Live data from Hacker News

US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

cnet.com

241–250 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could believe that perma-cameraing every inch of public space is more akin to chemo than to vitamin gummies, that SF had the city equivalent of bone cancer, and that this doesn’t mean healthy midwestern towns need Flock in any way.

[flagged]

It's a much tougher problem then "idk just throw them in jail lol" and anyone who claims otherwise is dishonest.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But there's 100 shitty people and you have to pick one or two. So maybe you pick the anti-ICE protester instead of the Nazi to help out. Both got shot with pepper balls, both had their rights infringed upon. Why not pick the one who isn't a complete ass to establish the same precedent with?

I agree 100%, I’d rather the ACLU picked their battles and if there’s a choice, not pick a Nazi. But I’m not a huge fan about how they’ve explicitly said they won’t defend hate speech. It’s a betrayal of their original cause.

> But I’m not a huge fan about how they’ve explicitly said they won’t defend hate speech.

They've explicitly said the opposite.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w...

2023: "We joined Young Americans for Freedom, the Cato Institute, and other unlikely partners in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in its challenge to New York’s new law regulating 'hateful conduct' in social media."

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is very solid evidence it wasn't the cameras. https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-car-breakins/ has a chart of the car breakins. It shows the drop starting in September of 2023. https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/your-sfpd/policies/depart... > Starting on March 19, 2024, Flock Safety began installing ALPR cameras in various strategic locations across San Francisco. This rollout is expected to take place ove…

A crime drop between over that 3 months is not, as evidenced by the subsequent rise for 3 months after, of the time period you claim as evidence.

The drop starting a year before the cameras is evidence that the drop is not explicable via the cameras.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#245

Musician-turning-tech anarchist (?) Benn Jordan is making a very interesting series of videos about Flock cameras, their poor safety, and their gray-area interfacing with local governments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMIwNiwQewQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU1-uiUlHTo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ I recommend them.

I think his comment about "why dogs might provide actual neighborhood safety" is a good reminder that the thing that makes communities safe is "knowing your neighbors." You don't get safety by building a castle with a moat and a million cameras. You get safety by building a community with context that can respond without having to just "react" to the 6s version of "what happened".

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#248
post #178

These companies build this tech in SF and Seattle, cities with some of the gnarliest public safety problems in the country, then turn around and sell it to smaller towns where it does more harm than good. Most places in America don't have problems that surveillance solves. They have problems they already know about and won't act on. Cameras don't fix homelessness or addiction or underfunded services. They just make l…

"Cameras don't fix homelessness or addiction or underfunded services. They just make life harder for regular people." In what way do cameras make life harder for regular people? If anything rampant crime (and progressive legal systems' unwillingness to lock up repeat offenders for a long time or at all) makes life much harder for regular people than a camera just sitting there.

A few months ago a woman was harassed over a crime she did not commit, by a police officer using her vehicle driving in a large general area as proof she committed the crime. Officer demanded she admit to a crime she did not commit.

Additionally, the surveillance apparatus enables parallel reconstruction. When law enforcement gathers evidence via illegal means, they can then use the drag net to find cause to detain/search unrelated to the original crime, in order to have cover to gather evidence they illegally gathered prior, aka a loophole for civil rights.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#249
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re going to be so shocked to find out the tracking device the government tricked you to put in your pocket is even worse. Police can run geofenced dragnets whenever they want, and all you got was the ability to shitpost on the Internet. You’ll be even more shocked when biometric login isn’t protected by the 5th amendment. Possibly, even more shocked when you find out about XKEYSCORE. ALPR is bad, of course, but i…

Unless something has changed (or I'm simply clueless), it's not quite so trivial to ask where my phone was on January 30th. Camera surveillance is not time-limited.

It’s quite common for cell phone carriers to provide law enforcement with historical records of which towers a phone was connected to at specific times. Also the phone itself stores detailed location history, including which wifi networks it connected to, allowing police to get someone’s movements if their phone is seized as evidence. Police can even use battery temperature history to get an idea of whether the phone was on someone’s body, outside in the heat/cold, etc.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime's been descending from the COVID blip for a while, everywhere, Flock or otherwise. My city saw zero murders in Q1; 2021 saw ~15 by now. In other words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw

it's clearly not a covid effect https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-car-breakins/

The data is open, and so we don't have to do the visual reasoning off an imperfect graph. SF Chronicle has done a pretty rare (but I think good journalistic practice) of specifying the source of the data: https://data.sfgov.org/Public-Safety/Police-Department-Incid...

First to match the graph you make sure you pick 'Larceny - From Vehicle' only (there are some others one might argue matter) and ensure you're only counting incidents once (many rows reference the same incident). That lets us recreate the original graph.

When looking at many things I like to look at seasonal effects just to see, and it doesn't look like they are significant here (but you can see the Mar 2020 drop to the next year quite easily which I like): https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/images/2/2e/SFPD_Vehicle_Bre...

I also tried overlaying various line charts but that's useless for visually identifying the break.

One thing I thought would be fun is to run a changepoint algorithm blindly https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/File:SFPD_Vehicle_Break-Ins_...

I like PELT because it appeals to my sensibilities (you don't say ahead of time how many changepoints you want to find - you set an energy/cost param and let it roll) and it finds that one changepoint. You can have some fun with the other algos and changing the amount of breakpoints or changing the PELT cost function. And then you can have even more fun by excluding 2020 or excluding Mar 2020 onwards or replacing it by estimates from the previous years (quite suspect considering what we're trying to do but hey we're having fun - a bunch of algos all flag Nov 2023 as some moment of truth)

Anyway, anyone curious should download the data. It's pretty straightforward to use and if I goofed up with off-by-one or whatever, you can go see for yourself.

Post reply on HN