Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 534 posts

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#321

Post by Induane »

Waterluvian wrote: post #18
the__alchemist wrote: post #10

This breakdown in rule of law is unfortunate. Ideally, this would be handled by, in order of desirability: - Flock decision-makers and customers holding ethics as a priority, and not taking the actions they are due to sense of duty, community, morals etc - Peer pressure resulting in ostracization of Flock execs and decision makers until they stop the unethical behavior - Governments using legislation and law enforcem…

> It is not ideal, but it is necessary when the higher-desirability options are not working. What has worried me for years is that Americans would not resort to this level. That things are just too comfortable at home to take that brave step into the firing lines of being on the right side of justice but the wrong side of the law. I'm relieved to see more and more Americans causing necessary trouble. I still think th…

The other day in Kansas City some lady set fire to a warehouse that was being sought for purchase by ICE. They are on video and quite nonchalant.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#322

Post by sophacles »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #234
dirasieb wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damaging or destruction of property is not violence. you wouldn't consider someone vandalizing your home or the infrastructure in your neighborhood to be violence? of course it is violence, an attack on the place i live (whether that's limited to just my home or to the larger community i live in) is an attack on me is it not violence to, for example, burn down a business where people work in if you do it at a time…

> you wouldn't consider someone vandalizing your home or the infrastructure in your neighborhood to be violence? Very obviously not. Words have meaning. You are misusing words to garner emotional support for your preferred political position. Burning down anything (including a business) is arson. Not violence. It only becomes violence if people are present and at imminent risk of physical harm. Financial damage is no…

I agree with your basic position, but most definitions of the word violence that I could find included the notion of: destroying things with intent to intimidate through fear of harm, threats such as brandishing weapons, and so on. It's not as simple as 'you didn't touch me so you didn't do violence' - and it makes sense when you consider the case of robbery at gunpoint.

That being said - the destruction of flock cameras is in no way violence. No one sees that and takes it as a threat of harm - at least no one acting in an honest way.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#323

Post by doomslayer999 »

toephu2 wrote: post #313
octoberfranklin wrote: post #298

I think it's nuts how nobody seemed to care about this mass surveillance tool until it fell into the hands of the red party. "Just keep electing the blue party" is not a convincing security posture.

License plate readers are hardly mass surveillance. Why is no one in democratic countries complaining about mass surveillance? And I mean real cameras (not license plate readers) recording 24/7? I'm talking about UK, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.

Because we in america tend to value individual liberties in a way that others don't. And yes of course LPR is mass surveillance. Cars should not even have to be registered.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#324

Post by doomslayer999 »

zwaps wrote: post #257

it's wild to me that Americand accept a private company plastering their town with surveillance cameras, given you know, everything Additionally, that you draw the line at sharing that juicy data with law enforcement. I mean sure, yeah, but even before that, sharing essentially all your movement data with some company because...?

We don't accept that? Our civil liberties have been infringed upon by neoliberals and oligarchs for the last 100+ years, starting with Lincoln with income tax and FDR with social security into the mess we have today.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#325

Post by fc417fc802 »

mv4 wrote: post #316
fc417fc802 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really the case? It seems to me that the vast majority in the US can fairly easily afford a fair bit of material luxury, mostly because material luxuries have become incredibly cheap (by historical standards). The trouble is at least in the high population areas (AFAICT) a huge swath of "average" people seem to be stuck living life on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis, renting, no prospect of property ownership, m…

"Among the 37 percent of adults who would not have covered a $400 expense completely with cash or its equivalent, most would pay some other way, although some said that they would be unable to pay the expense at all. For those who could cover the expenses another way, the most common approach was to use a credit card and then carry a balance, and many indicated they would use multiple approaches. However, 13 percent…

An informative data point. To provide some context regarding my earlier comment, a brand new full size memory foam mattress can be had for less than $200 shipped in the continental US. A computer capable of playing modern AAA video games can be had for less than $400. Material luxuries in the modern day are cheap to an almost absurd degree.

I think maybe we need a new CPI metric for HCOL areas that takes the form of a ratio. Something along the lines of midrange laptops per studio apartment month.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#326

Post by ljsprague »

rambojohnson wrote: post #109
nvesp wrote: post #53

Kind of weird all of those people weren't all up in arms about it before the whole ice thing, why would you be mad that they're tracking somebody else but not mad that they have been slurping up data about your movements and habits this whole time, then monetizing said data by selling it to industries like insurance companies etc.

how is it weird for you exactly? we didn't have masked gestapo thugs before.

[flagged]

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#327

Post by skybrian »

fanatic2pope wrote: post #184
skybrian wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doomer vibes are common, but meanwhile, state and local justice systems continue to prosecute many crimes and crime is on a downward trend [1]. [1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/record-low-crime-rates-are-...

FWIW the "rule of law" is a reference to the idea that the law should be applied equally to everyone regardless of their position in society, and has nothing to do with the crime rate. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...

No. Catching murderers (for example) is a basic function of the justice system. Of course the US justice system does have many flaws and in some ways much worse lately, but compare with Somalia or Haiti and you'll see that there's quite a long way down. It could get much worse.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#329

Post by thephyber »

t-3 wrote: post #142
yardie wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't get to the kind of change you thought you would see until food runs low and the economy stalls. The American Revolution was rare in that it didn't need to happen. The Founders were just being giant assholes (j/k). While the French Revolution just a few decades later was more status quo. A lot of starvation and poverty just pushed the population over the edge.

The American and French revolutions originated in the middle classes. The poor are often indifferent to politics because they're focused on survival. The middle classes, who own things they don't want to lose and have free time to aspire for more, are the ones who start revolutions. The poor only came in after being whipped up by the interested parties, and don't necessarily join the revolutionary side.

Three critical differences the American Revolution had: (1) the middle class had some extremely well educated people, (2) the communication technology among the colonies was pretty fast whereas the comms between the colonies and the British rule across the Atlantic was slow, and (3) the empire tried to clamp down on the colonies ability to export to any market other than the mother country, killing lots of profit which previously made those markets strong.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#330

Post by fc417fc802 »

sophacles wrote: post #322
fc417fc802 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you wouldn't consider someone vandalizing your home or the infrastructure in your neighborhood to be violence? Very obviously not. Words have meaning. You are misusing words to garner emotional support for your preferred political position. Burning down anything (including a business) is arson. Not violence. It only becomes violence if people are present and at imminent risk of physical harm. Financial damage is no…

I agree with your basic position, but most definitions of the word violence that I could find included the notion of: destroying things with intent to intimidate through fear of harm, threats such as brandishing weapons, and so on. It's not as simple as 'you didn't touch me so you didn't do violence' - and it makes sense when you consider the case of robbery at gunpoint. That being said - the destruction of flock cam…

Isn't that the difference between a threat of violence as opposed to violence? Which is directly adjacent and thus treated similarly by the law.

Brandishing a gun at someone is a threat that you'll shoot them but, importantly, is not the same thing as actually making good on the threat. (From the victim's perspective the distinction is rather important.)

Post reply on HN