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

161–170 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#161

Post by TZubiri »

jedberg wrote: post #154
TZubiri wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pub…

You can kind of circumvent that law by keeping the recordings in house.

What we have in argentina is an Habeas Data law, if someone has data about you, you can ask for it, (or ask it be amended or deleted. Pretty simple right?

The home bit is no go though. Maybe an extension of the self? Too flimsy though, there's enough strong of a case treating it as what it is, an image, a visual representation of a person. A home is a specific of a concept that means something else

Re: Stop Flock

#162

Post by alex_young »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #158
stevemk14ebr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s cool.

The precogs over at flock say you drive too close to the criminals though, and you know what that means. Stay loyal, stay safe citizens.

Re: Stop Flock

#163

Post by willis936 »

kyrra wrote: post #14
jimmar wrote: post #7

I followed the shooting at Brown University last year very closely. Brown's leadership was heavily criticized for having camera blind spots and not being able to track the shooter's exact movements through campus. I can understand why people with stewardship over the safety of their students/customers/constituents would make decisions to err on the side of tracking. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand it…

The criticism around that event, I believe, involved Brown University disablinf cameras trying to protect potential illegal immigrants being targeted by ice. It wasn't the lack of cameras. It was a purposeful disabling of said cameras that already existed.

Yes and so the real issue is that they outsourced to the wrong compan, gave up control of their camera feeds, and violated the privacy of their campusgoers. Had they just had their own CCTV system then this would have not happened.

Re: Stop Flock

#164

Post by neya »

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…

This should ironically start at the VC level - and that includes YC et al. Some one comes and says "hey, we got this idea, we collect facial recognition data for training proprietary AI models", the response from the VC should "I'm gonna stop you right there. This is unethical."

Not "Did you say I can 5x my ROI? Here, shut up and take my money!"

Re: Stop Flock

#166

Post by self_awareness »

I understand the privacy argument. There are a few questions though:

1) Suppose there will be another shooting. Don't you want to know what exactly has happened before you go to the protest? Suppose your child will be hurt. Wouldn't you do anything to capture the culprit? How exactly would you feel if the police would tell you that they couldn't get the video with culprits face, because watching it would be a violation of someone's privacy?

2) Everyone has a camera in their pocket. Someone is filming all the time. Police can seize this video. Isn't that a privacy risk? Should we ban cameras in smartphones?

3) Should we even be private in the public? Doesn't privacy in public spaces encourage crime? I will die on a battle to keep the privacy in my home, but in public? I personally prefer to be safe, than private, in public.

4) What about private cameras near homes filming 24/7? Are those risks for privacy?

5) People in power will always be corrupt, have bad intentions, will use public goods for personal gain. Should we disregard broader benefits because there will be isolated cases where those benefits will be exploited?

Happy downvoting.

Re: Stop Flock

#167

Post by spacebacon »

wraptile wrote: post #134
jimmar wrote: post #7

I followed the shooting at Brown University last year very closely. Brown's leadership was heavily criticized for having camera blind spots and not being able to track the shooter's exact movements through campus. I can understand why people with stewardship over the safety of their students/customers/constituents would make decisions to err on the side of tracking. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand it…

I recently did a dive into ASPD (Antisocial Personality Disorder i.e. sociopaths) and unsurprisingly most what's stopping them from outright killing people is the likelihood that they'd be caught. So one thing is clear is that as long as we have sociopaths and the like who treat crime purely as value/risk proposition some sort of powerful detective tooling will always be necessary. Unfortunately automated surveillanc…

Correct. The Leviathan. A reasonable person should be able to argue for and against both sides.

Re: Stop Flock

#168

Post by jychang »

neya wrote: post #164
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…

This should ironically start at the VC level - and that includes YC et al. Some one comes and says "hey, we got this idea, we collect facial recognition data for training proprietary AI models", the response from the VC should "I'm gonna stop you right there. This is unethical." Not "Did you say I can 5x my ROI? Here, shut up and take my money!"

When you put it that way, the answer is obvious:

Assume VCs are brainless profit maximizers who don't understand ethics. How do you get them to say "I'm gonna stop you right there"?

Answer: Make it unprofitable to collect this data. Change the incentives.

So really, the correct answer IS on the legal level. Make a set of laws which make it burdensome at best and completely unprofitable at worst, and then the incentives within the system aligns.

Re: Stop Flock

#169

Post by kaliqt »

neya wrote: post #164
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…

This should ironically start at the VC level - and that includes YC et al. Some one comes and says "hey, we got this idea, we collect facial recognition data for training proprietary AI models", the response from the VC should "I'm gonna stop you right there. This is unethical." Not "Did you say I can 5x my ROI? Here, shut up and take my money!"

YC is responsible for Sam Altman, need I say more?

Re: Stop Flock

#170

Post by neya »

kaliqt wrote: post #169
neya wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should ironically start at the VC level - and that includes YC et al. Some one comes and says "hey, we got this idea, we collect facial recognition data for training proprietary AI models", the response from the VC should "I'm gonna stop you right there. This is unethical." Not "Did you say I can 5x my ROI? Here, shut up and take my money!"

YC is responsible for Sam Altman, need I say more?

Fair enough. But, to be fair to them, they did have a falling out. There was a story on here how it went all the way to PG and then they asked Sam to leave (Something like that). I think saw it in a comment here, really don't remember.
Post reply on HN