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

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#481

Post by HEmanZ » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:20 PM UTC

MisterTea wrote: post #472

HEmanZ wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

“You either deal with it or move” do you think installing flock cameras isn’t an attempt to deal with it? If you go to council meetings and demand action, installing a bunch of flock cameras and increasing surveillance is a response.

I say this as someone who agrees, cameras don’t work much. But my point is that people had better support some alternative then, instead of blocking every other attempt to improve the situation.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#482

Post by text0404 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:21 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #471

mypalmike wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but putting that data into a persistent database which law enforcement searches on demand is a violation of the fourth amendment.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#483

Post by pseudalopex » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #469

mrtesthah wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They did not say installation.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#484

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #482

Manuel_D wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but putting that data into a persistent database which law enforcement searches on demand is a violation of the fourth amendment.

No? Which Supreme Court decision decided that persisting video recorded in public is a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#485

Post by text0404 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #449

some_random wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a societal consensus that driving is a privilege which can be restricted or revoked, not that you give up your rights by driving. In fact the opposite is true, the courts have found that drivers have fourth amendment rights for instance.

Drivers have a right not to have their car searched without probable cause. But being photographed in public is not a search.

Those photographs go into a searchable database.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#486

Post by gothbytes » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

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.

Cool, then the Flock data should just be public and accessible to everyone since there's no expectation of privacy in public.

If not, why not?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#487

Post by text0404 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #445

mrtesthah wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surreal in the way that your constitutional rights are being casually violated?

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.

ALPRs weren't connected to companies which call their detractors "terrorists" and which collect photographs into searchable databases that have advanced AI features. The general public has also witnessed the rise of military-style policing and unaccountable violence from law enforcement, so that contributes to the negative sentiment.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#488

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:31 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #480

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.

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.

The government needs a warrant to search you, your home, your vehicle, your email, etc. The government does not need a warrant to record you in public spaces.

You're correct that the government can't use a third party to circumvent privacy laws. But privacy laws never prohibited what Flock does. The government could directly set up its own cameras in public, and nothing about that violated the Fourth Amendment.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#489

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:31 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #485

Manuel_D wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drivers have a right not to have their car searched without probable cause. But being photographed in public is not a search.

Those photographs go into a searchable database.

And?

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#490

Post by hbn » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:32 PM UTC

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…

This is much easier fixed by judges actually locking up career criminals but they're so "empathetic" they let lunatics run freely and terrorize communities.