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

241–250 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#241

Post by tbojanin »

As much as I dislike flock. There's definitely a case to be made for the business model where first responder companies can generate huge amounts of taxpayer funded ARR in "sanctuary cities" due to criminals never getting actually serving sentences. If criminals are stuck in the:

"Commit crime -> brief retention period -> activist judge lets you go" loop, then you can definitely build a business model that just capitalizes on the fact that there's no consequences to committing a crime, and local/state governments have to waste copious amount of money due to the incredibly inflated demand of first responder services.

Re: Stop Flock

#242

Post by M3L0NM4N »

MegagramEnjoyer wrote: post #30
khuston wrote: post #13

I’m all for mass surveillance of roadways, but I want to see results. Every day I see and hear people breaking laws with their vehicles in ways that make life worse for others around them.

This is a dangerous attitude. We don't need mass surveillance for traffic control. It can be done by the police if they really wanted to do it. Truth is, they don't care enough about road safety. This is about surveillance of citizens for control. First step is just infrastructure setup - next step is using it to prosecute those who dare to challenge the rise of fascism. Be an advocate for your own rights to privacy.…

Unless you want a police officer on every street corner at all times, no, it cannot be "done by the police".

Re: Stop Flock

#243

Post by M3L0NM4N »

lucaspm98 wrote: post #86
otterley wrote: post #64

Why do people consistently and falsely believe that they have privacy in public settings? You are literally out in public. If you don't want your behavior in public to be observed, then either don't behave in such a way that you wouldn't want observed, or stay home. UPDATE: don't conflate stalking with observation. These are not the same. You can observe, but you cannot intimidate.

Every entrance to my neighborhood has a Flock camera from my local police department. Tracking the exact time I enter and leave my home is at the very least right at this line you’re trying to draw.

How that information is accessed and/or used is where the distinction lies.

Re: Stop Flock

#244

Post by sofixa »

Tangurena2 wrote: post #221
mcmcmc wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

That's besides the point, you don't need to question a picture with accompanying information (such as location, detected speed).

> Facial recognition performs so poorly on non-white people

You don't need facial recognition. Car with plate XYZ (trivial character recognition) ran a red light, $1000 fine with associated picture proof of the crime sent to the owner of the car as registered in their locality. Done.

Re: Stop Flock

#245

Post by sofixa »

Cider9986 wrote: post #47
khuston wrote: post #13

I’m all for mass surveillance of roadways, but I want to see results. Every day I see and hear people breaking laws with their vehicles in ways that make life worse for others around them.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. You want this on our roads? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud8kFCmalgg&t=112s

Driving recklessly is not an "essential liberty". Safer roads equals less deaths and injuries on them, which is not "temporary safety", it's literally life or death.

Re: Stop Flock

#246

Post by duped »

tbojanin wrote: post #241

As much as I dislike flock. There's definitely a case to be made for the business model where first responder companies can generate huge amounts of taxpayer funded ARR in "sanctuary cities" due to criminals never getting actually serving sentences. If criminals are stuck in the: "Commit crime -> brief retention period -> activist judge lets you go" loop, then you can definitely build a business model that just capit…

Two points.

First: that's not what a "sanctuary city" is. That term specifically refers to cities that don't let their local law enforcement and courts assist ICE/CBP. The idea is that local crimes happen to everyone regardless of immigration status and we don't want a situation where undocumented people live lawlessly because they can't talk to police or court officers without fear of deportation.

Second: there's no "activist judge lets you go" loop. In practice judges are pretty tightly constrained by the law when it comes to pretrial detention. However, there _is_ a "cops refuse to do their job out of protest" loop.

And also: none of this is a technical problem! It's all political/social dynamics and surveillance doesn't affect it at all.

Re: Stop Flock

#247

Post by saghm »

diordiderot wrote: post #184
saghm wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're conveniently unaware of the historical context of the origin of that phrase too, if we're to take you literally, since you seem to entirely misunderstand how the whole reason it was problematic was due to the inherent power dynamics

Read some Foucauld. power is internalised. People absorb the norms of their social class and start policing themselves and others without needing orders or hierarchical power dynamics. Norm enforcement can spread faster and further than formal authority because lots of people can act on a signal whilst thinking they drew their own conclusions. Think of steve bannon's quote "politics is downstream of culture". formal…

> Think of steve bannon's quote "politics is downstream of culture".

I'm going to be honest: if you think Steve Bannon is a thought leader, I don't think we'd agree on pretty much anything.

> formal rank of the speaker is less important than that the signal comes from the socially legitimate tribe whose approval, language, and standard the subject is a member.

You're claiming that a random stranger on an internet forum has as much social power as the literal monarch of a country. That's absurd, no matter how much fancy language you use to try to justify it.

Re: Stop Flock

#248

Post by saghm »

renewiltord wrote: post #235
saghm wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're conveniently unaware of the historical context of the origin of that phrase too, if we're to take you literally, since you seem to entirely misunderstand how the whole reason it was problematic was due to the inherent power dynamics

Indeed, one of the great wisdoms of history is that a mobs have no power. We are very wise men so we know that there are no peer reviewed controlled trials showing mobs having power. We call this thing Science.

A random person on an internet forum is not a mob.

Re: Stop Flock

#249

Post by scarmig »

bearjaws wrote: post #207
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…

Most cities are spending 9-10 figures on Police staff, and somehow are understaffed? We simply aren't getting effective policing, and technology isn't the solution. Reality is cops have become police report writers, traffic accident helpers, and domestic abuse arbiters, that is over half the job.

I agree with everything you say; my "police departments are understaffed" is too generic, and might be better stated as "too few resources are devoted to traditional beat policing." Which isn't to say that the other things are unnecessary or pointless, but it's a different set of skills.

Re: Stop Flock

#250

Post by tonymet »

duped wrote: post #246
tbojanin wrote: post #241

As much as I dislike flock. There's definitely a case to be made for the business model where first responder companies can generate huge amounts of taxpayer funded ARR in "sanctuary cities" due to criminals never getting actually serving sentences. If criminals are stuck in the: "Commit crime -> brief retention period -> activist judge lets you go" loop, then you can definitely build a business model that just capit…

Two points. First: that's not what a "sanctuary city" is. That term specifically refers to cities that don't let their local law enforcement and courts assist ICE/CBP. The idea is that local crimes happen to everyone regardless of immigration status and we don't want a situation where undocumented people live lawlessly because they can't talk to police or court officers without fear of deportation. Second: there's no…

Do you think the city councils who declare “sanctuary city” status turn around and tell the DAs to be tough on those same individuals?

They go hand in hand.

Post reply on HN