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

211–220 of 277 posts

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#211

Post by FpUser »

atoav wrote: post #59
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…

It is pretty clear to me that many of the things companies do get away with would land regular Joe in jail with high reliability. I think we have to start making CEOs more liable for such things, especially when done on their explicit command.

And who is gonna lobby/s the government to do so? Same companies / CEOs that buy the government in a first place

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#212

Post by mothballed »

nielsbot wrote: post #205
mothballed wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes the posted article

  This decision came after Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias discovered that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois cameras in a “pilot program” against state law,

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#213

Post by patrickmay »

pjdesno wrote: post #140
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…

If you click through to the follow up article, you’ll find that the city covered the cameras with black plastic. Sometimes low tech solutions work pretty well. And since the cameras are under contract to the city, on city poles, I doubt there’s anything the feds can do.

And here I was about to post this completely unrelated link: https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Thermite

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#214

Post by r2_pilot »

toephu2 wrote: post #168
r2_pilot wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm basically in the same boat. There is no practical way for me to avoid having my picture taken 6 or more times every single day. I flip the camera off each and every time I drive/walk by it. It's infuriating.

Why do you care if you're not doing anything illegal?

In this particular case, because criminals can hack Flock's databases. You can tell whether I'm leaving to go to work, coming home for lunch, figure out my patterns, and schedule a robbery. There are PLENTY of other reasons why I don't appreciate having a camera sitting at the end of my driveway, I wasn't notified about their decision nor had any input so it feels a bit intrusive, but surely you can appreciate that no system is 100% secure and that's why these persistent surveillance gear are so troubling.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#215

Post by gs17 »

toephu2 wrote: post #169
daft_pink wrote: post #130

Wow. License plate readers are everywhere.

Is that a bad thing? I would imagine the only people who don't like this are criminals. But why are so many seemingly law-abiding citizens here up in arms about it?

> I would imagine the only people who don't like this are criminals

The problem is that the system doesn't only work on criminals, there's rarely enough oversight to prevent abuse, and it's only going to get more invasive. There's been case after case where cops use it to stalk their ex-girlfriends/ex-wives or similar, for example: https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article29105...

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#216

Post by patrickmay »

toephu2 wrote: post #169
daft_pink wrote: post #130

Wow. License plate readers are everywhere.

Is that a bad thing? I would imagine the only people who don't like this are criminals. But why are so many seemingly law-abiding citizens here up in arms about it?

They collect data that allows tracking the movement and locations of individuals to a reasonably high degree of fidelity. Governments cannot be trusted to protect this data or to use it legally and responsibly.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#217

Post by patrickmay »

camillomiller wrote: post #35

Would destroying the cameras be a legitimate act of social disobedience, considering that the company shows a total defiance and lack of respect for the law and society? I would argue it is.

No, no, that would be wrong. https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Thermite

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#218

Post by FireBeyond »

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…

As an ex-employee of Flock, I can guarantee that this most likely came from the top down. The founder has a vision that isn't just aspirational, but literal, in his eyes, "Flock should help eliminate all crime." Very much Minority Report. He sees Flock as the unsung heroes of the community, and any collateral damage is an acceptable price to pay, despite lip service being paid to ethics:

For example, their "suspicious behavior". Cameras reporting to HOAs and to LE of vehicle behavior that is suspicious or aberrant to their AI (changes in parking behavior and times, for example).

Sharing of data between entities that aren't meant to be sharing (HOAs sending data to LE, for example, when prohibited by the state. Flock's position is "not our job to stop you, even if we know that your state says not to").

A very ... opaque ... "transparency report". In my county alone, there are at least four agencies using Flock that are not listed in their "Agencies using Flock" data.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#219

Post by FireBeyond »

saubeidl wrote: post #79
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.

> Domestic Terrorism Task Force That is ... a surprisingly honest name for a force that'll terrorize any domestic opposition, gotta give them that at least.

It's not hard to draw potential dots:

Designate Venezuelan boats as "likely terrorists" (drug dealers). Authorize use of extrajudicial military lethal force (blow up boats with dealers aboard).

Justify the above due to "terrorism".

Designate "Antifa" as a "domestic terrorism group".

Not hard to see the next step of "deploy military force against individuals suspected of being Antifa". No need for pesky trials. They're terrorists. This is a war...

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#220

Post by FireBeyond »

mothballed wrote: post #212
nielsbot wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes the posted article This decision came after Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias discovered that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois cameras in a “pilot program” against state law,

Flock promises all sorts of safeguards and ethics around, y'know, the law, but the reality is their perspective is "it's not our job to tell you that you can or can't do something, even if we know for a fact that you can't".

Reminds me when I build health insurance claims management software (pre-ACA). "We want to mine the database for familial history of conditions, based on familial claims and ICD codes".

"We can't do that."

"Why not? It's all in the database."

"It is. And we are legally forbidden from running such queries."

"..."

Post reply on HN