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

The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#151

Post by inigyou »

felixgallo wrote: post #16
mannanj wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action What about if the speech is censored, shadow-banned, limited etc in some other ways? Where the governed does not know their speech was limited in reach, censored etc? (which btw is a real approach social media companies are taking today).

the right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to amplify your particular post.

You're thinking of the first amendment. Twitter banning me infringes my free speech but not my first amendment rights.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#152

Post by inigyou »

wat10000 wrote: post #69
lordnacho wrote: post #35

I think I may have a minority view about surveillance. At least I need someone to explain something to me. Is the backlash really about privacy, or is the real problem a complete lack of trust in government? Because if I thought someone would actually use the cameras to enforce the law, that's not actually such a bad outcome. You aren't supposed to speed, you aren't supposed to let your dog poop without cleaning up a…

There's a social norm that it's rude to follow someone around watching everything they do, and that the state shouldn't do it unless they have good reason to suspect that person of a crime.

The effort necessary to do it used to act as a check on state power. Only the Stasi could follow everyone all the time. Other countries had to be selective.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#153

Post by vrganj »

arjie wrote: post #141

Yeah it’s quite common it seems. Similar to the ULEZ camera takedowns. And the ULEZ cameras were also supposedly a tool of government control. As were SF’s speed cameras. And so on and so forth. I am not convinced. I am happy with the speed cameras, and I’m happy with the ULEZ cameras, and I’m happy with Flock cameras. The position that we must destroy state function is outrageous to me. We have a path to peace and s…

It's one thing if a democratically legitimized government entity is in control, like with ULEZ.

It's another thing entirely if a private oligarch owns the cameras.

Flock and ULEZ are not the same.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#154

Post by RickJWagner »

daytonbuilds wrote: post #125
RickJWagner wrote: post #81

Undecided on Flock. Totally decided against vandalism. Violations of the social contract suck. Edit to invite explanations. If you approve of vandalism to flock cameras, what are your feelings about vandalizing abortion clinics, mosques or opposition political headquarters?

I would also ask, what are your feelings on vandalizing concentration camps? It's about authoritarian control, not bodily autonomy, or religious freedom.

Concentration camps were obviously against international law. Flock cameras are not.

When people decide they get to decide what’s allowable and what’s not, they break the social contract that says the will of the people will prevail. They are acting selfishly, and are damaging society.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#155

Post by RickJWagner »

dare944 wrote: post #131
RickJWagner wrote: post #81

Undecided on Flock. Totally decided against vandalism. Violations of the social contract suck. Edit to invite explanations. If you approve of vandalism to flock cameras, what are your feelings about vandalizing abortion clinics, mosques or opposition political headquarters?

Social contract also includes the expectation that, over all, businesses work for the benefit of society, not its detriment.

No, it does not. Social contract allows cigarettes, alcohol, pornography, etc. These are not overall beneficial to society, yet we allow them, by law.

When individuals decide they alone get to decide what’s allowable and what’s not they are proving themselves anti social. The civilised way to make that decision is with the help of the rest of the citizens at the voting booth.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#156

Post by Gud »

Jaxkr wrote: post #31
beloch wrote: post #27

Flock was pitched as the triumph of technology over criminality. It's surveillance network was supposed to end crime. However, when people witness extreme criminality thriving unpunished at the top levels of U.S. politics, the lie becomes evident. Flock isn't about ending crime. It's a tool of control to be used by criminals. Who watches the watchers? Everyone .

This is a perspective I hadn’t heard or considered before. Often times common crime (petty/violent) is viewed as a totally different area as white-collar crime or corruption. But they’re related. As someone who’s had bikes stolen and car broken into, I sympathize with the desire for surveillance (especially in San Francisco). But Flock has no safeguards against cops using it to stalk ex-wives or misusing a partial ma…

I’ve been robbed, multiple times, I’ve had my bike stolen… once I was robbed in London, surveillance capital of the world. Do you think the cameras helped? Take a guess.

I don’t sympathise at all with anyone who wants the powerful to surveil the rest of us. It’s just another, powerful, tool used by the wicked people who seek power over the rest of us.

Instead spend that money on educating the poor.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#157

Post by Symbiote »

vrganj wrote: post #153
arjie wrote: post #141

Yeah it’s quite common it seems. Similar to the ULEZ camera takedowns. And the ULEZ cameras were also supposedly a tool of government control. As were SF’s speed cameras. And so on and so forth. I am not convinced. I am happy with the speed cameras, and I’m happy with the ULEZ cameras, and I’m happy with Flock cameras. The position that we must destroy state function is outrageous to me. We have a path to peace and s…

It's one thing if a democratically legitimized government entity is in control, like with ULEZ. It's another thing entirely if a private oligarch owns the cameras. Flock and ULEZ are not the same.

