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

Stop Flock

stopflock.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#151

Post by jojobas »

buzer wrote: post #144
jojobas wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that achievable? PIs can legally do it. Random people can keep tabs on you and exchange gossip. It's the sudden scale and low cost that doesn't sit well with freedom to not be tracked in public 24/7 we took for granted.

If PIs can "legally" do it then it sounds like there is a law which allows them to do it. That law can be revoked (unless the power comes from Constitution which would make it effectively impossible to revoke). Note that PIs are effectively illegal under GDPR by default. They would generally need to provide Article 13 notice, i.e. you would become aware of them unless they were just asking around without actually fol…

In the US, PI licensing is only about PIing for hire. The actual act of going through public records, following cars and whatnot do not require a license, you can spy on anyone without a license as long as you don't get paid for it.

EU is more complicated, but Article 14.5.b allows withholding notice if it would impair/defeat the purpose of processing. The PI must however apply "safeguards", whatever it could mean.

Re: Stop Flock

#152

Post by jedberg »

tptacek wrote: post #62
jedberg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, that's why I said "including law enforcement" :)

So we're clear, you believe there should be a law that, when a police department collects information about you during a criminal investigation, they should notify you directly that they've done so?

Specifically, I believe that if information that is held by a private 3rd party I accessed by anyone, law enforcement or otherwise, that third party should be required to tell you that it was requested and by whom. Just like they can't put a gag order on a search warrant to your home, this hypothetical search would be exempt from gag orders.

Re: Stop Flock

#153

Post by fffernan »

Live in a neighborhood that privately installed cameras. The city also installed cameras. Before the camera's cars used to come and raid houses and worker's trucks. It was quite common. The neighborhood has statistics and tracks how many stolen cars / plates drove through the neighborhood. All crime statistics dropped, police show up and arrest people. Saying its an illusion of safety is bullshit. It's all fake until you're a victim of a crime. We need our own way to fight back against gangs, etc. I'd rather have more cameras and less police. Also lets get some drones as well, they work fantastic in SF. The city owns the data its not getting sold. It gets erased unless a crime is reported.

Re: Stop Flock

#154

Post by jedberg »

TZubiri wrote: post #104
jedberg wrote: post #27

We need a law that says if you hold any data about a person, they must be notified when anyone accesses it, including law enforcement. I used to work in criminal investigations. I understand how this might make investigation of real crime more difficult. But so does the fact that you need a warrant to enter someone's home, and yet we manage to investigate crime anyway. Your data should be an extension of your home, e…

Trying to understand the position here. This would be excluding gag orders correct? And regular orders currently notify the service provider, but they don't necessarily notify the target, they just don't have a prohibition on the service provider notifying the target. Finally, recordings of public areas actually aren't be impacted by warrants at all, right? But what you are saying is not just that LEA would need warr…

> This would be excluding gag orders correct?

Much like you can't gag a search warrant on a home, you wouldn't be able to gag these orders either.

> And regular orders currently notify the service provider, but they don't necessarily notify the target, they just don't have a prohibition on the service provider notifying the target.

True, but my proposal would require that they notify you.

> Finally, recordings of public areas actually aren't be impacted by warrants at all, right?

No, but I'm saying this should apply to any time a 3rd party releases information to anyone, including law enforcement. In this case the Flock cameras feed into a private database. They should disclose when someone looks something up.

> And how exactly would I be notified?

Presumably if they can identify you then there would be a way to notify you. But those details could be left to the author of the bill.

My main point is that your data, when housed with a 3rd party, should be considered an extension of your home and offer the same guarentees and protections as the items actually in your home.

Re: Stop Flock

#155

Post by lobofta »

TheTxT wrote: post #129
crm9125 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry... people think that the problem with, a school shooting , is camera placement? Something, something, forest, trees.

"No way to prevent this" says the only country where this regularly happens

Arm the teachers!

Re: Stop Flock

#156

Post by Perseids »

nandomrumber wrote: post #137
caconym_ wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly it should probably just be illegal for anyone, private or public, to engage in mass surveillance (or "data gathering", whatever) of anybody who didn't expressly consent to it. As long as the data exist, they will be abused.

But I did expressly consent. When I installed the SoundCloud app and it told me by continuing I agree to them sharing my data with their 954 partners.[1] 1. I’m not even joining. When I mostly recently installed the SoundCloud app - for the first time on a new device, that’s what’s it said: 954 partners. How can anyone reasonably understand what it is their agreeing to in that scenario.

