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

Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

evanstonroundtable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 277 posts

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#201

Post by grayhatter »

serbuvlad wrote: post #165
grayhatter wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't deserve the down votes you're getting for this clearly thoughtful comment. You're wrong in a number of ways, and to me it reads like an unintentionally shallow take, built up more from cliches over deeper understanding. But it's still well above average or engagement and insight of the average HN comment, thank you for writing it. > First of all, I think that this instinct to fine-'em, screw-'em, etc. is pr…

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Unfortunately, my comment was simply not a defense of the company, since I know little about the situation, nor was it an attack on the city's actions. It was a reply to the comment I was responding too, which voiced a call to "lock 'em up" and punish them more, which I see all too often. I certainly do not support government surveillance for any reason. My comment was a defense o…

Sure, with the caveat that thinking exclusively in procedural terms is a mistake. I feel like all my comments still stand. Given the company already removed the cameras, which obviously imply that they agreed that the city had the right or at least the position to demand their removal. What procedural grounds did they have to reinstall them? Their behavior demonstrates they already accepted the modification of the contract. If they were planning to contest it why remove them? Why reinstall them?

The comment you replied to was quite banal. Fines are the remedy for a company invading the privacy of citizens. Then when you assume the company executives or agents knew the contract was terminated because of the violation of state law, reinstalling them demonstrates the intent to continue violating the law. The remedy for that is being arrested.

The comment seems to me to be slightly hyperbolic, and expressing frustration about how individuals make clearly malign decisions, and then get away with that asshattery because they hide behind documents of incorporation. But even if you think it was literal, arrested and charged is still operating within the bounds of the law, is it not?

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#202

Post by jmward01 »

Documenting the downfall isn't enough. What are people going to do about it? Get involved with your local government. Go to city counsel meetings. Join local boards. This is one city that is doing the right thing but more cities could do the right thing if people showed up and demanded this type of invasive blanket search is blocked. We slipped slowly into this but we can claw it back by just showing up.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#203

Post by burnte »

EasyMark wrote: post #200
burnte wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these tools can quickly end up in the wrong hands. With respect, they ALWAYS end up in the wrong hands.

The people pitching for said surveillance are always the wrong hands if they're from the government. "We here from the government, we're here to help" are very scary words, and be careful if you take them up on the offer

I don't really want private parties doing mass surveillance either.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#204

Post by hamdingers »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #45
donmcronald wrote: post #8

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…

Confiscate the shares. No compensation. Effectively nationalisation as punishment. Solves the “too big to fail” problem as the company continues to exist, the ceo ends up in jail and the owners end up broke, but the work still gets done.

If corporations are people then they can be taken into custody.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#205

Post by nielsbot »

mothballed wrote: post #14
donmcronald wrote: post #8

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…

They were co-operating/conspiring with CBP as an extension of the federal government. Most likely the feds said they will tie up whoever challenges them in federal court. They can play jurisdiction fuck fuck games and then flip between it being a search, it being necessary for safety, that the city/county was obstruction a federal investigation, and all other nonsense. Don't think your company could just put up camer…

Do you have a source for their cooperation with CBP? I think that would make this an even bigger story.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#206

Post by EasyMark »

burnte wrote: post #203
EasyMark wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people pitching for said surveillance are always the wrong hands if they're from the government. "We here from the government, we're here to help" are very scary words, and be careful if you take them up on the offer

I don't really want private parties doing mass surveillance either.

me either, but their power is limit. Governments can ruin you forever and even disappear you without any real consequences

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#207

Post by Terr_ »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #144
____mr____ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Flock unlawfully made data collected within Evanston and the State of Illinois available to federal agencies,” Ruggie wrote, referencing the findings of Giannoulias’ audit. “This is not a procedural error; it is an intentional and unauthorized disclosure of protected data… Let it be absolutely clear: this breach is material, intentional, and cannot be cured. The City will not entertain remediation efforts or reneg…

This is so abundantly hilarious to read. Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States. It'd be like if I was sentenced to a Federal pentitiary, reported in to serve my sentence and was then found guilty of collaboration with the Federal government in some state court. Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena…

Suppose a private entity commits a state crime, and their defense is "the feds made us do it"... except it's not true, and the feds merely offered a negotiated cash deal, and never took any of the required steps to prove a legitimate need and actually compel action.

Even if I have sympathy for the person/company caught between competing jurisdictions, "they have reputation and I like money" simply isn't a credible defense against the state-crime charges.

> Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena, or other document.

Not necessarily, their ability to get a warrant/ subpoena is not a foregone conclusion... If it were, we wouldn't even have the test/authorization system in the first place!

A prediction is not a substitute for the process. Imagine the same equivalence being used to kill a suspected murderer: "Well I was really sure sure the guy would get the death penalty in a trial anyway, so... No problem, right?"

> Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States.

Quibble: I'm pretty sure you intended to include it, but this is missing an important "legal under federal law" piece. If a real government agent shows up at your door telling you to do something heinous like strangle a baby, there is no plausible way that's legal just because you "cooperated with" the agent.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#208

Post by Terr_ »

Yeul wrote: post #112
trhway wrote: post #75

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…

That's actually comparing two collectives:

1. A collective where there is a belief (however slow or stodgy) in the consistent application of known rules.

2. A collective where the only real rule is to make the cult leader happy even if it means a forest of contradictions and rewriting history.

While (2) can easily change on a whim... it's not your whim.

Which leads us to the practical question: Which collective do you think you and your community could best fight against when it starts hurting you? I think a majority of the time I'd rather be opposed to (1).

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#209

Post by [deleted] »

nenenejej wrote: post #76
Ancapistani wrote: post #28

Community note: it is my understanding, based on teardowns that I've found online, that Flock cameras should be assumed to contain a cellular modem and at least one GPS receiver. At least some have been found to contain an addition, obfuscated GPS receiver.

Dog whistle!

[deleted]

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#210

Post by nenenejej »

Ancapistani wrote: post #152
nenenejej wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dog whistle!

I thought I was being pretty explicit TBH. I’m curious - what dog whistle do you see?

On many forums. Cough reddit. You can barely say anything slightly spicy without a warning/ban so people are constantly talking in riddles to say more sinister stuff especially if there is implication of encouraging direct action. This is like that. At 30khz it says "get your jammers out!"

To a dog the whistle is explicit. (Not using dog as a derogatory or complimentary term here... more the fact the dog can hear the high frequency)

Post reply on HN