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

Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 534 posts

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#141

Post by [deleted] »

AlexandrB wrote: post #22
the__alchemist wrote: post #10

This breakdown in rule of law is unfortunate. Ideally, this would be handled by, in order of desirability: - Flock decision-makers and customers holding ethics as a priority, and not taking the actions they are due to sense of duty, community, morals etc - Peer pressure resulting in ostracization of Flock execs and decision makers until they stop the unethical behavior - Governments using legislation and law enforcem…

What other social issues should be solved with vigilante justice? I don't like all this surveillance stuff, but Flock is just the tip of the iceberg and "direct action" against Flock is just as likely to backfire as it is to lead to changes. More importantly, once you give folks moral license to do this stuff it's hard to contain the scope of their activity.

[deleted]

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#142

Post by t-3 »

yardie wrote: post #58
Waterluvian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not ideal, but it is necessary when the higher-desirability options are not working. What has worried me for years is that Americans would not resort to this level. That things are just too comfortable at home to take that brave step into the firing lines of being on the right side of justice but the wrong side of the law. I'm relieved to see more and more Americans causing necessary trouble. I still think th…

You won't get to the kind of change you thought you would see until food runs low and the economy stalls. The American Revolution was rare in that it didn't need to happen. The Founders were just being giant assholes (j/k). While the French Revolution just a few decades later was more status quo. A lot of starvation and poverty just pushed the population over the edge.

The American and French revolutions originated in the middle classes. The poor are often indifferent to politics because they're focused on survival. The middle classes, who own things they don't want to lose and have free time to aspire for more, are the ones who start revolutions. The poor only came in after being whipped up by the interested parties, and don't necessarily join the revolutionary side.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#143

Post by rurp »

danaris wrote: post #68
ryandvm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real breakdown in the rule of law occurred when the US Supreme Court made the specious decision that amoral business entities (corporations) had the same rights in a democracy as citizens. All this shit flows downhill from Citizens United.

Citizens United was just the inevitable outgrowth of Buckley v. Valeo 50 years ago, declaring that money == speech. That was the wellspring of all this shit.

Supreme Court decisions are not a deterministic process like you get with code. Justices twist and contradict precedents to suit their ideological goals all the time; these days they don't even try to hide it much. The Citizens United decision wasn't something that had to happen, it was a deliberate choice by conservatives.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#144

Post by bullfightonmars »

achierius wrote: post #122
wrs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What confuses me is that no revolution is required. All we had to do to avoid this was to vote. Voting would still (probably) work.

Just like how all we had to do to shut down Guantanamo Bay was vote for President Obama, right? So glad that that worked out. By and large, our institutions are not democratic, in that they are not responsive to 'popular opinion'; while there are certain arenas where, for one reason or another, the will of the majority does sway the day (e.g. the influence of scandals on individual elected officials), by and large mo…

This is ahistoric. No-one ever said we had to "just vote for Obama" to close Guantanamo Bay.

Frankly, Obama _tried_ to close Guantanamo Bay. He significantly shrunk the population of inmates, but it was ultimately Congress, and the courts that prevented the closure

Obama spent a huge amount of time and political capital trying to clean up Bush's messes.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#145

Post by jacquesm »

yardie wrote: post #58
Waterluvian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not ideal, but it is necessary when the higher-desirability options are not working. What has worried me for years is that Americans would not resort to this level. That things are just too comfortable at home to take that brave step into the firing lines of being on the right side of justice but the wrong side of the law. I'm relieved to see more and more Americans causing necessary trouble. I still think th…

You won't get to the kind of change you thought you would see until food runs low and the economy stalls. The American Revolution was rare in that it didn't need to happen. The Founders were just being giant assholes (j/k). While the French Revolution just a few decades later was more status quo. A lot of starvation and poverty just pushed the population over the edge.

> You won't get to the kind of change you thought you would see until food runs low and the economy stalls.

