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

Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

ipvm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#21

Post by jazzyjackson »

bko wrote: post #5
jvanderbot wrote: post #2

It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this.

I think its entirely reasonable that license plates are recorded on public roads and accessible to police in lawful requests, like tracking stolen vehicles or dangerous suspects. Your hysterics about photographing children in a park is silly and no one but the most online ideologue would find it at all comparable. Find a better argument if you want to convince other reasonable people who just want to live in safe nei…

Bro when I’m seeing cameras everywhere the last thing I think is “gee what a safe neighborhood I’m in”

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#22

Post by bko »

Rooster61 wrote: post #12
bko wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its entirely reasonable that license plates are recorded on public roads and accessible to police in lawful requests, like tracking stolen vehicles or dangerous suspects. Your hysterics about photographing children in a park is silly and no one but the most online ideologue would find it at all comparable. Find a better argument if you want to convince other reasonable people who just want to live in safe nei…

> no one but the most online ideologue > Find a better argument That is just a reversed no-true-scottsman fallacy. If the poster's "hysterics" are a poor argument, please break down why rather than just calling it silly. It is obvious that many in this community are against wholesale collection of information, public or private, as evidenced by the thousands of posts that state such reservations.

> as evidenced by the thousands of posts that state such reservations.

Posts on forums are not real life. Look at revealed preferences. Many people have cameras on their property. People prefer to live in neighborhoods with well funded police with tech resources.

Again, it's entirely reasonable to collect license plates and use it to apprehend criminals. Crime is a thing, almost everyone is affected by it at some point in their lives. I don't need a proof or study, it's common sense. You know it's true but you're just pretending you don't understand.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#25

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jvanderbot wrote: post #15
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On this very forum, you can find backlash against geofencing, and here, support for flock cameras? The contradiction is bananas. There's more than one person on this forum. Why do you expect consistency? Different people have different opinions. Different people comment on different articles. HN is not a hivemind; don't expect consistency.

Ah yes, this is a fair point. I should have stated something weaker: There are legitimate arguements, even on this forum, against geofencing, so entertaining arguments against camera-based always-on tracking shouldn't be automatically out of scope.

Fair enough. But there are also plenty of people here who yell at those who are against geofencing, so you can also expect plenty of yelling if you advocate camera-based always-on tracking.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#26

Post by TripolitianFish »

bko wrote: post #22
Rooster61 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one but the most online ideologue > Find a better argument That is just a reversed no-true-scottsman fallacy. If the poster's "hysterics" are a poor argument, please break down why rather than just calling it silly. It is obvious that many in this community are against wholesale collection of information, public or private, as evidenced by the thousands of posts that state such reservations.

> as evidenced by the thousands of posts that state such reservations. Posts on forums are not real life. Look at revealed preferences. Many people have cameras on their property. People prefer to live in neighborhoods with well funded police with tech resources. Again, it's entirely reasonable to collect license plates and use it to apprehend criminals. Crime is a thing, almost everyone is affected by it at some poi…

You’re braindead, hand waving an argument with common sense isn’t actually interacting with anyone in a meaningful manner, you would be more use saying this to a wall.

The point the original poster is making is that this is a private system which has a high potential for abuse and often is abused, à la the posters “hysterics”, as you driveled, of people taking pictures of children and sharing it amongst themselves. Nitwit

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#27

Post by bluefirebrand »

bko wrote: post #22
Rooster61 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one but the most online ideologue > Find a better argument That is just a reversed no-true-scottsman fallacy. If the poster's "hysterics" are a poor argument, please break down why rather than just calling it silly. It is obvious that many in this community are against wholesale collection of information, public or private, as evidenced by the thousands of posts that state such reservations.

> as evidenced by the thousands of posts that state such reservations. Posts on forums are not real life. Look at revealed preferences. Many people have cameras on their property. People prefer to live in neighborhoods with well funded police with tech resources. Again, it's entirely reasonable to collect license plates and use it to apprehend criminals. Crime is a thing, almost everyone is affected by it at some poi…

> Look at revealed preferences. Many people have cameras on their property

Go ask them if they realize their videos are being stored on a company's server somewhere and those companies employees can watch their camera feeds whenever they want

Most people have no clue, they think the camera handles all of it

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#28

Post by kittikitti »

I'm infuriated with this narrative because I can then be in my own private backyard with a fence and still be susceptible to surveillance. What the people who own the surveillance narrative really mean is that if they can record you, whether in private or not, you have no expectation of privacy.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#29

Post by redwall_hp »

bko wrote: post #18
redwall_hp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone steals my car, I can open an app and find its precise geolocation better than some cameras, and deliver that information to the police of my own choice. (Ideally, the car company would be legally prohibited from sharing that information with any other party.) "Monitor the movements of everyone in case of the minute chance of car theft and astronomical chance of the police caring" is patently absurd. We pro…

> deliver that information to the police of my own choice Good luck with that. I've heard plenty of stories of victims of theft and crime literally leading police to the door of their assailant and they can't get any action because this "privacy" movement has made their efforts pretty meaningless. You're naive and you obviously have no real experience in this regard. It's just sad that you promote policies that help…

> I've heard plenty of stories of victims of theft and crime literally leading police to the door of their assailant and they can't get any action because this "privacy" movement has made their efforts pretty meaningless.

So the police are useless when given a precise location, and you want to give them more invasive tools to continue to be useless? That's not the argument you think it is.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#30

Post by nkrisc »

bko wrote: post #5
jvanderbot wrote: post #2

It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this.

I think its entirely reasonable that license plates are recorded on public roads and accessible to police in lawful requests, like tracking stolen vehicles or dangerous suspects. Your hysterics about photographing children in a park is silly and no one but the most online ideologue would find it at all comparable. Find a better argument if you want to convince other reasonable people who just want to live in safe nei…

We need to prevent the implementation of surveillance technologies that can be abused now, because later when they are weaponized against us we won’t be able to.

Some things are too dangerous to allow to exist, however reasonable and useful they might seem.

Post reply on HN