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

Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

wltx.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 166 posts

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#151

Post by NewsaHackO »

ben_w wrote: post #101
Angostura wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. 4 strikes and you are out seems fine to me (as a UK driver). You can also opt to take a speed awareness course in leu of the points, I believe

4 strikes today with current speed enforcement is fine; 4 strikes in a hypothetical where 100% of infractions are caught, I aver will catch (almost) everyone who actually drives within a month.

I think what he is trying to say though is that people will start to drive slower, especially if they need to drive to function/get to their job.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#152

Post by mapt »

clickety_clack wrote: post #102
egorfine wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another example is road traffic law. Even just speeding offences, I think you probably catch everyone who actually drives in the UK, often enough that after a month the only people left allowed to drive would be people like me who don't even own a car. You don't have to strip the driving licenses. You should impose a fine and not an extremely painful one for starters. And then probably within less than a year the w…

The point he’s making that people violate the letter of the law in many, many small ways, and to prosecute people for all of them would be a crippling burden on both individuals and the economy.

One obvious response is that if 100% enforcement of laws is causing social problems, maybe you just have bad laws and need to change them.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#153

Post by Lammy »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #26

Anyone can tell, why were those cameras installed in first place? Some company just said "lol for the fun" or what? Who paid for them?

Relevant federal payola:

- https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary...

- https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyis...

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#154

Post by speleding »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #145
speleding wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody made that exact same "slippery slope to Nazi Germany" argument when euthanasia was legalized here. That was decades ago. There have been several attempts to broaden or narrow the scope of those laws and the democratic institutions did just what they were designed to do, making changes judiciously. If you are worried about the slippery slope, then you are really worried that democracy does not work as intend…

> If you are worried about the slippery slope, then you are really worried that democracy does not work as intended. Not really. That's a well established failure mode. People's perceptions can gradually shift as they become accustomed to the new way of doing things. Personally I'd be less concerned about a slippery slope and more concerned about abrupt changes in policy. All infrastructure should be designed with th…

Are you saying democracy is working as intended, but you don't like the outcome?

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#155

Post by ben_w »

jacquesm wrote: post #124
ben_w wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with that, I do mind. Just as two trivial examples, even though neither affects me personally: The estimated number of heroin users in the UK exceeds the total prison population. The number of class-A drug users in the UK is estimated to be so high that if they actually followed the minimum sentencing guidelines for possession, it would cause a catastrophic economic disaster both from all the people no longer wo…

Speed cameras are a source of income, they are not for enforcement or safety.

My understanding is this varies wildly by jurisdiction.

But it doesn't matter to my point: assume it's just about income, put the cameras everywhere, how fast does it make driving unaffordable?

Same for anything with a fine, e.g. would littering fines be enough to replace taxation, but in a weird way that also puts the messiest subset of the population into life-long bankruptcy to pay those fines?

(Of course, current AI is nowhere near good enough for this, if it was those Amazon "AI-powered" "cashier-free" shops wouldn't have secretly been done by humans watching CCTV).

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#156

Post by boisterousness »

sneak wrote: post #40

I am less worried about Flock ALPR (which are aimed in the direction of traffic flow to read rear number plates) as I am about the THOUSANDS of facial recognition cameras installed in the last year in all four directions at nearly every intersection in southern Nevada and many many cities in southern California (LA notably excepted). These are mounted above the stoplights and aimed against traffic at stoplights to re…

> These [cameras] are mounted above the stoplights and aimed against traffic at stoplights to read faces.

Those cameras are for traffic detection, so the signal can turn green when a car comes. They aren't reading faces.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#157

Post by ranger_danger »

jacquesm wrote: post #124
ben_w wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with that, I do mind. Just as two trivial examples, even though neither affects me personally: The estimated number of heroin users in the UK exceeds the total prison population. The number of class-A drug users in the UK is estimated to be so high that if they actually followed the minimum sentencing guidelines for possession, it would cause a catastrophic economic disaster both from all the people no longer wo…

Speed cameras are a source of income, they are not for enforcement or safety.

Two things can be true at once

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#158

Post by tclancy »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #133
tclancy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels so in bad faith as there’s a claim ICE could use the footage if it’s public domain. They already can and that’s one of the big arguments against it you clowns.

beyond that it also implies "but the bad guys could then trawl all this data; only us, the good guys should be able to do that!"

Yeah, that's even more important, isn't it. It begs the question, framing the conversation as "Who should have access to this invasive, privacy-destroying footage" rather than "WTF? Stop this."

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#160

Post by iso1631 »

tln wrote: post #115
ben_w wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 strikes today with current speed enforcement is fine; 4 strikes in a hypothetical where 100% of infractions are caught, I aver will catch (almost) everyone who actually drives within a month.

If notice of the infractions is a envelope delivered days later and sitting on on end table for a week, typical drivers are going to rack up 4 strikes before seeing the first one! Perfect enforcement has to come with immediate feedback

I remember a case from decades ago when someone went from clean license to a ban within 3 miles
Post reply on HN