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

211–220 of 507 posts

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

#211

Post by seniorThrowaway »

afavour wrote: post #112
leeoniya wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're thinking Chinese surveillance the big irony, of course, is that i'm much more comfortable with China surveilling me than the US, since the latter can throw me in jail, seize my assets, and ruin my family's life, while the former cannot.

The US government is a democracy and can be replaced should it exceed people’s limits. The CCP… uh, not so much. I’m not trying to say the US government is faultless but it amazes me how often I see this kind of anti-democratic institition sentiment.

Maybe it isn't the US government we need to worry about. What's stopping Flock from compiling and selling personal dossiers on every citizen like all the other big tech companies? They're just a private company so nothing to worry about, right?

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

#212

Post by JKCalhoun »

thedougd wrote: post #202
eddyg wrote: post #47

Yes, they should be secured so they can only be accessed by law enforcement. But if your spouse/SO/sister/mother/girlfriend/whatever was assaulted while jogging in a park that had Flock cameras, and it allowed law enforcement to quickly identify, track, apprehend and charge the criminal, you'd absolutely be grateful for the technology. There's nothing worse than being told "we don't have any leads" when someone you c…

I'll make up another one to pile on. Perhaps the police would have had a visible, deterrent presence if they weren't lazily relying on cameras, and that would have prevented the assault in the first place. Anyhow, if you read the flock database, they're overwhelmingly not using them for the purposes of public safety or random crime.

"…they're overwhelmingly not using them for the purposes of public safety or random crime."

That would seem to be very relevant information.

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

#213

Post by kelnos »

eddyg wrote: post #47

Yes, they should be secured so they can only be accessed by law enforcement. But if your spouse/SO/sister/mother/girlfriend/whatever was assaulted while jogging in a park that had Flock cameras, and it allowed law enforcement to quickly identify, track, apprehend and charge the criminal, you'd absolutely be grateful for the technology. There's nothing worse than being told "we don't have any leads" when someone you c…

Ah yes, the good ol' appeal to fear. "Think of the childr--err, I mean poor defenseless woman!"

No, I don't want these cameras. I don't care if they make law enforcement's job easier. They are an invasion of privacy and a part of the disgusting dragnet surveillance state.

They need to go.

A decade ago, I was attacked on a public sidewalk by three men, who roughed me up a bit and stole from me. The police were utterly unhelpful, and as far as I know, they never caught anyone. But ultimately, that didn't really matter. I was traumatized for a while, but eventually worked through it. Whether or not they were caught would not have changed any part of that process.

I get that, emotionally, we want some sort of justice when things like this happen, but I am not willing to put up with even more constant surveillance in order to feel a little bit better about a bad thing that happened to me. I would much rather criminals sometimes went free.

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

#214

Post by JKCalhoun »

everdrive wrote: post #57

It's getting pretty crazy out there. What's your recourse for this? Avoid most populated areas?

deflock.me has a map. (I recently contributed a few flock cameras I spotted.)

I notice they generally watch busy roads and intersections, off and on ramps to highways, retail malls…

Smaller roads through neighborhoods were mostly unmolested.

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

#215

Post by tptacek »

phyzome wrote: post #178
tptacek wrote: post #33

I would love to watch a shorter version of this video that just discussed the deltas between the status quo and Flock, rather than breathlessly reporting the implications of cameras as if they were distinctive to Flock. He'll spend 30 seconds talking about how you can see every activity and every person on the camera --- yeah, that's how cameras work. There are thousands of public IP cameras on the Internet, aimed at…

He's pretty open in this video about how Flock is far from alone in this space, and he's just using them as an example because they're so popular and flagrantly abusive.

In what way this is an illustration of Flock's "flagrancy"? I'm seriously asking. I'm not a Flock supporter. My point is that cameras just as sensitive as the ones he shows here are deliberately public on the Internet.

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

#216

Post by ryandrake »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #201
docjay wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know that I’ve heard the “saves lives” argument for this type of camera. How would that play out?

That's easy. Person gets kidnapped, government surveillance camera helps police find the car before the kidnapper kills them. Or, probably more common: murder happens, government surveillance camera helps police find murderer and jail them before they kill someone else. That's why these cameras are so prevalent, the case for them is extremely obvious and easy to make (give police more tools to stop bad guys), while t…

> Person gets kidnapped, government surveillance camera helps police find the car before the kidnapper kills them. Or, probably more common: murder happens, government surveillance camera helps police find murderer and jail them before they kill someone else.

It's a good steelman/devil's advocate of their position, but I wonder if proponents realize how much wishful thinking drives those supposed outcomes.

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

#217

Post by BobaFloutist »

whycombinetor wrote: post #209
jjwiseman wrote: post #160

The CEO of Flock, Garrett Langley, called Deflock a terrorist group. It's unhinged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-kZGrDz7PU

[flagged]

How are they conspiring to destroy it? Are you saying that coordinating attempts to change policy counts as destroying the previous policy, or are you drawing a line from identifying and locating the cameras to (possibly other) people actively vandalizing them?

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

#218

Post by kelnos »

everdrive wrote: post #57

It's getting pretty crazy out there. What's your recourse for this? Avoid most populated areas?

Work with your municipality to pass laws banning cameras like this. I'm sure it isn't easy (and I'm not sure I have the stomach for working through that process in my city), but people have done it in some places.

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

#220

Post by vatsachak »

gruez wrote: post #89
vatsachak wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why it's good to use GrapheneOS*. In the future, hopefully the pinebook project succeeds

How does using GrapheneOS prevent license plate readers from tracking where you are, or from you being groped at the airport?

I responded to the last point of the parent comment
Post reply on HN