Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#111

Post by Corrado »

delecti wrote: post #66
therobots927 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He won’t for long. The backlash is just getting started. Left or right, no one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance. His only advantage is that the cops are on his side and won’t let go of these cameras without a fight.

> no one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance But sadly lots of people want everyone else subject to it, and some are willing to submit to it themselves to get it. It's not a foregone conclusion.

I was recently at a "town hall" meeting in my community and spoke with a older woman about Flock cameras. Initially she was not concerned about it and was generally in favor of the idea.

I agreed that there could be benefits but that the downside is that they know when and where you go to church, or the grocery, or where you get your hair done, or even when you go on vacation. Her eyes lit up and I she replied that she would have to think about that a bit.

I'm not saying that I changed her mind, but that bringing the consequences down to something she could understand was much better than yelling from the rooftops. Mentioning church is especially impactful with a lot of older folks.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#112

Post by someguydave »

waNpyt-menrew wrote: post #31
RankingMember wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answer to that is the only one that matters. Is it, though? Crime would be super low if we were all confined to prison cells by default, too.

[flagged]

HN has become much dumber as X became less censured.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#113

Post by cucumber3732842 »

energy123 wrote: post #86
anthonypasq wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think politicians have seriously underestimated how much people don't like crime, and most people would take constant surveillance if it could actually improve feelings of safety in urban environments.

Enforcing public safety effectively is one of the most pro-democracy things you can do. Otherwise people use democracy to elect public safety authoritarians like the wildly popular Bukele and Duterte.

So we should 1984 the crap out of ourselves because if we don't we'll elect an authoritarian who'll 1984 the crap out of us?

Reminds me of this classic: https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/11/2020-11-07-22.31.49.j...

Yeah, I'm all for public safety in theory but seems like these days that's just a dog whistle for "go hard on whatever sort of petty deviance I don't like" and so I'm unwilling to support things like that in the default case. It's all just so tiresome.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#114

Post by kennywinker »

peab wrote: post #50
waNpyt-menrew wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's a stretch for sure. I think the point is that it's a tradeoff of civil liberties in exchange for safety. I think it's an interesting discussion and it's not clear to me what the right answer is. Given the first amendment in the USA, i think once it's cheap enough everyone will be filming everyone all the time. Just look at how many people have ring doorbells.

The first amendment?? Is surveillance speech now? Lets add it to the list: money is speech, surveillance is speech, protesting is NOT speech. Anything I’m missing?

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#115

Post by xhkkffbf »

zulux wrote: post #49
hrimfaxi wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was over a decade ago. I wonder if it has gotten better or worse since.

It's gotten worse: I'm so tired of rampant crime that I'm up for a little surveillance. And I used to donate to the ACLU before they went crazy.

Yup. Some "teens" can riding down my street with a pellet gun shooting at the cars. They ended up breaking 3 to 5 windows. It probably cost us collectively $3000++.

The only problem with the license plate readers is that the "teens" drive cars with fake tags. They deliberately copy the plate numbers from some granny with the same model. Makes it fun when the SWAT team knocks on Granny's door.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#116

Post by eitally »

anthonypasq wrote: post #84
therobots927 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He won’t for long. The backlash is just getting started. Left or right, no one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance. His only advantage is that the cops are on his side and won’t let go of these cameras without a fight.

i think politicians have seriously underestimated how much people don't like crime, and most people would take constant surveillance if it could actually improve feelings of safety in urban environments.

I think it's also true that many people are wildly out of touch when they think about how "safe" their local municipality is.

The Bay Area is objectively safe, for example, yet I constantly run into neighbors in affluent neighborhoods who are afraid of venturing various places, letting their kids play outside or bike to school, or just generally exploring around.

I was at a BayFC match last weekend, for example, and ran into the family of an acquaintance from my elementary daughter's school. They have an 8th grader and are trying to get an intra-district transfer approved for high school so she doesn't have to go to the neighborhood school where a student brought a ghost gun on campus 3 years ago (he was arrested and successfully prosecuted, and no one was hurt)... and instead go to the local school where a handful of kids arranged their bodies in a swastika pattern on the football field (and photographed it!) several months ago. My point isn't that either of these crimes is acceptable, but that people tend to be irrational and ignorant of statistical analysis. Both of these are good schools with better than average student outcomes, but families consistently bring their own prejudices into analysis and it creates mild chaos & havoc across the system overall.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#117

Post by krastanov »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #113
energy123 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcing public safety effectively is one of the most pro-democracy things you can do. Otherwise people use democracy to elect public safety authoritarians like the wildly popular Bukele and Duterte.

So we should 1984 the crap out of ourselves because if we don't we'll elect an authoritarian who'll 1984 the crap out of us? Reminds me of this classic: https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/11/2020-11-07-22.31.49.j... Yeah, I'm all for public safety in theory but seems like these days that's just a dog whistle for "go hard on whatever sort of petty deviance I don't like" and so I'm unwilling to support things like tha…

I read OP differently. I thought they said "we should invest in non-dystopian public safety[1] to avoid dystopian populist creating a 1984 version of public safety".

[1]: I imagine this includes things like mental heath help, housing, and other related social safety nets.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#118

Post by HelloMcFly »

stuffn wrote: post #98
HelloMcFly wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answer to that is the only one that matters. This statement rests on the belief that absolute crime rate is the only thing that matters, and is a cousin to the "I have nothing to hide!" response from people who care little for intrusions to their privacy. Are you in favor of giving law enforcement authorities a way to unlock all private electronic devices? I'm willing to tolerate the presence of some crime in t…

You’re going to be so shocked to find out the tracking device the government tricked you to put in your pocket is even worse. Police can run geofenced dragnets whenever they want, and all you got was the ability to shitpost on the Internet. You’ll be even more shocked when biometric login isn’t protected by the 5th amendment. Possibly, even more shocked when you find out about XKEYSCORE. ALPR is bad, of course, but i…

I won't be shocked (I don't have biometric logins enabled, thankyouverymuch), but does that mean I just celebrate it, or give up in all circumstances? I'm not yet a kicked dog, in either behavior or attitude.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#119

Post by jkestner »

gorgonical wrote: post #21

Musician-turning-tech anarchist (?) Benn Jordan is making a very interesting series of videos about Flock cameras, their poor safety, and their gray-area interfacing with local governments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMIwNiwQewQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU1-uiUlHTo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ I recommend them.

Benn's videos along with this one from a very chill middle-aged engineer/state rep made the difference in swaying our town to discontinue its Flock contract: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwbE5ks7dFg

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#120

Post by yabutlivnWoods »

anthonypasq wrote: post #84
therobots927 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He won’t for long. The backlash is just getting started. Left or right, no one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance. His only advantage is that the cops are on his side and won’t let go of these cameras without a fight.

i think politicians have seriously underestimated how much people don't like crime, and most people would take constant surveillance if it could actually improve feelings of safety in urban environments.

Often what we criminalize is stupid.

Giving away food to homeless is a crime in many places. Bad capitalism.

Feelings of insecurity are manufactured relative to the danger posed:

https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-die...

Post reply on HN