traffic light timings, then go campaign for a candidate that has that on their platform.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#475

Post by john_strinlai »

slibhb wrote: post #468
john_strinlai wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

>That's why we have an independent judiciary.

which is something that only happens after abuse occurs, is costly (time and money), presents a risk of retaliation, and offers no guarantee of being made whole.

>What's the alternative to fixing this with laws/lawsuits?

not doing mass surveillance means we don't need legislation about it.

>Do we riot when "the police and governments break laws"?

why did you scare quote this?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#476

Post by rc5150 »

cm2012 wrote: post #372

Fundamentally this is silly because Flock only tracks cars and not individual people. It doesn't do facial recognition surveillance. Society decided a long time ago that driving is a privilege that can be regulated in a variety of ways.

"Flock only tracks cars and not individual people."

prove it.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#477

Post by john_strinlai »

Manuel_D wrote: post #474
john_strinlai wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ones making the laws are your elected officials. If you want a city to pass a law prohibiting changing the traffic light timings, then go campaign for a candidate that has that on their platform.

>If you want a city to pass a law prohibiting changing the traffic light timings, then go campaign for a candidate that has that on their platform.

people love saying this as if its some sort of gotcha.

ive been campaigning for candidates i believe in since ive been able to vote, which is over 40 years now. additionally, i voice my opinion locally and online (hi).

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#478

Post by DrScientist »

15155 wrote: post #383
DrScientist wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it's not necessarily legal to use information to dox if that can be construed as harassment. This is an incorrect understanding of the issue, these individuals are protected using a unique and unusual statute. In a mass broadcast scenario, without identifying their profession in context, there's arguably no crime here. There's certainly no crime to broadcast that you've seen their license plates with no association…

I'm trying to distinguish the collection of information from the use. Collection is legal - however there is no point to collecting it if you can't actually use it for anything.

For example:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/federal-prosecutors-char...

or https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-monica-man-pleads...

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#479

Post by conductr »

quacked wrote: post #433
conductr wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably, I'm not aware of that but it's visibly not enclosed. Seems like it could be hardened quite easily. But even then, I suppose an agitator could just paint the camera every day. I don't think that type of vandalism is inspiring and people would give up. They want to unleash some fury and if they can't physically destruct the thing then they'll get complacent in their means

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#480

Post by text0404 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #442
jordanb wrote: post #264

Earlier 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…

The difference is that your example involves physically stopping and searching people. This is not the case with Flock, which records images in public. The government does not and never did require any warrant or justification to record people in public spaces. Not just the government, but normal people too: you can whip out four phone and start recording people in public any time you want.

The government does need a warrant to surveil me, though, and multiple court cases have found that using an intermediate third party doesn't absolve the government from adhering to the fourth amendment.
Post reply on HN