This is the important point. You need the right to not be discriminated when you withhold your consent, otherwise your consent is effectively meaningless, as it is forced on you by your impossible bargaining position. This is one of the central pillars of the GDPR without which it wouldn't work at all. Be advised to make asking customers for consent that doesn't directly benefit them illegal as well, lest you risk creating another wave of malicious cookie banners.

Re: Stop Flock

#157

Post by ellefire »

stopachka wrote: post #132

I am surprised how overwhelmingly negative the comments are here. I would have expected at least a few voices defending Flock. I'll step in and add a voice. Ultimately, Flock is solving a real problem with crime. This is why police departments when them. Stopping Flock doesn't address the need that got police departments to use them. If you want to "stop flock", you need to address that need better.

"stopping a real problem with crime" i.e. employing mass surveillance to hunt down women who want to terminate a pregnancy

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas...

Re: Stop Flock

#158

Post by dzhiurgis »

stevemk14ebr wrote: post #18
bmitch3020 wrote: post #10

I don't want to stop Flock the company. I want to stop Flock the business model, along with all the other mass surveillance, and the data brokers. If the business models can't be made illegal, it should at least come with liabilities so high that no sane business would want to hold data that is essentially toxic waste. Without that, we are quickly spiraling into the dystopia where privacy is gone, and when the wrong…

You want to stop the source, which is that the government and other agencies can purchase surveillance data that would otherwise be disallowed by the 4th amendment. We need to end this 'laundering' of information through third parties, and enforce the constitution by its intent.

Yeah nah I’d rather stop the criminals.

Re: Stop Flock

#159

Post by latexr »

ryanjshaw wrote: post #133
stopachka wrote: post #132

I am surprised how overwhelmingly negative the comments are here. I would have expected at least a few voices defending Flock. I'll step in and add a voice. Ultimately, Flock is solving a real problem with crime. This is why police departments when them. Stopping Flock doesn't address the need that got police departments to use them. If you want to "stop flock", you need to address that need better.

I am not American, but in my extremely dangerous country we have many privately-operated cameras and I don’t know a single person who is against them. We also have strict privacy laws. So I was disappointed by what felt like very weak arguments in the article. Basically seems to come down it “it can be abused”. But many things can be abused. The solution is to fix the abuse problem. I’d like to hear stronger argument…

> The solution is to fix the abuse problem.

No, the solution is to fix the societal issues leading people to resort to crime. Surveillance cameras are not a solution, they are a band-aid placed several steps away from the wound.

Re: Stop Flock

#160

Post by buzer »

jojobas wrote: post #151
buzer wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If PIs can "legally" do it then it sounds like there is a law which allows them to do it. That law can be revoked (unless the power comes from Constitution which would make it effectively impossible to revoke). Note that PIs are effectively illegal under GDPR by default. They would generally need to provide Article 13 notice, i.e. you would become aware of them unless they were just asking around without actually fol…

In the US, PI licensing is only about PIing for hire. The actual act of going through public records, following cars and whatnot do not require a license, you can spy on anyone without a license as long as you don't get paid for it. EU is more complicated, but Article 14.5.b allows withholding notice if it would impair/defeat the purpose of processing. The PI must however apply "safeguards", whatever it could mean.

Article 14(5)(b) does, but that only applies for Article 14 notice (personal data not directly obtained from data subject). Article 13 (personal data obtained directly from data subject) does not have such exception in GDPR itself.

This becomes extremely relevant when you read it in the light of the C-422/24 decision. In that personal data collected via body worn cameras was determined to be "directly obtained". Paragraph 41 from the judgement:

> If it were accepted that Article 14 of the GDPR applies where personal data are collected by means of a body camera, the data subject would not receive any information at the time of collection, even though he or she is the source of those data, which would allow the controller not to provide information to that data subject immediately. Therefore, such an interpretation would carry the risk of the collection of personal data escaping the knowledge of the data subject and giving rise to hidden surveillance practices. Such a consequence would be incompatible with the objective, referred to in the preceding paragraph, of ensuring a high level of protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons.

Given this it's very unlikely that PI observing (especially if they record) could be considered to be Article 14 instead of Article 13 type of collection as it's exactly "hidden surveillance practice" that the Court warned about.

Member states do have a right to restrict the Article 13 disclosure obligations via Article 23 restriction, but that requires specific law in the member state & the law itself must fulfill the obligations that Article 23 requires. Article 23(2) essentially forbids leaving everything up to the controller.

And as far as PI in the US goes, actions between stalking and PI "for self" tend to be so similar that I wouldn't necessarily recommend anyone to try it.

Post reply on HN