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

301–310 of 331 posts

Re: Stop Flock

#301

Post by tptacek »

jedberg wrote: post #292
tptacek wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :)

Are you a little concerned that by advocating a drastic change in policing extending far past ALPR cameras that you're creating room for proponents of the cameras to say that everyone who opposes them wants broadly to hamstring the police?

I watched ALPR proponents in Oak Park make exactly those kinds of arguments.

Re: Stop Flock

#302

Post by Anvoker »

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…

The fact that the police won't use surveillance data in a way you would consider good and effective does not mean you don't live in a surveillance state.

One of the key aspects of police and surveillance states is that the incentives are structured so that the policing and surveillance need not be done with the interest of public welfare in mind. As you said there is no political will.

Re: Stop Flock

#303

Post by culi »

bko wrote: post #298
culi wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

If we want to reduce avoidable deaths, you can get a lot more bang for your buck investing in almost ANYTHING other than this extremely rare event. We've already invested way too much of it. And you're paying for it with MY taxes

You are overindexing on it because you watch too much TV.

Your kids would be a lot safer and better off if we moved some of our money away from surveillance and put it into cleaning up superfund sites on the NPL

https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=...

Look at this map and count how many superfund sites are within a 10 mile radius of you

Re: Stop Flock

#305

Post by bko »

culi wrote: post #303
bko wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

If we want to reduce avoidable deaths, you can get a lot more bang for your buck investing in almost ANYTHING other than this extremely rare event. We've already invested way too much of it. And you're paying for it with MY taxes You are overindexing on it because you watch too much TV. Your kids would be a lot safer and better off if we moved some of our money away from surveillance and put it into cleaning up super…

There's no buck here. You just enforce the law and prosecute. They're already in the system being arrested for the umpteenth time. Just leave them in prison, society would improve considerably.

Cops already exist, they are just told they can't enforce the law.

Re: Stop Flock

#306

Post by culi »

bko wrote: post #305
culi wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we want to reduce avoidable deaths, you can get a lot more bang for your buck investing in almost ANYTHING other than this extremely rare event. We've already invested way too much of it. And you're paying for it with MY taxes You are overindexing on it because you watch too much TV. Your kids would be a lot safer and better off if we moved some of our money away from surveillance and put it into cleaning up super…

There's no buck here. You just enforce the law and prosecute. They're already in the system being arrested for the umpteenth time. Just leave them in prison, society would improve considerably. Cops already exist, they are just told they can't enforce the law.

you will not be better off in a police state. And you do not get to achieve your fantasy on everyone else's dime

Re: Stop Flock

#307

Post by Finbarr »

saghm wrote: post #300
Finbarr wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're making some hasty generalizations here. They don't "uniformly" cover for their colleagues. Do you expect the police service to be perfect and never make mistakes? Can you point me towards a single human-run service where that's the case?

Re: Stop Flock

#308

Post by nswest23 »

scarmig wrote: post #249
bearjaws wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most cities are spending 9-10 figures on Police staff, and somehow are understaffed? We simply aren't getting effective policing, and technology isn't the solution. Reality is cops have become police report writers, traffic accident helpers, and domestic abuse arbiters, that is over half the job.

I agree with everything you say; my "police departments are understaffed" is too generic, and might be better stated as "too few resources are devoted to traditional beat policing." Which isn't to say that the other things are unnecessary or pointless, but it's a different set of skills.

[flagged]

Re: Stop Flock

#309

Post by gunsle »

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…

You’re not going to get nuanced law enforcement discussion on this site considering the commentary here is Reddit tier these days. I agree with you though - the mayor and city council here in Minneapolis continuously defunding the police and refusing to give them resources predictably led to sharp increases in crime. It’s baffling to me large liberal cities have demonized the police and gaslit their base into thinking everything is just fine.

Re: Stop Flock

#310

Post by gunsle »

aldebran wrote: post #58
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…

Police departments aren’t understaffed. It’s a priority problem not a lack of resources problem. I live in a tech heavy, wealthy city. It’s small. No violent crime. Barely any crime at all. There’s occasional break ins and car break ins. When this happens it’s a big deal. We had one last year. Everyone around has cameras. The cops refused to do anything about it. They refused to get recordings. The neighbor went door…

Police departments in a lot of major cities are absolutely unstaffed relative to population growth after decades of demonization in the media. You are ignorant.
Post reply on HN