These are no longer impossibles.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#146

Post by steviedotboston »

kstrauser wrote: post #51
steviedotboston wrote: post #43

This is really bad for all the reasons that people have mentioned (vigilante "justice" never is a good thing) but people have a misplaced understanding of right and wrong here. Flock cameras have helped solve some major crimes, and people will be glad to have this technology around if they are ever a victim.

Police states are great at solving major crimes. And when those are sufficiently solved, to justify their continued existence, they have to solve lesser crimes, repeating until you need enough surveillance to ensure no one's flushing their toilet improperly. Police states are like autoimmune diseases under the hygiene hypothesis. They'll keep ramping up their sensitivity until they're attacking everything, even when…

Flock cameras can be helpful in all sorts of crimes. They've been used to solve everything from kidnappings to minor property damage.

There obviously isn't a future without crime. This is just a tool to make it easier for police to do their job and deter criminals somewhat, but that is probably marginal.

There will always be kidnappings, there will always be property damage. Having technology available to make it easier to solve those crimes seems obvious to me.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#147

Post by mrtesthah »

scottyah wrote: post #111
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right has become so untenable that the only viable defense of it is a bad faith distraction tactic to pretend that it's comparable to the left.

You're in a bubble. It's not wholly a bad faith distraction tactic, and denying wrongdoing by anyone flying the "left" banner is a scary thought.

So one one hand we have Nazi ideas[1] being platformed by the ruling political party which has barely disguised its support for ethnically cleansing the country of all non-white people[2]. And on the other hand we have radical democratic socialist candidates proposing stabilized rent[3]. What am I missing here?

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/04/republican-part...

2. https://www.esiweb.org/newsletter/100-million-expulsions-pro...

3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/06/europe-zohra...

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#148

Post by cogogo »

chasd00 wrote: post #97
the__alchemist wrote: post #10

This breakdown in rule of law is unfortunate. Ideally, this would be handled by, in order of desirability: - Flock decision-makers and customers holding ethics as a priority, and not taking the actions they are due to sense of duty, community, morals etc - Peer pressure resulting in ostracization of Flock execs and decision makers until they stop the unethical behavior - Governments using legislation and law enforcem…

i'm not a fan of lawlessness but on the other hand, i'm 100% ok with the government living in fear of the governed.

The thing about that is the governments who most fear the governed are often extremely draconian. I actually do not think that it is constructive and it is precisely that fear that is driving things like voter suppression in the US.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#149

Post by flemhans »

magicalist wrote: post #54
steviedotboston wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and for good measure get rid of the tracking device in your pocket that you willingly use all day to send your location to facebook, X, tiktok, etc.

> and for good measure get rid of the tracking device in your pocket that you willingly use all day to send your location to facebook, X, tiktok, etc. I don't have facebook, X, or tiktok installed on my phone.

Disconnect its modem

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#150

Post by mothballed »

chasd00 wrote: post #97
the__alchemist wrote: post #10

This breakdown in rule of law is unfortunate. Ideally, this would be handled by, in order of desirability: - Flock decision-makers and customers holding ethics as a priority, and not taking the actions they are due to sense of duty, community, morals etc - Peer pressure resulting in ostracization of Flock execs and decision makers until they stop the unethical behavior - Governments using legislation and law enforcem…

i'm not a fan of lawlessness but on the other hand, i'm 100% ok with the government living in fear of the governed.

Lawlessness is superior to the law of the tyrant.

Having lived or spent time in a lot of 3rd world shitholes, including a civil war, I've only really felt freedom in places with lawless lack of government, never places with 'rule of law' -- that always gets twisted for the elite.

Of course the same happens in lawless regions, but power is fractured enough, there is a limit on power they can wield against the populace, as the opposing factions ultimately are a check on any one side oppressing the population to leave. They can't man machine guns at all the 'borders' and ultimately corruption becomes cheap enough that it is accessible to the common person which arguably provides more power to the common man than representative democracy does.

I think this element of factions in competition was part of the original genius of the '50' states with the very minimal federal government. But the consolidation of federal power and loss of the teeth of the 10th amendment and expansion of various clauses in the constitution means there is now no escape and very few remaining checks.

Post reply on HN