Legal questions aside, thats another thread, hypothetically speaking, would a burning laser pointer be effective on these?
Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
171–180 of 277 posts
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if we consider it fine for people to commit crimes like shoplift, rob, or assault people it seems fairly normal to permit groups of people to violate the law too. Lots of fans of Luigi Mangione and this hasn't directly killed anyone yet. I'd say it's just a general tolerance to the idea that the rules we have are baroque and anything goes when trying to reach your aims. This seems fairly cross politically unify…
The difference is that people are fans of Luigi Mangione because he enforced a punishment for what people feel should be illegal . You're trying to paint vigilante justice with the same brush as lawlessness, when in fact it's the opposite. One is breaking the law to punish someone that the law failed to, the other is breaking the law to avoid punishment. The CEO caused vast death and suffering with the policies he en…
> The CEO caused vast death and suffering with the policies he enacted in the name of profit, yet the law didn't touch him.
If the CEO caused someone to die indirectly, how much more did the doctors involved cause people to die by refusing to schedule and perform procedures for free? They didn't.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#173Aside the topic, but I wonder how HN, as a community, and as a moderation team, weighs this on the intellectual curiosity vs primarily politics scale. This seems politics to me. Very important politics that a lot of people in tech have a special interest for, but politics nonetheless, and much more pressing topics seem to be absent through the on-topic rule.
HN is 90% AI and politics these days, or so it seems.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that people are fans of Luigi Mangione because he enforced a punishment for what people feel should be illegal . You're trying to paint vigilante justice with the same brush as lawlessness, when in fact it's the opposite. One is breaking the law to punish someone that the law failed to, the other is breaking the law to avoid punishment. The CEO caused vast death and suffering with the policies he en…
> The CEO caused vast death and suffering with the policies he enacted in the name of profit, yet the law didn't touch him. If the CEO caused someone to die indirectly, how much more did the doctors involved cause people to die by refusing to schedule and perform procedures for free? They didn't.
Might as well jack up the price of all procedures and medication to "all your money", then.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#175There is a larger issue that other commenters are missing: > The city has paid the first two years of that extension but would still owe $145,500 for the final three years if the contract is upheld. The city intends to terminate the contract on Sept. 26 under its notice to Flock, but the company is challenging that termination, and the dispute could escalate to litigation. The city is trying to terminate a contract w…
> I don't know whether the city is correct about its power to terminate the contract
They were unambiguously violating state law intended to prevent this exact scenario when they were sharing the data with the federal government. Some lawyer is going to be having a bad year and a black mark on their resume if they didn't have a statutory breach clause in the contract with a city government and even if such a clause doesn't exist there is an extremely strong case for it regardless.
They have self-inflicted a business disaster upon themselves for doing that in a state like Illinois. In the event this holds up under that legal theory every municipality in the state has a case to dump them, to say nothing of getting new contracts there and in any place that has the same values.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#176Even though it's become commonplace in the last 20 years, I'm still shocked to see how companies can pretty much ignore the law, do whatever they want, and have everyone involved shielded from any kind of significant consequences. In situations like this, I think the person at the top of the chain that told employees to perform the illegal installations should be arrested and charged. On top of that, the company shou…
I've always maintained that if a corporation breaks the law, the entire C-suite should be individually charged as if they personally committed the crime. It's their company and their responsibility.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#177There is a larger issue that other commenters are missing: > The city has paid the first two years of that extension but would still owe $145,500 for the final three years if the contract is upheld. The city intends to terminate the contract on Sept. 26 under its notice to Flock, but the company is challenging that termination, and the dispute could escalate to litigation. The city is trying to terminate a contract w…
What you're missing is they can get that money without putting the cameras back up. That's what you do when a customer doesn't want your service/product but they still have an active contract.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm basically in the same boat. There is no practical way for me to avoid having my picture taken 6 or more times every single day. I flip the camera off each and every time I drive/walk by it. It's infuriating.
Why do you care if you're not doing anything illegal?
[deleted]
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm basically in the same boat. There is no practical way for me to avoid having my picture taken 6 or more times every single day. I flip the camera off each and every time I drive/walk by it. It's infuriating.
Why do you care if you're not doing anything illegal?
This argument has been shot down so many times, it's a wonder anyone bothers to bring it up without googling it first.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
…or someone could knock the damn thing offline.
It's almost like battery-powered angle grinders should be regular items in the neighbourhood tool lending library.
It takes no longer than five minutes to cut through the poles used to hold this equipment up with a sawzall, when metal straps aren't used to attach it to existing infrastructure, I've been told.