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

291–300 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#291

Post by tbojanin »

duped wrote: post #246
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…

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…

- I used "Sanctuary city" as a synonym for a "soft on crime" city.

- An example of who I classify as an "activist judge" is Teresa Stokes. She let out the repeat offender with 14 prior arrests that stabbed Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte[1].

[1] https://timmoore.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-...

Re: Stop Flock

#292

Post by jedberg »

tptacek wrote: post #289
jedberg wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. :)

Re: Stop Flock

#293

Post by [deleted] »

bko wrote: post #288
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…

[deleted]

Re: Stop Flock

#294

Post by culi »

bko wrote: post #288
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…

Heart disease accounts for 22% of all deaths in the US; cancer is 19.8%; injuries like car accidents come in third at about 7.8%. Homicide doesn't make it anywhere near the top 10.

When it comes to firearms, the vast majority of deaths are suicides with homicides being about a third of that. And the majority of homicides are domestic violence which usually happen inside the home.

The fact that the homicide clearance rate has decreased DESPITE turning our entire society into one of the most advanced surveillance states in human history pisses me off. That's MY tax money going to subsidize these companies that are taking away ALL OF OUR rights. In 2021 China's supreme court banned the use of facial recognition technologies in public places and then further strengthened that ban in 2025. They also got the PIPL in 2021 which is an even stronger version of the GDPR. In these respects, the US has regressed beyond The People's Republic of mf'ing China.

Your answer is to give these companies MORE of my money. I think the answer is to force them to pay us all back and let us reinvest it into problems that are actually relevant to anyone who doesn't obsessively consume True Crime podcasts

Re: Stop Flock

#295

Post by bko »

culi wrote: post #294
bko wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Heart disease accounts for 22% of all deaths in the US; cancer is 19.8%; injuries like car accidents come in third at about 7.8%. Homicide doesn't make it anywhere near the top 10. When it comes to firearms, the vast majority of deaths are suicides with homicides being about a third of that. And the majority of homicides are domestic violence which usually happen inside the home. The fact that the homicide clearance…

My quality of life is affected by crime. Sure no one is going to kill me. But why should we accept crime? It's easy to solve. Arrest people and keep them locked up, especially for anti-social crimes. Just yesterday, Noemi Guzman, took a large kitchen knife from a Walmart, kidnapped a 3yo and nearly stabbed him. In 2024, she was involved in another violent incident (including attacking her father and breaking into a church) and was found not responsible by reason of insanity. So too insane to throw in jail so we let her out in the street?

My answer is to arrest and prosecute the people that are destroying polite society. I don't get your point in China. I could care less.

Re: Stop Flock

#296

Post by culi »

bko wrote: post #295
culi wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heart disease accounts for 22% of all deaths in the US; cancer is 19.8%; injuries like car accidents come in third at about 7.8%. Homicide doesn't make it anywhere near the top 10. When it comes to firearms, the vast majority of deaths are suicides with homicides being about a third of that. And the majority of homicides are domestic violence which usually happen inside the home. The fact that the homicide clearance…

My quality of life is affected by crime. Sure no one is going to kill me. But why should we accept crime? It's easy to solve. Arrest people and keep them locked up, especially for anti-social crimes. Just yesterday, Noemi Guzman, took a large kitchen knife from a Walmart, kidnapped a 3yo and nearly stabbed him. In 2024, she was involved in another violent incident (including attacking her father and breaking into a c…

Noemi Guzman does not have nearly the impact on your life that your neighbor driving a car with the catalytic converter removed or the CEO of a company that has a facility near you that made the decision to cut corners on holding tanks for their trichloroethylene

Re: Stop Flock

#297

Post by Manuel_D »

hmry wrote: post #275
Manuel_D wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't have a right to privacy in public (at least in the US). Do people not realize anyone can photograph or film them in public at any time. Heck, photographers can even then around and sell the without the subject's consent. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia I'm really struggling to see the parallel between being filmed in public and committing revenge murder.

Sorry if I was unclear. My point was just that "if you were a victim, wouldn't you want this?" is not a very strong argument. What victims want does matter. But when it affects other people, their needs matter too. Especially with mass-surveillance, which affects everyone . It's not possible to mass-surveil only people who would commit crimes, you need to surveil all innocent people too.

> My point was just that "if you were a victim, wouldn't you want this?" is not a very strong argument. What victims want does matter. But when it affects other people, their needs matter too.

Right and you used murder as an example. Do you think murder is even remotely comparable to putting up a security camera in a public space?

Yes, a victim might want some sort of response that is socially unacceptable, sure. But if you want to make a convincing argument you have to explain why the proposed response is unacceptable. Not some different, extreme, response of your own invention.

I'm really not sure how "committing vigilante murder is wrong" is supposed to be a good argument against putting up security cameras in a public space.

Re: Stop Flock

#298

Post by bko »

culi wrote: post #296
bko wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My quality of life is affected by crime. Sure no one is going to kill me. But why should we accept crime? It's easy to solve. Arrest people and keep them locked up, especially for anti-social crimes. Just yesterday, Noemi Guzman, took a large kitchen knife from a Walmart, kidnapped a 3yo and nearly stabbed him. In 2024, she was involved in another violent incident (including attacking her father and breaking into a c…

Noemi Guzman does not have nearly the impact on your life that your neighbor driving a car with the catalytic converter removed or the CEO of a company that has a facility near you that made the decision to cut corners on holding tanks for their trichloroethylene

Things that affect my life:

My children going to a park with regular drug users with convenient needle drop (remove needle drops and arrest the handful of drug users that hang around children's parks with dangerous drugs on them)

Package thefts (sting operation to arrest the handful of people organizing these thefts)

Crazy people on subway (end "showtime" and people sleeping on the train)

People driving dangerously (cameras)

Smell of weed everywhere (don't allow smoking weed in public)

But I guess the few random fully avoidable deaths is acceptable because its not that often? Kind of like a child sacrifice we have to endure because its somehow compassionate to let crazy people roam the streets and assault people randomly?

None of this involves corporate CEOs and is relatively simple to solve.

Re: Stop Flock

#299

Post by mcmcmc »

themafia wrote: post #75
mcmcmc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Automate the whole thing and be done with traffic cops abusing their power to meet quotas or harass minorities. It would likely make car insurance cheaper too since people would drive more safely, and the cost of investigations and arbitration drops down with readily available video evidence.

Just make quotas illegal. Make enforcing them a felony for command staff. Lock up body worn camera videos so they can't be used for "performance review." That footage belongs to the public, for legal purposes, it shouldn't be a "tool" outside of that. More importantly, can I borrow you car? I have some, uh, stuff, to go do.

They're already illegal in a lot of states, doesn't stop it from happening. Cops aren't great at following the law.

Re: Stop Flock

#300

Post by saghm »

Finbarr wrote: post #259
saghm wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

All it takes is one cop acting badly to ruin things for quite a lot of people though, and the fact that police uniformly circle ranks around any of their members who is accused of something regardless of the validity makes "well, not all of them are bad!" a pretty useless sentiment. I'll consider them individually when they start holding individuals accountable, but not before then.
Post reply on HN