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

591–599 of 599 posts

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#591

Post by croon »

Manuel_D wrote: post #519
text0404 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need a warrant if they're going to record and track my movements over the course of months.

If they're only tracking your movements in public, the no they do not. Again, you're just wrong about what privacy laws protect. They do not prohibit the police from surveilling or tracking you, they only control how the police is able to conduct that surveillance. If the police want to search your house or car, they need a warrant or at least probable cause for the latter. If they want to photograph you in public, t…

IANAL disclaimer.

Police do need a warrant to place a GPS device on your vehicle.

Data continuity is a function of data point frequency [0]. If all public space (and some participating private space) is monitored, the practical difference between a GPS device and a retroactive dragnet system disappears.

You are correct that police do not require a warrant to follow someone around in public, but these systems aren't that, and in practice much closer to the GPS tracking, which does require a warrant. It's unclear without trying this further in court which this should qualify as.

IMO: If the system has seen me exit the public space outside my home, or work, or someone elses home, or a store, or whevever, the system knows where I am at all points in time, like a GPS, with very little exception.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_effect

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#593

Post by presentation »

brookst wrote: post #583
presentation wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, and the way to change US culture/laws around guns probably isn’t to break the windows of random gun shops.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#594

Post by malfist »

exoverito wrote: post #585
malfist wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

You can engage with the quote if you disagree with it and have reasons it's wrong or you can deflect with an ad hominem.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#595

Post by DrScientist »

15155 wrote: post #573
DrScientist wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I'm well aware of these cases (and have commented about the specific statute in question in the past here.) The originally-purported analogy of a "public Flock" that you can "actually use" is completely different than what the statute protects. "Hey! Look! Here's an ICE agent's home address" is a lot different than "here's a list of vehicles who traveled down this street on a given date and time." The statute in ques…

The original posters premise was the way to make government dragnet surveillance banned was to do a public one. In general it's a good principle however I'm not sure in this case.

I can see how a public flock, which is just a queryable database, would be ok under the current rules. But would it make the government want to regulate? They could just continue to go after data use where legal asymmetry already exists.

You could frame almost any use as some sort of stalking/harassment.

Even in this case if they shut it down, government carve outs would apply.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#596

Post by brk »

michael0church wrote: post #590
brk wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In their defense, Flock didn't start off quite this way. They were initially offering a product geared to HOAs and private entities to help with simple violations and things like that. At some point they stumbled on this loophole of allowing LEO's to sidestep restrictions on collecting and storing this kind of data, and then it took off. They were well past the YC investment at that point. (and just to be clear, at t…

I agree with your conclusion, but this is an odd defense of Flock. HOAs are objectively evil but they mostly stick to petty evil. But that is the story of technology over the past 20 years. Mark Zuckerberg was a rather ordinary ugly incel who wanted to gossip about and stalk women at Harvard (petty evil) but he had no idea, in 2004, what Facebook would become. These devices are built by petty malefactors at first, bu…

To be clear, I was defending YC's investment in them, not Flock at their early stages. If you have spoken to Garrett in the early days you would have heard a much different vision than today.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#597

Post by roblatham »

exoverito wrote: post #585
malfist wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

There is indeed a Frank Wilhoit you're thinking of (died in 2010, active in political science and a professor at Drake University)

The Frank Wilhoit quoted in parent is just some random dude who posted a pithy comment on a blog post. so good news, you can engage with the quote without any Kissinger or CIA baggage.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#599

Post by pizzafeelsright »

laimewhisps wrote: post #409
pizzafeelsright wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Executed people cannot commit crimes. Educate that theft means repayment or death. The rest follows.

No property on earth is equal to that of a human life. Want to lower property crime? Decrease wealth inequality. It's amazing to me how people who make far more than the average person get so worked up over property crime. I can afford to replace anything of mine that's stolen, it's literally not that big of a deal.

A man has a car. It is stolen. He has insurance, sure. Insurance for others, along with the owner, now go up. That insurance will not pay for the time and energy lost in getting a rental, nor the time and energy loss in reporting the crime. The car is replaced, with what? Hopefully not the one stolen because it is now tainted by damage, ill will, poor operations.

His newer car, which was replaced, now sits and is at once again an object that the previous thief can steal again, and again, and again.

The cycle repeats. The thief, if caught, does not restore the car owner or is even owed compensation. The thief pays in time served, the thief's expenses are paid for by the car owner, through taxes, and the cycle repeats.

End the cycle. End the thief. The value of the human life is set by the thief, not the owner.

Post reply on HN