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

581–587 of 587 posts

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#581

Post by presentation »

brookst wrote: post #118
presentation wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting aside how disproportionately noisy some activist types are, it probably has to do with Americans having practically no trust in one another, corporations in particular, and their government by extension. At the same time, Americans tend to value some positive forms of liberty - like the ability to say and do what you want in one moment - far more than other forms of liberty - like the ability for all people t…

In the US flock is routinely used by law enforcement personnel to stalk exes and for other abuses. Are police in those other countries equally untrustworthy?

To me, that’s a problem of oversight, audit trails, consequences, and the relationship of police with their communities; not of Flock itself. And based on what I’m reading, they are reacting - criminal case IDs will be required to do searches and automated monitoring of misuse will be mandatory by default soon. So the anger against Flock itself seems misplaced.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#582

Post by doc_ick »

nonethewiser wrote: post #78
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…

>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. Primary example: U.S. government officials pressuring social-media platforms through intermediaries to suppress constitutionally protected speech.

Now was there a realistic health risk involved in that “primary example”? If only everyone just told the truth instead of buying the rights to it.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#583

Post by brookst »

presentation wrote: post #581
brookst wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US flock is routinely used by law enforcement personnel to stalk exes and for other abuses. Are police in those other countries equally untrustworthy?

To me, that’s a problem of oversight, audit trails, consequences, and the relationship of police with their communities; not of Flock itself. And based on what I’m reading, they are reacting - criminal case IDs will be required to do searches and automated monitoring of misuse will be mandatory by default soon. So the anger against Flock itself seems misplaced.

Sure, in the same way that anger against guns is misplaced, in the US, because the US is unique in the world with its social psychosis around guns.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#584

Post by exoverito »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #555
slibhb wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prod…

> That sounds like an argument for anarchism. Fundamentally impossible. Power structures are inherent to all human social activity. Even if we instantaneously abolished all governments and all power structures, new ones would spontaneously form immediately after. > I am very unimpressed by political philosophies that take arguments to their logical conclusion. People's inability or unwillingness to take things to the…

Good post. Keep fighting the good fight.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#585

Post by exoverito »

malfist wrote: post #151
lisper wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be missing a basic fact about how the world works: there are two classes of people, those who make the rules, and those who are expected to follow the rules. These classes are largely disjoint.

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” — Frank Wilhoit

A guy who worked for the CIA and was friends with Kissinger in college. If you accept his definition uncritically, then you have some work to do.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#586

Post by exoverito »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #321
lisper wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be missing a basic fact about how the world works: there are two classes of people, those who make the rules, and those who are expected to follow the rules. These classes are largely disjoint.

Yet still, every now and then, a king is executed.

Get to work.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#587

Post by mastermage »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #168
mastermage wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a great argument for Less Surveilance and Overreach.

Big time. The harder the feds have to work to ruin someone's life the better. The more power granted, the heavier the collar and chain should be.

100% oversight commitees should be regularly conveening over their actions. And these Oversight Comitees should not be Politicians but random people.
Post reply on HN