The audacity.
Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation
141–150 of 297 posts
Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait til you find out what money does to people.
[flagged]
This is empirically false.
re: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/22/nx-s1-5931446/flock-fallout-c...
Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation
#143Random people calling 911 on other people filming them is a staple of Youtube; banks, coffee store workers, hairdressers, most especially restaurant managers. I don't know why anyone would expect technicians from Flock to be different. It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving. You'd think from the response that this was like the VP/Sal…
> It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving. Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard. I actually agree it is unnerving, I just don't agree that one should be held to a different standard than the other.
> one should be held to a different standard than the other.
harassing a worker is not the way to fix the problem. The worker has no agency to affect the changes desired by the harasser. It's an issue with the gov't, and needs civic procedures to change.
This behaviour is the same as harassing hospitality staff for bad prices. Harassers would be considered borderline committing terrorism if they go further.
Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was literally not aware of this. I don't know if I'm going to be coming back to this site anymore. I've got some thinking to do. I am so ridiculously anti-Flock that I am not willing to discuss it, because it would be a pointless conversation.
I understand what you mean but I do not think the answer is to disengage. They will not stop. HN is an amazing place with brilliant people. I have been wrong so many times here and I own it; the amazing thing is the grace I have been shown, the support and all of the ways the community here has made me a better, more knowledgable person.
Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio has become too much work than worth.
New people who come here as novices now are given horribly bad to wrong advice constantly and even technically wrong examinations. And beyond that, now the same larping types here downvote real expertise.
It’s normal for forums so I can’t complain too much, but be aware as nice as this place is, it’s wildly uninformed.
Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation
#145Flock (YC 2017) missing from title.
We never see, "Flock (YC S17) Is Hiring an Engineer of Mass Surveillance" on the jobs.
Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also a large difference between local surveillance (home/business/area CCTV), public surveillance (openly accessible cameras like traffic cams), and dragnet surveillance- I generally trust my local police precincts but don't like the fact that the alphabet soup of federal agencies has warrantless access to track me on the way to and from church or work or Facebook marketplace deals
Honest question: If the feds were actually tracking you on your way to church, how does that impact you? Is that a real fear you have?
> Honest question: If the feds were actually tracking you on your way to church, how does that impact you?
Why do you suppose that stalking is illegal?
Before you write up any "clever" retorts, remember that many illegal activities (theft, kidnapping, murder, etc) are permitted when permission is obtained from a judge.
Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work. The bar should be higher for a company that's ostensibly being trusted to provide a law enforcement tool that's prone to misuse than for providing beverages or cosmetology.
>The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work. Should other law enforcement contractors also be subject to the same higher standard? For instance, should dell get extra flak if one of their contractors called 911, because they were installing PCs for a police department? If not, this just seems like a way of applying a doubl…
I don't buy into your premise. A hairdresser, barista, Dell installer, etc are not out in the open public. These people are in places open to the public but not considered public. These people can deny your "right" to be there, and impose rules/restrictions on what you can do in their open to the public space. Go against those rules/restrictions and you are no longer welcome.
You are really trying to contort yourself into some very uninteresting twists.