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

251–260 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#251

Post by kortex »

01100011 wrote: post #147
bmitch3020 wrote: post #10

I don't want to stop Flock the company. I want to stop Flock the business model, along with all the other mass surveillance, and the data brokers. If the business models can't be made illegal, it should at least come with liabilities so high that no sane business would want to hold data that is essentially toxic waste. Without that, we are quickly spiraling into the dystopia where privacy is gone, and when the wrong…

There is a weird fetish with Flock right now. Privacy advocates have been screaming at the public for 25 years now and suddenly the public cares and is obsessed with this one very specific company. Nevermind license plate readers have been collecting your data for decades. Nevermind you literally carry a tracking device on your person, likely 24/7. I mean, cool, stop Flock, but don't stop there. Flock is very much no…

I don't think it's a "weird fetish." It's just most of the things privacy advocates have been warning about - PRISM, warrantless metadata requests, tech companies handing over data - are all largely invisible.

A camera pointing at your child's playground or gymnastics class is much more salient.

Re: Stop Flock

#252

Post by duped »

tonymet wrote: post #250
duped wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you have a very warped understanding of municipal government, policy, and how it relates to law enforcement. Because nowhere in the US that I'm aware of has a city council that can "tell the DA" anything.

Re: Stop Flock

#253

Post by nobody9999 »

01100011 wrote: post #147
bmitch3020 wrote: post #10

I don't want to stop Flock the company. I want to stop Flock the business model, along with all the other mass surveillance, and the data brokers. If the business models can't be made illegal, it should at least come with liabilities so high that no sane business would want to hold data that is essentially toxic waste. Without that, we are quickly spiraling into the dystopia where privacy is gone, and when the wrong…

There is a weird fetish with Flock right now. Privacy advocates have been screaming at the public for 25 years now and suddenly the public cares and is obsessed with this one very specific company. Nevermind license plate readers have been collecting your data for decades. Nevermind you literally carry a tracking device on your person, likely 24/7. I mean, cool, stop Flock, but don't stop there. Flock is very much no…

>Nevermind license plate readers have been collecting your data for decades. Nevermind you literally carry a tracking device on your person, likely 24/7.

While the above is a difference in scale, the various "credit bureaus" have been doing this stuff for much, much longer.[0][1][2]

That's not to excuse the use of ALPRs and tracking on mobile devices. It's all really creepy and collection and trade in such should have strong negative incentives (company breaking fines, loss of corporate charter, jail time, etc.).

In the meantime, one has to deal with at least some of this stuff unless you're willing to go live in a leanto in the woods.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equifax#History

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experian#History

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransUnion#History

Re: Stop Flock

#254

Post by kjkjadksj »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #239
boxed wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a teacher then shoots their entire class: arm the students!

I got my BS in Computer Science legally carrying a Glock in every class. I think it's very likely I was the only person doing so; Not because I was fearful, but because I like being prepared. It takes very little long-term effort for people to carry pepper spray, a gun (if able), and a first aid kit everywhere they go. You never know who's life you might save.

You are not clint eastwood.

Re: Stop Flock

#255

Post by tonymet »

duped wrote: post #252
tonymet wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you have a very warped understanding of municipal government, policy, and how it relates to law enforcement. Because nowhere in the US that I'm aware of has a city council that can "tell the DA" anything.

Explain how it operates and why you would expect a sanctuary city to have a tough on crime DA

Re: Stop Flock

#256

Post by kjkjadksj »

indiangenz wrote: post #201
arcanemachiner wrote: post #2

[flagged]

I, a law abiding & legal citizen want more of these cameras in public places. Are you trying to achieve an utopia for criminals and illegal aliens?

Would be nice if the cameras were useful. Most you get is a nice souvenir showing the crime occurring. Recording is not prevention. People don’t even bother hiding their face when they porch pirate in front of an obvious Ring camera because they know there is no real risk.

Re: Stop Flock

#257

Post by [deleted] »

latexr wrote: post #159
ryanjshaw wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not American, but in my extremely dangerous country we have many privately-operated cameras and I don’t know a single person who is against them. We also have strict privacy laws. So I was disappointed by what felt like very weak arguments in the article. Basically seems to come down it “it can be abused”. But many things can be abused. The solution is to fix the abuse problem. I’d like to hear stronger argument…

> The solution is to fix the abuse problem. No, the solution is to fix the societal issues leading people to resort to crime. Surveillance cameras are not a solution, they are a band-aid placed several steps away from the wound.

[deleted]

Re: Stop Flock

#258

Post by kjkjadksj »

sofixa wrote: post #244
Tangurena2 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“Not sure who was driving”

Most of those red light tickets you’d be surprised but city subreddit advice will be like “ignore it, don’t even look up the ticket number because that acknowledged you received the ticket.” They only mail it to you via regular mail. They have no clue if it actually got to you.

Re: Stop Flock

#259

Post by Finbarr »

saghm wrote: post #145
Finbarr wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Flock has been a key contributor in solving numerous crimes. I'm happy for Flock to be in my county and would like the police to have more access to technology like this, not less.

Does your country also have a recurring problem of police shooting unarmed citizens? If not, it probably helps to understand the dynamics of why the police are not widely trusted here

County was not a typo. It's awful whenever there's an overuse of force in the USA. I'd recommend watching a few police bodycam videos on youtube before judging them wholesale though. The experience of a police officer in the United States seems to be long periods of tedium punctuated by moments of sheer terror and adrenaline. Anyone out there can have a gun and encounters can unexpectedly escalate to deadly violence in seconds. Some of them should not be police officers. There are many great officers out there just trying to protect their communities.

Re: Stop Flock

#260

Post by fc417fc802 »

jojobas wrote: post #151
buzer wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If PIs can "legally" do it then it sounds like there is a law which allows them to do it. That law can be revoked (unless the power comes from Constitution which would make it effectively impossible to revoke). Note that PIs are effectively illegal under GDPR by default. They would generally need to provide Article 13 notice, i.e. you would become aware of them unless they were just asking around without actually fol…

In the US, PI licensing is only about PIing for hire. The actual act of going through public records, following cars and whatnot do not require a license, you can spy on anyone without a license as long as you don't get paid for it. EU is more complicated, but Article 14.5.b allows withholding notice if it would impair/defeat the purpose of processing. The PI must however apply "safeguards", whatever it could mean.

> following cars and whatnot do not require a license, you can spy on anyone without a license as long as you don't get paid for it.

Pretty sure that would be considered stalking and is broadly illegal in the US, PIs being an exception.

Post reply on HN