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

After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#111

Post by pandaman »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #14

Do they not get that surveillance doesn't actually make anything safe? It makes it so you can prosecute after the crime has already been committed. It's not like thieves will go "I was going to rob this 7-11, but damn, they have security cameras inside!" The cameras are there to intimidate. Criminals aren't intimidated by prison time.

It works to the point that people used to put up fake cameras when the real surveillance was expensive (CCTV cameras with multichannel VCR type of setup). Also, I am not sure you are aware, but criminals are very constrained during prison time and are limited to committing crimes against other criminals in the prison, leaving citizens alone.

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#112

Post by ianm218 »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #100
ianm218 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you are basing your opinions on here but the literature is pretty clear that their main concern is how likely they think they will be apprehended and cameras + technology + law enforcement clearly make that more likely.

I can't read the paper; did it say the criminals think they will be more likely apprehended by cameras and thus choose not to commit crime? Or did it say two separate things (criminals don't want to be apprehended, cameras lead to more apprehension) and linked them logically rather than with direct evidence? Also, how can we know how much crime isn't happening due to cameras? If it's like "we installed a camera at lo…

It’s a literature study on crime deterrence and says the strongest deterrent is how likely criminals perceive apprehension.

I.e. they are much more likely to rob a grocery store if they think they won’t get caught, but the penalty for robbing a grocery store being 1 year or 10 years doesn’t have a strong effect on deterrence.

To your second point - I don’t think it is helpful to find hypothetical holes in their methodology, without reading the individual studies.

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#113

Post by davidu »

arkadiytehgraet wrote: post #52
davidu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's really telling how davidu, a GP at a16z, investor in Flock, author of https://a16z.com/announcement/investing-in-flock-safety/ is losing his mind about his investment being called out on corruption, which adds even more credulity to the accusation.

How is it more telling or adding more credulity? Wouldn’t I be in a strong position to know? And how am I losing my mind?

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#114

Post by tptacek »

ofjcihen wrote: post #109
tptacek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the municipal policy ALPR debate generally does boil down to people who have a principles opposition to technology specialized for surveillance, and other people who believe it's no different from the cell towers that already track you. Nobody's bribing a councilmember in an 800-person rural township.

Come on, a quick google search shows plenty of small town council members being charged with accepting bribes. Days ago: https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/tarrant-county/north... Multiple being charged at the same time: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-mayor-ricardo-lopez-corru... Hell, I remember my town of a few hundred at the time having a council member bribery case. Is this definitive proof? Nah. But a s…

You're right, I was speaking imprecisely. Giant national companies are not bribing 800-person Texas hamlets to get the revenue for 3-4 cameras (less the bribe).

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#115

Post by mingus88 »

tptacek wrote: post #107
mingus88 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the council member appears to be an idiot. If not, he is leaning all the way into a false equivalence comparing a cell phone one has personal control over to a nationwide network of spy cams that no regular citizen controls. So which is it? Idiot or bad faith actor?

He's using political rhetoric (ultra-common rhetoric among normies) that you disagree with. Neither category you propose fits for me, based on the limited information I have.

reductio ad absurdum is what I think you are referring to.

But again, that’s not what this is. Taking away all cell phones, which are a lot more useful than the camera function it shares with flock, is not an equivalent move.

The issue is people don’t want their town covered in cameras they don’t control and has been shown to be abused nationwide. How on earth is removing internet access to the populace even in the same ballpark?

This is a tantrum by someone who I suspect was set to gain financially by signing a contract with flock.

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#116

Post by pocksuppet »

Bjartr wrote: post #60

The link under "would be introducing measures"[1] has the full statement from the councilmember where he describes the proposals he will be bringing: > A Modest Proposal for Digital Device Prohibition: A total ban on all cellular and GPS-capable devices for all operations within city limits. > A Modest Proposal for Total Surveillance Abolition (Residential & Commercial): A total ban on all outward-facing cameras > A…

I've lived in places with really strict regulations on surveillance cameras and it's actually pretty cool to know humans have to individually look at camera footage (no mass slurping), police can only access it with regards to an actual crime report submitted by an identifiable person, and it's deleted after 3 days unless that happens.

When I dropped my wallet the security guard still had no issue checking the camera footage.

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#117

Post by arikrahman »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #16
arikrahman wrote: post #2

I was expecting the headline to be sensational but a crash out was exactly what happened. The bad faith non-sequiturs is the cherry on top.

[flagged]

That's fair, I do have to reconcile myself to the fact that they are genuinely thinking of what's best for the community.

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#118

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #75

Flowers would make a great HN commenter Classic "all-or-nothing", "black and white" argument style It's either one extreme or another If the town wants to ban Flock cameras then surely it also wants to ban all outward-facing cameras, GPS-capable devices, cellular network devices, internet service and electronic record-keeping There is no option to go back to a few years ago before Flock cameras were installed. Nope,…

Was 2
Post reply on HN