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

171–180 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#171

Post by neya »

jychang wrote: post #168
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!"

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 incentiv…

Agree with your point and the solution. Make it risky to operate - so that most VCs would wash their hands off due to legal risks. Kind of like what happened to the crypto space. But, it always gets worse before it gets better. Tons of rug pulls happened before SEC took action.

Re: Stop Flock

#173

Post by bob1029 »

mcmcmc wrote: post #11
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…

Camera blind spots are solved with more cameras and correct positioning, not automated AI surveillance.

Crazy how it's always a data problem in the end.

Re: Stop Flock

#174

Post by brazzy »

caconym_ wrote: post #24
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.

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.

You mean something like a... general regulation for data protection?

Re: Stop Flock

#175

Post by soulofmischief »

nullc wrote: post #60
RHSeeger wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just the government. It shouldn't be possible for any random stalker to find someone's daily movements.

They're also one and the same generally-- at least if the stalker has money or the right friends most kinds of law enforcement access means stalker access. It's not unheard of for an officer themselves to be the stalker, and there are so many people that work in law enforcement that bribing, impersonating, or persuading your way to access is not that big a deal. Not to mention that enabled stalkers can just file a fe…

Further reading:

AP: Across US, police officers abuse confidential databases

https://apnews.com/general-news-699236946e3140659fff8a2362e1...

Re: Stop Flock

#176

Post by boriskourt »

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…

If we can set a legal precedent then this can cascade into policy, or an enforceable standard much faster.

Re: Stop Flock

#177

Post by diordiderot »

a-posteriori wrote: post #117
willdr wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we can agree that when they're executing innocent citizens in the street, the agency is no longer effective.

I agree with you. What would an effective immigration enforcement agency look like?

Sorry but there is no chance you get a good faith reply

Re: Stop Flock

#178

Post by Joker_vD »

Perseids wrote: post #156
nandomrumber wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cr…

> 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.

Which is why "we don't serve patrons without shoes and pants" policy is unconstitutional, yeah.

If you don't want to agree to a business's demands — you're welcome to not deal with them and look for an alternative. All the alternatives have the same (or even worse) demands? Unless you can prove collusion, that's just how the invisible hand of the market worked its magic out. Go petition you congressman to violate laissez-faire even more than it already is, I guess.

Re: Stop Flock

#179

Post by diordiderot »

mcmcmc wrote: post #20
khuston wrote: post #13

I’m all for mass surveillance of roadways, but I want to see results. Every day I see and hear people breaking laws with their vehicles in ways that make life worse for others around them.

Yep. Automate the whole thing and be done with traffic cops abusing their power to meet quotas or harass minorities. It would likely make car insurance cheaper too since people would drive more safely, and the cost of investigations and arbitration drops down with readily available video evidence.

You aren't allowed to automate law enforcement because of disparate impact

Re: Stop Flock

#180

Post by Joker_vD »

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!"

    Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly
    said to abhor a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain
    10 per cent. will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will
    produce eagerness; 50 per cent., positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it
    ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent., and there is not a crime at
    which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its
    owner being hanged. If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely
    encourage both. Smuggling and the slave-trade have amply proved all that is
    here stated.
We today can also add crypto schemes and mass surveillance to the examples.

And mind you, VC are people who are both pretty good at earning money and also eager for even more money. That's how they got to where they are, after all, not necessarily by being virtuous (over a certain minimally required amount, or a social signaling of possessing such an amount).

Post reply on HN