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

131–140 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#131

Post by SoftTalker »

baggachipz wrote: post #43

I drove into a very affluent subdivision this weekend, and like most others around here it had a flock camera recording every car on the way in. This camera, however, had the gall to advertise its presence as a neighborhood security measure. "Flock Safety watches this neighborhood" read the sign on the post, or some such. Of course the residents there had no choice but to accept its installation, as the local police…

Most of the houses probably have little yard signs advertising some security service, and stickers on the doors advertising an alarm company too.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#132

Post by gnerd00 »

this kind of headline might have some scholarly name, because, no... actually the number of cameras and feeds in the San Francisco Bay Area is multiplying rapidly, along with the entirety of California with few exceptions.. long ago, San Diego county, a military-led area, was the exception and to many pariah on the constant increase in tracking of vehicles, people and "events".. now, what used to be thought of as harsh and creepy, is not only matched in hardware, but exceeded in backend capacity, across almost every populated area

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#133

Post by alex43578 »

baggachipz wrote: post #78
bob1029 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no choice but to accept its installation You might be shocked to discover there are subdivisions so affluent they can afford physical armed security and access control structures with far more invasive identification and logging procedures.

I am not shocked to know that, but there are Flock cameras all over the town. None of the other ones have this advertisement on them. This neighborhood is not gated. However, Flock decided to do announce its presence only here.

Why is this such a surprise? It’s just like those “ADT Monitoring” signs in someone’s yard, scaled to the community.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#134

Post by sophacles »

deadbabe wrote: post #90
therobots927 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but you can always leave your phone behind if you want to drop off the map. Flock makes that borderline impossible.

You can remove your license plate, you will get pretty far before it actually gets you pulled over.

Leaving a cellphone behind is legal still. Removing a license plate is breaking the law.

Drawing an equivalence is foolish.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#135

Post by doctorpangloss »

jmuguy wrote: post #7

I'm surprised Garrett Langley still has a job, he seems wildly out of touch. For instance he really believes that his Panopticon as a service is the reason crime is down in cities, conveniently ignoring crime rates prior to COVID.

Another POV is, they didn't invent cameras or drones, they aren't philosophers / employ any great or influential thinkers, nobody at Flock has won an election, all they really have done is sell some stuff that is easily defeated by a guy with a hammer or spray paint. I'm not sure he has another chance at a big Pay Day in his life, so in such desperate circumstances it will take something really criminal (or souring with VCs) to end this appearance in public life.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#137

Post by alex43578 »

anthonypasq wrote: post #85
gosub100 wrote: post #17

Someone in my hometown was arrested for vandalizing them. The media chose to say "city owned security camera". It's amazing how they will rush to defend private enterprise.

the alternative is to not punish vandalism? what are you even saying?

[flagged]

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#138

Post by radiorental »

elphinstone wrote: post #33
Dezvous wrote: post #5

It's quite ironic to get an amazon ring video ad while viewing this article.

An obnoxious, autoplay-at-full-volume ad that took the page an extra 30 seconds to load and somehow bypassed firefox adblockers...

Firefox 149 + ublock origin did not display ads for me

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#139

Post by ceejayoz »

SoftTalker wrote: post #127
oooyay wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of these camera systems also usually come with a kangaroo civil court of sorts. Last time I looked at red light camera distribution in Texas it was also fairly obvious that they were only installing them in poorer areas. These systems were largely disliked bipartisanly because of those factors.

They install them where the data show that people are running red lights.

Where the data shows people are getting caught running red lights.

Which isn't necessarily where the most incidents are.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#140

Post by baggachipz »

SoftTalker wrote: post #131
baggachipz wrote: post #43

I drove into a very affluent subdivision this weekend, and like most others around here it had a flock camera recording every car on the way in. This camera, however, had the gall to advertise its presence as a neighborhood security measure. "Flock Safety watches this neighborhood" read the sign on the post, or some such. Of course the residents there had no choice but to accept its installation, as the local police…

Most of the houses probably have little yard signs advertising some security service, and stickers on the doors advertising an alarm company too.

Ok? They paid for those.
Post reply on HN