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

Stop Flock

stopflock.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#221

Post by Tangurena2 »

mcmcmc wrote: post #204
diordiderot wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't allowed to automate law enforcement because of disparate impact

Right, because human enforcement isn’t selective or biased at all

You can at least question an officer in court. Automated stuff is incapable of testifying - which is why traffic camera "tickets" are not enforceable in every state.

Facial recognition performs so poorly on non-white people that you'd have to find the most racist officer saying "they all look the same to me" to get that degree of defectivity.

Re: Stop Flock

#222

Post by dzhiurgis »

alex_young wrote: post #162
dzhiurgis wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah nah I’d rather stop the criminals.

That’s cool. The precogs over at flock say you drive too close to the criminals though, and you know what that means. Stay loyal, stay safe citizens.

Criminals are long gone baby. Stop worshipping them.

Re: Stop Flock

#225

Post by otterley »

SecretDreams wrote: post #205
otterley wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seems reasonable for individuals to just track each other at a distance if we're all okay with your proposed path. They often do. What am I gonna do, run up to anyone who's taking cell phone videos that might have me in it and try to force them to stop recording? That would make me look unhinged.

So, full circle, you're okay with a film crew recording you and your family in public at all times?

It’s a false equivalence. Passive surveillance cameras aren’t the same as having a bunch of annoying people trailing me, which gives rise to the concern for the personal safety of me and my family. So I reject the comparison.

Re: Stop Flock

#226

Post by 0ldblu3 »

Lawmakers won't care until it is them and their kids that are being tracked by "hackers". Flock API's are poorly protected and the individual cameras are hackable as shown by Benn Jordan in multiple YouTube videos.

Re: Stop Flock

#227

Post by NoSalt »

RHSeeger wrote: post #28
stevemk14ebr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to stop the source, which is that the government and other agencies can purchase surveillance data that would otherwise be disallowed by the 4th amendment. We need to end this 'laundering' of information through third parties, and enforce the constitution by its intent.

Not just the government. It shouldn't be possible for any random stalker to find someone's daily movements.

Government ... random stalker ... same thing.

Re: Stop Flock

#229

Post by righthand »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #222
alex_young wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s cool. The precogs over at flock say you drive too close to the criminals though, and you know what that means. Stay loyal, stay safe citizens.

Criminals are long gone baby. Stop worshipping them.

The Potus is literally a pedophile, criminals are here to stay and winning. Your camera company supports them as long as they have money and/or control of the system.

Re: Stop Flock

#230

Post by contagiousflow »

scarmig wrote: post #32

Although I oppose the surveillance state, it's important to understand the motivations and incentives involved in the move toward Flock (and its eventual successors); until those are resolved, governments are going to be implementing Flock style programs with relatively tepid opposition. Police departments are seriously understaffed in many major cities, and officers are much less efficient than they used to be. This…

If you take a look externally to other countries and cities, do you attribute their relative safety to good policing?
Post reply on HN