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

191–200 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#191

Post by cindyllm »

themafia wrote: post #69
otterley wrote: post #64

Why do people consistently and falsely believe that they have privacy in public settings? You are literally out in public. If you don't want your behavior in public to be observed, then either don't behave in such a way that you wouldn't want observed, or stay home. UPDATE: don't conflate stalking with observation. These are not the same. You can observe, but you cannot intimidate.

Would you mind if I parked near your house, such that every morning, when you drove past, I could follow you. To work, to the store, to the gym, you know, wherever. Then on the way home I'll park where I left off. If anyone asks me I'll them everything I know about you. It's "public" information after all.

[dead]

Re: Stop Flock

#193

Post by monooso »

crm9125 wrote: post #103
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…

I'm sorry... people think that the problem with, a school shooting , is camera placement? Something, something, forest, trees.

We need more good cameras with guns.

Re: Stop Flock

#195

Post by thepasch »

monooso wrote: post #193
crm9125 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry... people think that the problem with, a school shooting , is camera placement? Something, something, forest, trees.

We need more good cameras with guns.

Actually, give them small rotors - then they can even move and aim their guns at things!

Re: Stop Flock

#196

Post by LadyCailin »

Joker_vD wrote: post #178
Perseids wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 altern…

The trouble with this is that I, at least, am trying to live in a society. And society has both rights and responsibilities. Sometimes you are forced to do things, or don’t do things, contrary to your desires. Every freedom has two sides, you can’t ignore the fact that increasing some freedoms for one decreases other freedoms for others.

The shirt and shoes example is a great example in fact that illustrates the point. You don’t have unlimited freedom to not wear shoes, just like a business does not have unlimited freedom to impose whatever terms it likes, just because it put it in its ToS.

Re: Stop Flock

#197

Post by hmry »

self_awareness wrote: post #192
hmry wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which points do you disagree with?

The part that you prioritise your convenience over life-long tragedy of someone else.

Privacy is not "convenience", I'm not sure how you arrive at that. And it's also not mine, it's everyone's.

I don't want children to die (obviously). I also don't want governments to track the movement of protestors and dissidents, police to stalk their ex-girlfriends, etc.

I don't think the effectiveness of mass AI surveillance in preventing crime is high enough to justify the drawbacks.

Re: Stop Flock

#198

Post by watwut »

a-posteriori wrote: post #90
lesuorac wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, while I don't know you personally. Most working people are older than ICE. It's actually a relatively new agency and clearly not effective.

What would an effective immigration enforcement agency look like, in your opinion?

A little know fact is that Biden deported more illegal immigrants then previous presidents with smaller budget and without killing them. He also deported higher amount if actual criminals in the set. So, you know, whatever before ICE is now was more effective.

Also, the abuses and violence are staggering. And they managed to deport or mistreat actual citizens, because they did not cared. Again, not effective.

Here is the problem - conservative and right wing people use "effective" as euphemism for "we want to see as much cruelty and abuse as possible".

Re: Stop Flock

#199

Post by NegativeK »

jojobas wrote: post #120
ceejayoz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flock isn’t the only company.

One company getting destroyed could be a sign for others.

The sign won't be "don't do mass surveillance".

It'll be "make money off mass surveillance, but don't get caught like Flock did."

Re: Stop Flock

#200

Post by NegativeK »

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…

Make HIPAA include PII.

That hits your toxic waste goal real fast.

Post reply on HN