Also ULEZ is working, with reduced hospital admissions, reduced pollution levels, and no decrease in economic activity.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-...

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#158

Post by cucumber3732842 »

culi wrote: post #137
matheusmoreira wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a nice idea. Everything is backwards right now. It should to be the other way around: random citizens should be essentially anonymous while all members of the government are surveilled 24/7. Surveillance should scale with power.

Funnily enough, the whole "social credit" thing that Westerners like to meme about was supposed to work like that. Although it never really got implemented, it was meant to be a score applied exclusively to business leaders, politicians, etc. And it was actually mostly meant to track corporations rather than individuals. That's why the full name of it was Corporate Social Credit System. It was supposed to increase tr…

>Funnily enough, the whole "social credit" thing that Westerners like to meme about was supposed to work like that. Although it never really got implemented, it was meant to be a score applied exclusively to business leaders, politicians, etc.

I have a bridge to sell to anyone who took that at face value.

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#159

Post by fuzzfactor »

beloch wrote: post #27

Flock was pitched as the triumph of technology over criminality. It's surveillance network was supposed to end crime. However, when people witness extreme criminality thriving unpunished at the top levels of U.S. politics, the lie becomes evident. Flock isn't about ending crime. It's a tool of control to be used by criminals. Who watches the watchers? Everyone .

>Who watches the watchers? Everyone.

Maybe everyone should be keeping an eye on more things than they have been.

For this to work as a public service it needs to be a public service.

All the streams should be live and easily available in real-time to the public who should have an ongoing say in where they want cameras and where they do not to begin with, along with frequent citizen reviews regarding things like relocation.

Detectives are just going to have to face facts no differently than everybody has already admitted there are not enough cops to watch all the cameras all the time, so nobody can deny if the public eyes got involved the amount of stolen property recovered would be through the roof compared to what the department can ever accomplish no matter what. So there is no valid excuse if you are serious about public service or curtailing crime.

I would think the wisest communities would only allow commercial cameras as a public service beyond reproach, and as a fairness gesture should never have to pay anything whatsoever for not only the camera and the stream but all the related software that is supposed to be so helpful to the public.

Assuming Flock is going to sell the data to whomever they can well beyond complete local control whether they are supposed to or not, at least the locals who allow the cameras shouldn't have to pay anything ever. In fact they should always be licensing each public camera on strict terms so Flock can pay the community more than the cost of ongoing administration along with getting all the data and the latest state-of-the art local processing in the deal. If they really want to be a public service instead of having the public consider them a public nuisance.

>helping government agencies respond if a camera is damaged.

>“We’ve planned for it,” the company wrote, adding that protection plans are available for purchase.

No no no no no, this is so wrong, Flock should always be paying the local communities just to have each camera in place and if they can not generate enough community goodwill to keep vandalism from escalating it should be a cost they alone should bear.

Flock should be expected to do just fine in places that were never considered a "free country" to begin with and where things like freedom and liberty don't ring a bell.

If you're in the USA why even start out just the opposite of the American way if you were capable of anything that was more worthwhile?

Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

#160

Post by cucumber3732842 »

dvdkon wrote: post #48
lordnacho wrote: post #35

I think I may have a minority view about surveillance. At least I need someone to explain something to me. Is the backlash really about privacy, or is the real problem a complete lack of trust in government? Because if I thought someone would actually use the cameras to enforce the law, that's not actually such a bad outcome. You aren't supposed to speed, you aren't supposed to let your dog poop without cleaning up a…

Our laws only work because of a hidden assumption that trivial or victimless crimes won't be prosecuted. This assumption isn't always upheld, but automatic surveilance would break it pretty much every time. Even if our laws were actually written with perfect enforcement in mind, only outlawing what's actually antisocial, I don't think I could ever trust a government enough to give it that kind of power. Mass surveill…

>antisocial

God I hate this word.

Maybe you just picked it up from "those people" but the correlation it has with downright authoritarian and statist tendencies is too damn high for me. Like I expect it to be followed by a rant about how anyone who doesn't pull permits and call dig safe before installing a mailbox deserves to lose their house or whatever.

I mostly agree with everything else you wrote.

Post reply on HN