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

281–290 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#281

Post by jedberg »

tptacek wrote: post #278
jedberg wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically, I believe that if information that is held by a private 3rd party I accessed by anyone , law enforcement or otherwise, that third party should be required to tell you that it was requested and by whom. Just like they can't put a gag order on a search warrant to your home, this hypothetical search would be exempt from gag orders.

Huh? There absolutely are gagged search warrants. Didn't you ever get one at Reddit? They're the norm, the default even.

Not in your home. They can’t sneak in and search your home and not tell you.

Re: Stop Flock

#282

Post by M3L0NM4N »

MegagramEnjoyer wrote: post #267
M3L0NM4N wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I prefer people to be held accountable for their actions while driving, actually.

Re: Stop Flock

#283

Post by renewiltord »

saghm wrote: post #248
renewiltord wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, no man is a mob. This is true and a sign of wisdom.

Re: Stop Flock

#284

Post by lopsotronic »

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…

To add to some of what others are saying, another problem is the measurement problem.

DAs and police in general are almost universally evaluated based on arrest numbers. Only very rarely on actual crime rates, and never on something as abstract as quality of life or local revenues or property values.

Gauging how good law enforcement is just by looking at arrest numbers is probably the wrong dial to be looking at.

Re: Stop Flock

#285

Post by M3L0NM4N »

sofixa wrote: post #240
stronglikedan wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it became a security risk that lead to deaths While there were deaths, I didn't see any that were the result of a "security risk". I did see a whole lot of stupid people doing stupid things, and none of them were ICE agents, so I'm surprised there weren't more deaths.

> I did see a whole lot of stupid people doing stupid things, and none of them were ICE agents, so I'm surprised there weren't more deaths. Random masked goons in unmarked cars trying to arrest people is pretty damn stupid, yes. Same goons putting themselves in front of cars, and shooting through side windows of cars driving away, or shooting at random people on the street, is pretty damn stupid.

I'm going to provide a bit of nuance here, but would like to clarify I am not a fan of ICE's tactics in the slightest. Yes, the ICE agent was stupid for standing in front of the car, just as Renee Good was stupid for hitting the gas while he was standing in front of her car. At that moment, he became 100% legally justified to shoot. The limits of human cognitive performance significantly limit how fast your brain can send the signal to your hand to stop shooting, and the stop-signal happened when he was standing by her side window. In a split-second, he was shooting to defend himself against a reasonably perceived threat of being run over. Yes, it could have been completely avoided by both individuals, but "shooting through side windows of cars driving away" is misleading. The Alex Pretti incident, completely, totally unjustified. Just wanted to provide a bit of nuance from the perspective of someone who studies self-defense encounters.

Re: Stop Flock

#286

Post by tptacek »

jedberg wrote: post #281
tptacek wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? There absolutely are gagged search warrants. Didn't you ever get one at Reddit? They're the norm, the default even.

Not in your home. They can’t sneak in and search your home and not tell you.

Homes might be an exception, I don't know, but I'm of the impression it's routine for police to get physical search warrants with nondisclosure orders attached.

Re: Stop Flock

#287

Post by jedberg »

tptacek wrote: post #286
jedberg wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in your home. They can’t sneak in and search your home and not tell you.

Homes might be an exception, I don't know, but I'm of the impression it's routine for police to get physical search warrants with nondisclosure orders attached.

Yes for sure. Only homes are exempt. Which is why I originally said it should be treated as though it’s still in your home.

Re: Stop Flock

#288

Post by bko »

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?

I think the answer is better technology, not less of it.

This stuff is more easily available in rudimentary systems. Consider the model of recording everything and just dumping tapes somewhere. Much harder to monitor abuse than a well designed system with an audit log. Better yet, have computers process the data and only expose what's absolutely necessary. Technology lets you do that.

But I want to push back against this idea that we have anything resembling a police or surveillance state. Nothing will dispel this myth more than an experience reporting a crime to police. Think about thefts in drug stores. They have security guards, cameras, security devices, etc, but every day the same group of people walk in and walk out with stolen goods. Everyone knows who they are, but police do absolutely nothing to stop them, because there is no political will. So the solution is to put deodorant behind lock and key and close down stores in high crime areas.

So besides these one off creepy stories of people abusing the system, this stuff amounts to nothing. I want to use technology more and perhaps our murder clearance rate can stop going down.

https://www.murderdata.org/2021/10/homicide-clearance-in-uni...

Re: Stop Flock

#289

Post by tptacek »

jedberg wrote: post #287
tptacek wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homes might be an exception, I don't know, but I'm of the impression it's routine for police to get physical search warrants with nondisclosure orders attached.

Yes for sure. Only homes are exempt. Which is why I originally said it should be treated as though it’s still in your home.

Right, and my point was, your proposal would proscribe large classes of common law enforcement searches. I'm stipulating the homestead exemption you're talking about here (obvs. neither of us are lawyers), but, given that, you're saying it should be extended far, far outside of homes.

Re: Stop Flock

#290

Post by otterley »

SecretDreams wrote: post #269
otterley wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unifor…

[dead]
Post reply on HN