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

Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 507 posts

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#171

Post by ewoodrich »

embedding-shape wrote: post #122
jandrese wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I moved I opted for the "self install" kit, which was fine because I'm technical and the previous owners already had the service so there was nothing that needed to be done except hooking up the pre-configured modem. Saved me $200 in truck roll fees.

Interesting stuff, I've asked if I could do the installation myself every single time I've moved to a new place, and never has the ISP (three different ones) said yes. There isn't any installation fee place(probably by law?) so that isn't an issue here, just a hassle to coordinate having to meet between 12:00 and 18:00 or some super wide range of time for them to come and install it.

In the US for the past 5+ years Xfinity/Comcast, Charter, and whatever CenturyLink is called these days have all heavily pushed the "self-install kit" option vs traditional tech install each time I've moved.

Worked 4/5 times (all with cable), only time it failed was because I had apparently subscribed to a DSL plan from CenturyLink without realizing and they needed to wire up the extra lines upstream for the "modern" version of DSL to work in my apartment. After insisting multiple times that the self-install kit was 100% plug-n-play at my new address despite my intense skepticism since I really needed reliable internet from Day 1 during COVID remote work.

I was seriously missing Comcast/cable by the time that 1 yr contract was up, the devil you know and all...

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#172

Post by tchalla »

embedding-shape wrote: post #141
LocalH wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US government is a democracy and can be replaced I'm not sure this is as axiomatic as many think, in 2025

I've already placed my bets that current president will be the first to serve at least three terms since the two-term limit was introduced. Judging by what's happening, seems like a safer and safer bet every day.

Hasn’t Trump already said he won’t do another term?

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#173

Post by pixelpoet »

tchalla wrote: post #172
embedding-shape wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've already placed my bets that current president will be the first to serve at least three terms since the two-term limit was introduced. Judging by what's happening, seems like a safer and safer bet every day.

Hasn’t Trump already said he won’t do another term?

No way would he ever lie!

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#174

Post by fzeroracer »

tonymet wrote: post #158

I’m baffled by the state of law enforcement. On one hand we are spending loads on surveillance, but on the other we refuse to enforce violent, property & drugs-abuse crimes. Gross violent offenders are being allowed to walk. So what is the point of all the CCTV ? As major investors in Flock, being aware of the long term law enforcement strategy, I’m guessing ycombinator can comment on what all of this investment is f…

The surveillance state is there to benefit the rich and wealthy whom not only wield disproportionate power but are increasingly scared of their own shadow. The rest of us get nothing but crickets if we ask the police to do anything.

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#175

Post by afarah1 »

In Brazil there is a similar problem, but it's not as widely discussed. Here, police investigations revealed that a website sold access for less than $4 to the nation-wide surveillance system, which included live feed of public safety cameras and person search by tax identifier. It was also shown that criminal organizations used it to locate their targets. Access was through the open internet, with leaked credentials, the federal government's system requires no VPN for access.

Source (Portuguese): https://mpmt.mp.br/portalcao/news/1217/164630/pf-expoe-invas...

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#176

Post by esseph »

adamthegoalie wrote: post #115
esseph wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you want your partner or child stalked, raped, and murdered? You don't even need to drop an air tag now, you can use the license plate reader to track them everywhere they go. There is no hiding.

At first I thought you were defending flock. Seems clear the cameras make it harder to commit crimes and easier to go after the offenders, despite all the side effects most people are upset about here.

It makes it easy for a random person to track anyone, regardless of which states they go to.

It also makes it easy to say, track a person's movements to an abortion clinic if your state would like to prosecute that (this is happening).

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#177

Post by haskellandrust »

fusslo wrote: post #131

I wonder what our founders would think about tools like Flock. From what I understand these systems are legal because there is no expectation of privacy in public. Therefore any time you go in public you cannot expect NOT to be tracked, photographed, and entered into a database (which may now outlive us). I think the argument comes from the 1st amendment. Weaponizing the Bill of Rights (BoR) for the government agains…

[dead]

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#178

Post by phyzome »

tptacek wrote: post #33

I would love to watch a shorter version of this video that just discussed the deltas between the status quo and Flock, rather than breathlessly reporting the implications of cameras as if they were distinctive to Flock. He'll spend 30 seconds talking about how you can see every activity and every person on the camera --- yeah, that's how cameras work. There are thousands of public IP cameras on the Internet, aimed at…

He's pretty open in this video about how Flock is far from alone in this space, and he's just using them as an example because they're so popular and flagrantly abusive.

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#179

Post by phyzome »

stackedinserter wrote: post #98

Easy solution for Flock problem: get rid of visible license plates. Make them 2x1" of size and RFID-readable, give readers to police, problem solved. Not-that-easy solution is legal ban for such surveillance. None of these both will happen though. You accepted TSA and PRISM, you will get used to Flock too. Next is Flock but for people, with face recognition.

Fantastic, now I can't report a hit-and-run.

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#180

Post by gruez »

Terr_ wrote: post #149
gruez wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>These things don't just happen overnight. It's not crying wolf when you see the wolf on the horizon running towards you. So were vaccine mandates and passports "fascism" as well, even though they melted away after the pandemic ended, contrary to some who thought it was going to be part of some new world order?

Group A: "Mandatory masks in crowds during an airborne pandemic is fascism! Watch out!" Group B: "Throwing non-citizens into concentration camps using 'wartime' laws without trial is fascism! Watch out!" You: "Group A was foolish, therefore Group B is foolish, because all warnings against fascism are equally un-grounded and meritless for some reason."

>Group A: "Mandatory masks in crowds during an airborne pandemic is fascism! Watch out!"

>You: "Group A was foolish, therefore Group B is foolish, because all warnings against fascism are equally un-grounded and meritless for some reason."

So it's only "fascism" if it's not for a Good Reason? Who decides whether something is a good reason? Is it us, because we're obviously the Good Guys? Doesn't this seem suspiciously close to a defense of Flock that others have referenced[1]? ie. "Doesn't vaccine passports seem pretty dystopian? You're thinking of [other group] authoritarianism. Our authoritarianism helps granny from getting sick and stops the spread of covid". This kind of attitude is exactly the reason why people tuned "fascism" out. It just became a tool for partisan in-group signaling.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46357042

Post reply on HN