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

221–230 of 277 posts

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#221

Post by sidewndr46 »

Terr_ wrote: post #207
sidewndr46 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

While I can see your point about "strangle a baby", I don't think there are any events that unfolded like that. If someone shows up and asks me for something they technically aren't supposed to have, how am I supposed to know that?

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#222

Post by gs17 »

DoctorOW wrote: post #63
sschueller wrote: post #44

https://deflock.me/

One of the closest points in my area is Made/Operated by: "Unknown". Very helpful. In my general area there are almost 100.

Operated by: "Unknown" is going to be very common. One popped up near my work recently, and I have no idea who "operates" it officially.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#223

Post by phyzome »

userbinator wrote: post #12
etchalon wrote: post #11

If these were installed without authorization, I assume citizens can rip them down without the same.

Or more likely, make use of the 2nd Amendment on them.

Discharging firearms in proximity to occupied buildings, very intelligent.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#224

Post by phyzome »

_cenw wrote: post #54

Aside the topic, but I wonder how HN, as a community, and as a moderation team, weighs this on the intellectual curiosity vs primarily politics scale. This seems politics to me. Very important politics that a lot of people in tech have a special interest for, but politics nonetheless, and much more pressing topics seem to be absent through the on-topic rule.

It's whatever the mods feel like. For example, posts about Charlie Kirk being assassinated were allowed to stay, and that was basically pure politics.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#225

Post by FireBeyond »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #72

I feel as if ALPRs are already a fact of life. Not thrilled about it, but that’s sort of what license plates are for (ALPRs are really just automated cop eyeballs). The most disturbing thing, is the behavior of the company. It’s pretty clear that they have a separate contract with the feds, and that contract is the one they care about more. It’s also an illustration of the faustian bargain that customers make, when e…

Flock is so much more than an ALPR, that'd be one thing. They recognize vehicles based on all the metadata you'd expect, color, etc. But they also look at vehicle panels that are a different color, collision damage, bumper stickers and window decals, roof racks, tow hitches, wheels and rims to identify a vehicle.

And then they'll happily run their AI over that knowledge and based on their prompt, if the vehicle is "behaving suspiciously", then they'll ping law enforcement directly and proactively.

It is utterly Minority Report-lite.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#226

Post by Terr_ »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #221
Terr_ wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

While I can see your point about "strangle a baby", I don't think there are any events that unfolded like that. If someone shows up and asks me for something they technically aren't supposed to have, how am I supposed to know that?

> If someone shows up and asks me for something they technically aren't supposed to have, how am I supposed to know

Well, in this case, you know because "you" happen to be a ~$3.5b company with a legal department that already works regularly on negotiations and compliance to state/local rules, and likely months to calmly investigate and decide on a policy.

Has Flock Security made any statements claiming they were tricked or rushed by the feds?

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#227

Post by Ancapistani »

nenenejej wrote: post #210
Ancapistani wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ah, gotcha. I'm familiar with the term, I just didn't see how it could be interpreted that way.

Thanks :)

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#228

Post by FireBeyond »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #128
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #72

I feel as if ALPRs are already a fact of life. Not thrilled about it, but that’s sort of what license plates are for (ALPRs are really just automated cop eyeballs). The most disturbing thing, is the behavior of the company. It’s pretty clear that they have a separate contract with the feds, and that contract is the one they care about more. It’s also an illustration of the faustian bargain that customers make, when e…

I think there is probably a core difference between recording the position of any plate which is wanted pertaining to a crime and recording the position of every plate. I have zero issue with Flock finding suspect plates, but the fact some journalists were able to get logs of where their cars were indicates it is far more overbroad of collection than an automated cop's eyeballs.

In my city of 55,000, Flock's transparency portal states that they've had 330,000 vehicle captures in the last 30 days.

From being a previous employee of Flock I know that each of those captures has some location and timestamp data.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#229

Post by CM30 »

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.

Not even just regular Joe, a lot of the things large companies get away with would lead to far harsher consequences for small or medium sized ones. Any normal company spying on people's devices at the scale of Facebook, selling dodgy goods on the level Amazon does or ignoring guidelines in general like Uber and AirBnB used to would get absolutely wrecked by the legal system.

The system needs to be way more even when it comes to dealing with individuals and companies of every size possible.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#230

Post by conception »

grafmax wrote: post #126
euroderf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This sounds like some sort of legal procedures adopted from the USSR.

It turns out capitalism devolves into authoritarianism too when money gets concentrated enough. Basically any extreme concentration of power (wealth concentration or Stalinism) is going to tend toward this kind of outcome.

Slight correction, capitalism has no political ideology and craves monopoly. Corporate feudalism and capitalism are totally compatible.
Post reply on HN