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

Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation

investigatetv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 297 posts

Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation

#241

Post by cristoperb »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #113
hammock wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's just some installer dude probably making $65k/year to climb poles and fasten cameras I find it hard to be persuaded by the salary idea. A hitman who works for $100 is just as bad as one who works for $10,000. In fact other immoral activities work the opposite, bizarrely (a whore who works for $100 is worse than one who works for $10,000)

Most jobs are imoral. If we were to do only the moral ones… we’d have probably 75% unemployment or something like that.

"there's no ethical production under capitalism"?

Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation

#242

Post by rfrey »

madaxe_again wrote: post #201
rfrey wrote: post #192

I think if you're worried about being harassed by your neighbours if they find out what you do during the day, you should be thinking hard about what you do during the day.

Yeah! If you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear! looks at you suspiciously Are those… curtains?

You don't think there's a difference between recording somebody on the street installing mass surveillance devices and peering into person's window?

Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation

#243

Post by Timon3 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #199
Hizonner wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they should be different. In almost all cases, they should be less. But what I really wanted to mention is that flock is not the government , and flock's services are not exclusively available to governments . Same goes for their competitors.

The government represents the public will of the people and has democratic legitimacy. The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd. I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will…

Due to the monopoly on violence, governments need additional more constraints in some areas. If your government dislikes you and they can track every step you take out in public, it becomes much easier for them to violate your rights without anyone stopping them. And because the government could fetch the same data from any company collecting it, companies too must be banned from doing so.

Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation

#244

Post by c0nducktr »

tptacek wrote: post #217
tanseydavid wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL that 911 (Emergency Services) is how one should report a stolen bicycle.

Happy to help. 911 is the primary "call for service" channel for most police departments.

Just want to add that myself to the list of people who can't imagine calling 911 for a non-emergency. Never in my life have I heard anyone assume it's for that purpose.

Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation

#245

Post by c0nducktr »

whimsicalism wrote: post #153
kstrauser wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s literally exactly what Flock does. I can’t find sympathy for the company on this.

Maybe I’m a radical but I am okay with the government having capabilities that are different from what a youtuber is allowed to do.

Not sure if I'd use the term radical but there are other words which come to mind.

Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation

#246

Post by k33n »

tekla wrote: post #235
k33n wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Florida, we just talked to our reps and got them banned from the entire state. It was easy and didn’t require protests at all.

Florida did not ban Flock cameras from the entire state. They revoked permits for all license plate readers, including Flock, from state roads. Local roads are unaffected by this order. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/florida-bans-flock-li... > Monday’s order did not affect cameras on private property or on local rights-of-way — where 98% of the surveillance cameras are located

It's true that the order only impacts state highways. It removes approximately 700 license plate readers and then also leaves thousands still up locally. However, in my county, the Sheriffs dept is actually taking them down voluntarily, because of the positive political reception of the state-road ban. And its happening in other jurisdictions near me.

A lot of people instinctively believe Florida only does dumb stuff, but we really do have quite responsive people in charge here. From where I sit, I see good movement on the whole Flock issue in my state and county.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/SeminoleSheriff/posts/update-on-flo...

Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation

#247

Post by tzs »

weard_beard wrote: post #236
tptacek wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not bananas. It happens all the time. The police show up, check things out, and inform the caller that the person recording has a right to do so. In this case, it's even less bananas, because the people recording him were literally following him around, which is not what generally happens in these "audit" scenarios where someone parks themselves on the street outside a restaurant or bank. There's pretty clearly…

The key point here is hypocrisy. The very evident double standard. A person holding a camera and following you around is an emergency or at the very least a suspicious act worthy of investigation and possible arrest. A person attaching hundreds of thousands of cameras to poles calling the police to report this act is what is noteworthy. Its not clickbait in the normal sense of overselling a series of un-noteworthy ev…

> A person attaching hundreds of thousands of cameras to poles calling the police to report this act is what is noteworthy

That's one seriously impressive person. If they started as soon as Flock was founded and spend 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year installing cameras they would have to on average have installed a camera every 6 minutes.

Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation

#248

Post by EgregiousCube »

LeBit wrote: post #34
EgregiousCube wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when chances are that this camera installation was the result of local government asking and paying Flock to put it up. I'm not sure why the anger is directed at the company instead of local elected officials, and I understand the plight of the installer who's worried about being labeled as a bad guy for executing public works contracts.

Well, politicians are to pay for the fact they have allowed something like Flock cameras to be put up and spy to egregiously on their constituents. But Flock itself should not be spared . They are building things that are going against widely accepted values. Since when Americans are okay with that level of erosion of their privacy? Same thing with Meta building pervert glasses.

This is the disconnect. You say that politicians are allowing them - that's not right. They're directing them to be set up, they're spending citizen tax money on buying them.

The blame lies entirely with government officials who sought out and purchased surveillance tech, and we should not blame the technologists who responded rationally to the incentive that local governments provided for them.

Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation

#249

Post by tzs »

Someone1234 wrote: post #114
tptacek wrote: post #21

Random people calling 911 on other people filming them is a staple of Youtube; banks, coffee store workers, hairdressers, most especially restaurant managers. I don't know why anyone would expect technicians from Flock to be different. It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving. You'd think from the response that this was like the VP/Sal…

> It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving. Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard. I actually agree it is unnerving, I just don't agree that one should be held to a different standard than the other.

> Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard.

It's not the same thing. Flock cameras have terrible privacy implications but at least when I pass by one of them they are also filming everyone else passing by. I'm not being singled out.

They are also sometimes used by stalkers that have access to improperly track people, so if I do acquire a stalker they might help my stalker.

If some person is following me personally around and filming me then I am clearly being singled out.

Re: Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation

#250

Post by tzs »

theoreticalmal wrote: post #137
driggs wrote: post #90

I love a good taste-of-their-own-medicine story like anyone else, but the headline is false. It seems that this is about a YouTuber stalking a Flock employee's vehicle through traffic for 10-15 minutes, which is why the police were called.

Not illegal, and like all the other comments here, isn’t this exactly what Flock does? But they do it indiscriminately to all vehicles at all times?

It's not the same because it is indiscriminate.
Post reply on HN