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

US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#181

Post by BryantD »

whimsicalism wrote: post #104
estebank wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I used to donate to the ACLU before they went crazy. When was that? Because in 1977 they defended Nazi's free speech to demonstrate in a town that had jewish people as half its population so it tried to block them, and I don't recall them doing anything nearly that controversial since. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-skokie-case-how-i-...

the difference is that they would not do this today

2017: the ACLU defends Milo Yiannopoulos' right to advertise his new book. They file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting a Tea Party supporter challenging a ban on wearing political insignia at polling places.

2018: the ACLU supports the NRA's First Amendment challenge to Governor Cuomo's attempt to convince NY financial institutions not to do business with the NRA.

2019: they defended a conservative student magazine which was denied funding by UCSD.

2020: they filed a brief supporting antisemitic protestors picketing a synagogue on the Sabbath. They also supported a Catholic school's religious right to make religious-based choices in hiring and firing teachers.

I'm just quoting the fruits of five minutes of research here, so I won't go on (but there's more). Is it possible that you're reacting to the radical conservative stereotyping of the ACLU rather than the actual actions of the organization?

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#182

Post by tux1968 »

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #174
tux1968 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. If you called from your cell phone while on foot or in your car, the drone can find your exact location and hover over you until help arrives, quicker than if EMS has to search you out themselves.

Ok. I live in a small, flat city with few trees. So why did my police department buy these?

Obviously I don't know the specifics of your city, but in general there are a lot of scenarios where it's valuable to get to a scene very quickly (no traffic, etc.) and obtain reconnaissance. Especially violent scenes, or it could even be a drunk driver who is still on the move, or a stolen car where the perpetrators are likely to flee on foot if stopped.

I'm sure you can come up with a lot more ideas using your imagination.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#183

Post by noodlesUK »

schlap wrote: post #178

These companies build this tech in SF and Seattle, cities with some of the gnarliest public safety problems in the country, then turn around and sell it to smaller towns where it does more harm than good. Most places in America don't have problems that surveillance solves. They have problems they already know about and won't act on. Cameras don't fix homelessness or addiction or underfunded services. They just make l…

I think this echoes very true in a lot of places, not just in the US. Here in the UK I'm pretty sure the police/the state more broadly know perfectly well who is doing a lot of the low level quality-of-life crime in most areas, but for structural reasons either can't or won't bother acting in many instances. Investigative work has never been easier: oftentimes there's multiple cctv angles of offences being committed, endless digital records, etc., but unless something can be done with this information in the real world, it's useless and actually takes resources away from other areas of public services.

Increasing the quality of the panopticon has all the downsides we talk about regularly on HN, and if you can't do anything useful for society with the data, it only ends up hurting people.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#184

Post by scottyah »

pesus wrote: post #169
jonas21 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is much less concerning to me than mass surveillance. If someone calls 911 and you need to send a first responder, why not send a drone to get there faster while a person is on their way?

If the drones are "providing information" to the police, it's only a matter of time before their AI hallucinates something that gets someone killed. We've already seen AI gun detection services that report things like Doritos bags as guns.

[flagged]

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#185

Post by scottyah »

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #174
tux1968 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. If you called from your cell phone while on foot or in your car, the drone can find your exact location and hover over you until help arrives, quicker than if EMS has to search you out themselves.

Ok. I live in a small, flat city with few trees. So why did my police department buy these?

Can they drive straight to you at 60mph without stopping?

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#186

Post by Nasrudith »

yabutlivnWoods wrote: post #120
anthonypasq wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think politicians have seriously underestimated how much people don't like crime, and most people would take constant surveillance if it could actually improve feelings of safety in urban environments.

Often what we criminalize is stupid. Giving away food to homeless is a crime in many places. Bad capitalism. Feelings of insecurity are manufactured relative to the danger posed: https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-die...

It is antithetical to capitalism as well. The whole basis of capitalism is property rights, and it generally encourages the public doing things themselves instead as private individuals instead of relying upon a bureaucrat or public agency to do everything unless there is a major reason not to.

And here they are telling you that you cannot use your own property to help alleviate issues in your community. That sounds more like an exaggeration of Communist attempts at division of labor and to 'organize' a civilization.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#187

Post by whimsicalism »

BryantD wrote: post #181
whimsicalism wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the difference is that they would not do this today

2017: the ACLU defends Milo Yiannopoulos' right to advertise his new book. They file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting a Tea Party supporter challenging a ban on wearing political insignia at polling places. 2018: the ACLU supports the NRA's First Amendment challenge to Governor Cuomo's attempt to convince NY financial institutions not to do business with the NRA. 2019: they defended a conservative stud…

It's very possible that I'm misinformed, but if so it was mostly from reading 'radical conservatives' like the NYT and other related reporting, along with ex-ACLU lawyers. [0]

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html

I think this is particularly noted as a post-2022 shift

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#189

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

tux1968 wrote: post #182
zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. I live in a small, flat city with few trees. So why did my police department buy these?

Obviously I don't know the specifics of your city, but in general there are a lot of scenarios where it's valuable to get to a scene very quickly (no traffic, etc.) and obtain reconnaissance. Especially violent scenes, or it could even be a drunk driver who is still on the move, or a stolen car where the perpetrators are likely to flee on foot if stopped. I'm sure you can come up with a lot more ideas using your imag…

Sounds like a scam

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#190

Post by grimcompanion »

pesus wrote: post #169
jonas21 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is much less concerning to me than mass surveillance. If someone calls 911 and you need to send a first responder, why not send a drone to get there faster while a person is on their way?

If the drones are "providing information" to the police, it's only a matter of time before their AI hallucinates something that gets someone killed. We've already seen AI gun detection services that report things like Doritos bags as guns.

OTOH it will provide more surveillance of the police themselves. Humans are also bad at gun detection (sometimes willfully so) and this provides another check.
Post reply on HN