Live data from Hacker News

Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

ipvm.com

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#31
post #5

It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this.

I think its entirely reasonable that license plates are recorded on public roads and accessible to police in lawful requests, like tracking stolen vehicles or dangerous suspects. Your hysterics about photographing children in a park is silly and no one but the most online ideologue would find it at all comparable. Find a better argument if you want to convince other reasonable people who just want to live in safe nei…

> I think its entirely reasonable that license plates are recorded on public roads and accessible to police in lawful requests, like tracking stolen vehicles or dangerous suspects.

And I don’t. I think my right to privacy shouldn’t arc to nil.

Cops don’t care about stolen cars. Or stolen things from cars. I’ve given them footage of such a crime and.. nada.

And they have armies of police and armament to do the other police work. They have access to individually produced recordings that they do nothing with.

Instead of just dismantling all civic rights for _some_ property rights, maybe we should have a national convention about what police are obligated to do and their best practices to do so. Courts have already established that it is not public safety, so I personally wont support any action that simply gives them more.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#32

It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this.

>It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this.

This is a systemic problem.

There's a ton of things that are considered bad and questionably legal when small timers do them but if you spend millions producing fake bullshit paperwork to legitimize it it becomes a good thing.

I put a shed in my back yard, I'm an evil person for violating the Wetland Protection Act in my state, the city fines me and tries to turn it into leverage for stealing my house, the useful idiots cheer.

Blackrock pays some engineers to produce mumbo jumbo reports, they bulldoze the exact same f-ing "wetland" 100yd further back and put up solar panels, declare themselves to be saving the planet, and the same exact useful idiots once again cheer.

You can find a litany of examples like that in any industry, I just chose that one because I feel it's particularly on point for this audience.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#33

It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this.

Yeah, but if there were people who ran around carrying other people occasionally football tackled each other killing all involved we’d probably ban that too, and yet cars are not only permitted but we give them large amounts of our common space in cities. The linebackers running around wouldn’t be treated so kindly.

This shows that in most societies mechanical devices can acceptably have certain behavior that humans cannot exhibit. People can see that a camera recording something to a video recording system is different from a person watching and photographing someone.

So these analogies by way of “what if a person were to do this other thing that implies an intent a mechanical system does not?” do not land with me.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#34
post #16

Imagine the uproar if flock were used for automatic speeding tickets. (which... we should, if we have the data to do it, why not actually enforce traffic laws?)

In San Francisco we do have speed cameras. You’d need something like a calibrated distance measure to use Flock for speeding detection or it is (rightfully) contestable.

The cameras built for automatic speeding detection do fulfill their purpose, and I agree that it would be great to have more.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#35
post #16

Imagine the uproar if flock were used for automatic speeding tickets. (which... we should, if we have the data to do it, why not actually enforce traffic laws?)

>Imagine the uproar if flock were used for automatic speeding tickets.

Imagine how much HN would be defending them if they started with speed cameras or something else that could be contrived as beneficial and kinda pandered to the whims of the demographics and then moved to 1984 rather than just going straight from zero to 1984.

The whole discussion would be framed as "these are critical safety infrastructure, besides they have strict controls around access and you have no privacy when driving a 2-ton death machine" and they could literally be doing facial recognition on pedestrians and tracking cyclists for years and years and years and it would take an insane mountain of beyond undeniable evidince to change the narrative of the discussion. Because once a bias prone vote base community picks a side, it's basically impossible to change. Welcome to modern discourse.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#36
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as evidenced by the thousands of posts that state such reservations. Posts on forums are not real life. Look at revealed preferences. Many people have cameras on their property. People prefer to live in neighborhoods with well funded police with tech resources. Again, it's entirely reasonable to collect license plates and use it to apprehend criminals. Crime is a thing, almost everyone is affected by it at some poi…

> Look at revealed preferences. Many people have cameras on their property Go ask them if they realize their videos are being stored on a company's server somewhere and those companies employees can watch their camera feeds whenever they want Most people have no clue, they think the camera handles all of it

> Go ask them if they realize their videos are being stored on a company's server somewhere and those companies employees can watch their camera feeds whenever they want

I'm doubtful more than a single-digit percentage of those people would then take down those cameras.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#37

If Flock feels this way the executive team should record the entrances and exits of their homes and stream them live online 24/7.

[flagged]

Please don't do this here. Even if you don't mean it literally, someone else is going to take it that way. (I know this, because they already did.)

Also, please don't do this here either—it's against the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

> some important monkey

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#38
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deliver that information to the police of my own choice Good luck with that. I've heard plenty of stories of victims of theft and crime literally leading police to the door of their assailant and they can't get any action because this "privacy" movement has made their efforts pretty meaningless. You're naive and you obviously have no real experience in this regard. It's just sad that you promote policies that help…

> I've heard plenty of stories of victims of theft and crime literally leading police to the door of their assailant and they can't get any action because this "privacy" movement has made their efforts pretty meaningless. So the police are useless when given a precise location, and you want to give them more invasive tools to continue to be useless? That's not the argument you think it is.

Police should do their jobs and do so once empowered. They can't accept "trust me bro" when catching a criminal. Hope that helps

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at revealed preferences. Many people have cameras on their property Go ask them if they realize their videos are being stored on a company's server somewhere and those companies employees can watch their camera feeds whenever they want Most people have no clue, they think the camera handles all of it

> Go ask them if they realize their videos are being stored on a company's server somewhere and those companies employees can watch their camera feeds whenever they want I'm doubtful more than a single-digit percentage of those people would then take down those cameras.

They don't care bro. Same way you likely use Gmail and a million other services that are centralized.

How about we have something good w technology, like using it to catch criminals

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#40
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Please don't do this here. Even if you don't mean it literally, someone else is going to take it that way. (I know this, because they already did.) Also, please don't do this here either—it's against the site guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). > some important monkey

Take what literally? That the CCO is a monkey?

I'm genuinely asking what I'm not supposed to do and why it could be taken "literally", considering the words of my comment you quoted.

Post reply on HN