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

261–270 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#261

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

BrenBarn wrote: post #143
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass surveillance is by definition oppressive. I think you mean to say you're in favor of targeted surveillance, targeted at criminals, who are on roadways. This is the distinction that's getting lost. Give me a database of everywhere you have ever driven, and I will find multiple ways to make you look like a criminal.

The problem is how do you know who's a criminal beforehand.

Right - we don't know. Even with mass-surveillance, you don't know if they're a criminal, because criminals can look innocent, and innocents can look criminal. That's why you need to do more than just look at the whole world and look for any pattern of criminality - you need targeted detection and analysis.

An example is cops stopping and searching you. If they're looking for a murderer, and they stop people coming out of Home Depot, and find a shovel, lye and rope in your trunk - hey, looks like a murderer! But it also could just be any customer going to Home Depot to get gardening supplies. So they can only stop people if they have probable cause: a reason they specifically think this specific person is the murderer.

(The other reason for probable cause, which is just as valid today as it was during the Framers' time, was to protect innocent civilians from unreasonable search and seizure by the Government, as well as protecting personal privacy. Mass surveillance violates all those principles.)

Re: Stop Flock

#262

Post by sofixa »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #258
sofixa wrote: post #244

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. 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.

> “Not sure who was driving”

Doesn't matter, fine the owner and let them deal with the driver.

Re: Stop Flock

#263

Post by rolph »

enaaem wrote: post #231

Btw, flock employees have been caught watching kids gymnastics class and pools. https://substack.com/home/post/p-193593234 Why does the VP of strategic relations need to watch the kids gymnastics class?

[flagged]

Re: Stop Flock

#264

Post by duped »

tonymet wrote: post #255
duped wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's very clear to me that you're not interested in discussing things in good faith, so I'm choosing not to engage with you.

Re: Stop Flock

#265

Post by RHSeeger »

jojobas wrote: post #119
RHSeeger wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just the government. It shouldn't be possible for any random stalker to find someone's daily movements.

How is that achievable? PIs can legally do it. Random people can keep tabs on you and exchange gossip. It's the sudden scale and low cost that doesn't sit well with freedom to not be tracked in public 24/7 we took for granted.

Sorry, I was ambiguous in what I meant.

It is not realistic to say that no person is allowed to keep track of another person; watch where they go, when, with who, etc.

It should not be acceptable for a company to gather information on "everyone"; where they have been going, when, with who, how often, etc. And it should not be acceptable for them to sell that information (to government agencies OR private citizens).

It's a matter of scale.

- Making the first one illegal/impossible would be difficult/costly; and not doing so has a limited impact (to society, not to the single person affected).

- Making the second one illegal is much easier, and it's much easier to shut down a large company doing it than it is 1,000 individual stalkers. The impact of making it illegal is much wider and better for society as a whole.

We don't want anyone being stalked. But in a cost/benefit analysis, we can do something about one of them but not the other.

Re: Stop Flock

#266

Post by muwtyhg »

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.

A majority of states have laws preventing carrying of firearms on university campuses. Were you breaking the law by doing this?

Re: Stop Flock

#267

Post by MegagramEnjoyer »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #242
MegagramEnjoyer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

then it doesn't need to be done in any way.

Re: Stop Flock

#268

Post by mcmcmc »

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.

This is true in theory but not so much in practice. The American legal system only works for people with enough time and/or money to pursue justice (or whatever else they want from the legal system). Like traffic tickets on a road trip - very few people can actually go back to fight them.

Facial recognition is irrelevant if the liability is on whomever the vehicle is registered to.

Re: Stop Flock

#269

Post by SecretDreams »

otterley wrote: post #225
SecretDreams wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, full circle, you're okay with a film crew recording you and your family in public at all times?

It’s a false equivalence. Passive surveillance cameras aren’t the same as having a bunch of annoying people trailing me, which gives rise to the concern for the personal safety of me and my family. So I reject the comparison.

> Passive surveillance cameras aren’t the same as having a bunch of annoying people trailing me, which gives rise to the concern for the personal safety of me and my family. So I reject the comparison.

Rejecting reality doesn't mean it's not real. The direction passive surveillance is going and is at is already approaching active surveillance in terms of outcomes. The only difference is it's being applied more uniformly, rather than just to a specific individual. But the outcomes in terms of tracking all of our whereabouts are indistinguishable.

This is the entire premise of the post, which you are tiptoeing around and never directly answering the question of "is it fine for everyone to be tracked in public at all times"? A yes or no here would be helpful.

Re: Stop Flock

#270

Post by hitekker »

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…

You’ve identified an interesting loop which I reckon is deeply uncomfortable for the Progressive type.

Nonetheless, it’s true for most voters in Oakland or SF. Just last month, a judge let a homeless stabber back on the street after he threatened and tried attacking SF’s mayor and his bodyguard. The Progressive reaction was to blame the mayor and the police— and then the newly freed homeless guy immediately broke the law again and had to be re-arrested.

Post reply on HN