Live data from Hacker News

Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

evanstonroundtable.com

251–260 of 277 posts

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm basically in the same boat. There is no practical way for me to avoid having my picture taken 6 or more times every single day. I flip the camera off each and every time I drive/walk by it. It's infuriating.

Why do you care if you're not doing anything illegal?

Show me the man and I'll show you the crime

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm basically in the same boat. There is no practical way for me to avoid having my picture taken 6 or more times every single day. I flip the camera off each and every time I drive/walk by it. It's infuriating.

Why do you care if you're not doing anything illegal?

So you would be okay with me personally tracking everything you do and recording you 24/7 then right? Because if you aren't doing anything wrong...

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#253

Wow. License plate readers are everywhere.

Is that a bad thing? I would imagine the only people who don't like this are criminals. But why are so many seemingly law-abiding citizens here up in arms about it?

Yes it is. Mass surveillance is always a problem in every form.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is extremely important for a civil society not only that predictable laws are put into place, but also that predictable enforcement of those laws exist. At the moment, this doesn't exist either. Particularly on the low end of offenses, selective enforcement and racial profiling run rampant , and not just in the US. Any decent developed society takes laws that have gone outdated off the books entirely - the excep…

There's never really been any enforcement on the low end that I am aware of. Even as a little kid I asked my dad about things like speeding, jaywalking, driving without insurance, etc. and he pointed that basically no one is actually even investigated for those things.

TIL that no one has ever been in trouble for driving without insurance.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#255
post #229
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 even just regular Joe, a lot of the things large companies get away with would lead to far harsher consequences for small or medium sized ones. Any normal company spying on people's devices at the scale of Facebook, selling dodgy goods on the level Amazon does or ignoring guidelines in general like Uber and AirBnB used to would get absolutely wrecked by the legal system. The system needs to be way more even when…

Yeah good point. The question is how can we effectively change incentives in such way the decision-makers in big corporations will feel they are taking a personal risk that can ruin their lives instead of a situation where the worst that can happen is a (compared to revenue) tiny symbolic fine made by the company and not by them?

For me the important thing is that the buck needs to stop somewhere human in certain cases. And in doubt that should be the CEO, potentially even multiple people at once.

If we want a free market where new players can enter and compete, big corporations needs to fear harsher punishment not lighter ones.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#256
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really want private parties doing mass surveillance either.

me either, but their power is limit. Governments can ruin you forever and even disappear you without any real consequences

Governments can equally allow private companies this same capacity.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#258
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I never understood how someone can ask such a question. It's not like you can just change jobs like you can change clothes. Some people have a family to feed so they can't just decide to be jobless for a few months. Finding a new job takes time you might not have if you still have to show up to your existing job and keep up the mask as if you have no intention of quitting. Sometimes the shittiest jobs pay the most and you cannot afford the pay cut. And sometimes all options are equally bad, e.g. if you don't want to participate in planned obsolescence, but every company out there is making products designed to break. What's the alternative? Make your own company?

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#259

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…

> On top of that, the company should be fined into bankruptcy.

Fines need to increase with subsequent offenses, otherwise they become just a number in the cost of running business. If the fine is 100k, but the profit from breaking the law is 1M, then it makes more sense to keep breaking the law and keep paying the fine.

Instead the fine should increase every time. The first time it's easy to pay the 100k, but then it rises to 200k (still worth), 400k (not so much worth it), 800k (barely profitable), 1.6M (actual loss) and so on. Of course this only works if the fine keeps increasing faster than the profitability of the crime.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they aren't even hardwired to the net and can easily be jammed with commonly available Jamming hardware?

Pretty casual about committing federal crimes.

Argumentum ad legem.

Was slavery moral because slavery was legal?

Apart from that,the device's raison d’etre is committing federal crimes, namely violating the 4th amendment rights of private citizens. Previous case law has found mining historical cell phone location data to be a 4A violation requiring a warrant.

Post reply on HN