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

231–240 of 277 posts

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#231

Post by conception »

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

This statement from Reagan is why we’re in this mess. There’s nothing wrong having the government come help you. The problem is regulatory capture, corruption, and a population that seems ok with it. A competent government with people who care can be a powerful force in people lives, eg social security, national parks, public schools.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#232

Post by Terr_ »

grayhatter wrote: post #163
sidewndr46 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sentence "I should record audio and video in this case and elects to reject a qualified immunity claim." is English but not even comprehensible. I have no idea what you mean. Joseph Nacchio certainly would not agree with your opinion here that "they should get a warrant"

> Joseph Nacchio certainly would not agree with your opinion here that "they should get a warrant" Citing Wikipedia > He claimed in court, with documentation, that his was the only company to demand legal authority for surreptitious mass surveillance demanded by the NSA Sounds like he would agree with me? Or do you mean how he was convicted of insider trading which appears to be unethical retaliation for resisting an…

> I refuse to advocate that anyone should act unethically because they fear retaliation.

There are parallels here with other civil rights: It would be a [4th/1st] Amendment rights violation to use the threat of a future [warrant/gag-order] to coerce someone into [disclosing/censoring] something in advance.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#233

Post by K0balt »

patrickmay wrote: post #213
pjdesno wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I find that camera sensors often fail in close proximity to 2 watt láser diodes. It’s very strange.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#234

Post by jkestner »

FireBeyond wrote: post #225
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 "b…

I was led to believe that alerts are based on matching cars on a hot list. Is alerting based on behavior an advertised feature?

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#235

Post by qmr »

These are not "license plate readers".

They can and do identify vehicles based on a myriad of other factors. Paint wear, dents, roof racks, bumper stickers, and more.

There's currently a suit filed against them for 4A violations, with supporting case law. I'm also investigating possibility of a federal suit or suit against my municipality for the same. Previous case law has ruled cell phone searches with historical data are a 4A violation and illegal without a warrant.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#236

Post by FireBeyond »

jkestner wrote: post #234
FireBeyond wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "b…

I was led to believe that alerts are based on matching cars on a hot list. Is alerting based on behavior an advertised feature?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44860000

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#237

Post by qmr »

FireBeyond wrote: post #218
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 "suspiciou…

Why would you work for such a fucked up dystopian Orwellian corporation?

Appreciate any other insider details you have to share.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#238

Post by qmr »

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…

These are a lot more than ALPRs. Look into them more / see my other comment in this thread.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#239

Post by t-3 »

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 just CEOs, make employees liable. Going after the soft targets first will reduce the resources and influence of the harder targets at the executive level.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#240

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

qmr wrote: post #238
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…

These are a lot more than ALPRs. Look into them more / see my other comment in this thread.

I’m sure you’re correct, but I was talking about enforcing corporate accountability, a lot more than anything else.
Post reply on HN