191–200 of 277 posts
Even 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't just USSR, it is the core Russian principle of "oprichnina" - you can violate any laws, human or God's, as long as you're serving the tzar, Secretary General or President Putin. We start to see a hint of it here with ICE, and i'm sure we'll see a bit more of it with the newly formed Domestic Terrorism Task Force.
This mode of operation is completely the reverse of my country the Netherlands. In Dutch society it doesn't really matter who the current ruling party is the big machine keeps rolling on. The names change frequently- governments keep tumbling down- but every day like clockwork people get up in the morning, go to work and follow their programming. Prime minister A is replaced by prime minister B. In some ways having a…
Earlier 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…
> Lots of fans of Luigi Mangione and this hasn't directly killed anyone yet. There are also fans of Charles Manson, that doesn't mean we should automatically excuse any bad behavior that falls short of his.
So yes, I'm in agreement that neither is good. I'm accusing people of supporting a bad thing and opposing a crime less than that bad thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yep, paying out the remaining value of the contract is generally the default-court acceptable manner to terminate a contract. And it's probably in there as a clause. However, if Flock was really being evil, they could argue in court they are losing on the value of spying on the American populace.
We don't know they won't say this! All the surveillance they do absolutely has value in being able to sell it to other government agencies and private security. Later on, once they've been around a while each customer is less important, but right now every single one is key so I would not be surprised if they fight to keep the cameras up so they can gather metrics for internal use and marketing/sales. They very well may say, "the contract calls for the surveillance to be active. Removing the cameras reduces our ability to further improve the system, so we're financially harmed by that." They won't win, but they very well may try it.
> This decision came after Illinois Secretary of State [...] discovered that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois cameras in a “pilot program” against state law, and after the RoundTable reported in June that out-of-state law enforcement agencies were able to search Flock’s data for assistance in immigration cases. This illustrates the textbook argument for why mass surveillance is…
With respect, they ALWAYS end up in the wrong hands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dog whistle!
I thought I was being pretty explicit TBH. I’m curious - what dog whistle do you see?
> There are a few ways this lands: > • Benign interpretation: it’s a factual note from teardown reports, relevant to understanding capabilities and privacy implications. > • Critical interpretation: in context of posts about jamming or blinding cameras, component details function as implicit guidance for defeating them, which some view as incitement. > • Political reading: emphasizing hidden/“obfuscated” tracking signals an anti‑surveillance stance and rallies opponents of privatized policing
That seems fair to me, but to be clear - I didn't mean to hide that. I wanted to give people who might be considering action a warning of a hidden anti-theft measure that could get them in trouble while stopping short of encouraging it.
I can see the justification to act, and I generally agree. The risk/reward just isn't right for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Licesne plates were never intended to be recorded all the time to create a data set of who went where when. They were so that in the non-standard case where something other than "business as usual" has happened an owner could be identified.
I don’t think that’s the current desired use either. (What they were intended for 120 years ago, doesn’t seem super important though). Setting aside the concerns that dominate all political discussion today on this topic amongst the 31% of voters who voted for Harris (that’s turnout * popular vote), these things are used every day to solve actual crimes. For instance, recently in my state, some dude murdered a woman…
I agree that this is more reasonable than the status quo (although I’d still prefer no cameras at all). Now show me the politicians who are willing to limit ALPR data retention by law on the federal level. As far as I know it hasn’t even been proposed, nor will it be, until some kind of major public scandal emerges. I’d rather not wait until major harm is done.
The federal government has an unfortunate habit of illegally harassing the disfavored group du jour (which rotates about once a decade). State and local governments are often worse, with personal grudges getting into the mix. I’d rather not provide tools to make the harassment even more effective! At some point you begin to enable new “official” crime with the tools you use to stop typical criminals. And the impact of state-level crimes can be much larger and more widespread.
> I think you’ll be surprised how much real people don’t have cartoon villain ambitions.
Most don’t, but some do, and unfortunately they are attracted to power like moths to a flame. Not that everyone in government is a bad guy, but many are when given means and motive.
Edit: edited to specify data retention at the federal level, actually I was surprised to see that a few states do limit data retention.
There 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…
> This decision came after Illinois Secretary of State [...] discovered that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois cameras in a “pilot program” against state law, and after the RoundTable reported in June that out-of-state law enforcement agencies were able to search Flock’s data for assistance in immigration cases. This illustrates the textbook argument for why mass surveillance is…
> these tools can quickly end up in the wrong hands. With respect, they ALWAYS end up in the wrong hands.