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

191–200 of 507 posts

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

#191

Post by fzeroracer »

tonymet wrote: post #186
fzeroracer wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s a nice theory but still doesn’t explain why the laws aren’t being enforced. Presumably these rich, powerful and paranoid also control the AG’s and judges. Why aren’t they locking these people up?

Because it doesn't affect them directly, it's really that simple. Look at how quickly the entire media and police apparatus mobilized when Brian Thompson was killed.

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

#192

Post by fooqux »

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…

> From what I understand these systems are legal because there is no expectation of privacy in public.

Not quite. There's been precedent set that seems to imply flock and other mass surveillance drag net operations such as this do violate the forth.

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

#193

Post by overfeed »

0x1ch wrote: post #152
simlevesque wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's what happens when we rank private property over human lives. We deserve this.

You can both have a desire to defend your peace, while also being against mass surveillance.

Gp specifies how we rank those 2 is the issue, and didn't say they are mutually exclusive

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

#195

Post by Hikikomori »

verisimi wrote: post #188
kklisura wrote: post #46

For more context here Flock Safety is a YC-backed company [1][2] [1] https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety [2] https://x.com/garrytan/status/1856016868580151615

Is this dystopian enough yet?

Flock does ai enabled mass surveillance.

Palantir uses such information, feds and local governments are already customers.

The CEO of ycombinator is part of the same weird church as Peter Thiel, acts 17.

Then look up the other SV tech billionaires that are on board with network states and other Curtis Yarvin nonsense.

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

#197

Post by Hikikomori »

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?

Like he said he didn't know anything about project 2025?

Steve Bannon is the one working on this, has said they have a plan to do it. Trump himself seems to believe that if the country is at war elections are postponed because that is how it works in Ukraine. Ergo Venezuela.

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

#198

Post by dingnuts »

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?

[dead]

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

#199

Post by eightysixfour »

lubujackson wrote: post #118
eightysixfour wrote: post #13

I don't want these cameras to exist but, if they're going to , might we be better off if they are openly accessible? At the very least, that would make the power they grant more diffuse and people would be more cognizant of their existence and capabilities.

Did you see the other post about this where the guys showed a Flock camera pointed at a playground, so any pedo can see when kids are there and not attended? Or how it has become increasingly trivial to identify by face or license plate such that combining tools reaches "movie Interpol" levels, without any warrant or security credentials? If Big Brother surveillance is unavoidable I don't think "everyone has access"…

> so any pedo can see when kids are there and not attended?

Sure. It also lets parents watch. Or others see when parents are repeatedly leaving their kids unattended. Or lets you see some person that keeps showing up unattended and watching the kids.

> Or how it has become increasingly trivial to identify by face or license plate such that combining tools reaches "movie Interpol" levels, without any warrant or security credentials?

That already exists and it is run by private companies and sold to government agencies. That’s a huge power grab.

> The best defense is actually the glut of data and the fact nobody is actively watching you picking your nose in the elevator. If everyone can utilize any camera and its history for any reason then expect fractal chaos and internet shaming.

This argument holds whether it is public or not. It is worse if Flock or the government can do this asymmetrically than if anyone can do it IMO, they already have enough coercive tools.

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

#200

Post by Terr_ »

gruez wrote: post #180
Terr_ wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suspiciousl…

> Good Guys [...] Our authoritarianism helps granny

That's quite a *whooooosh* of missing-the-point. Perhaps because you've confused me with another poster, and you're smushing a bunch of unfinished tu-quoque accusations together?

I'll simplify it further, you're acting like these are equivalent:

1. Yelling "Wolf! Danger!" ... because you were in downtown Chicago and saw a fur hoodie.

2. Yelling "Wolf! Danger!" ... because you were in rural Albania and saw a paw-print and a dead deer.

It's foolish to consider them the same just because the same two words were uttered. The accuracy or reasonableness of one does not reflect on the other.

> Who decides whether something is a good reason?

Well, in this case I decide that seeing a fur hoodie downtown is a bad reason to warn of an imminent wolf attack, and that seeing a paw-print in the European hinterlands is... a much-less-bad reason.

If I (or you) are somehow not permitted to make that decision about 1-vs-2, please explain why.

Post reply on HN