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

US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#321

Post by ssl-3 »

ramraj07 wrote: post #295
Cider9986 wrote: post #263

>[1] Would crime go up, down or stay the same if all surveillance cameras were removed? The answer to that is the only one that matters. At least 40,990 [2] innocent people died in the US in 2023, without significant outcry - that is, on the road, in car accidents. People in the US clearly value the freedom of driving over the deaths of innocent people. In 2023, there were an estimated 19,800 [3] homicides in the US.…

To rich people, the privacy attack isn't an issue. We already track their private jets, how is this any different?

There are rich people who charter private jets instead of own them. Their personal whereabouts aren't being tracked in the air. (They get to skip the entirety of TSA screening for these charters, too.)

But Flock tracks them on the ground when they get in their big S Mercedes after arriving at their third vacation home in Aspen.

Flock also tracks the wealthy who can't afford charter a jet, but who can afford to buy seats on the fanciest side of the curtain.

Flock tracks the doing-alright folks in business class.

Flock tracks those aspires to reach these levels: It even tracks the temporarily-disadvantaged billionaires who work soulless factory jobs and stuggle to keep up on the lease for their Black Express RAM 1500 Quad Cab, who rail against taxing the people who actually do have money as if that would ruin their own lives.

Flock tracks Joey who manages the sandwich shop down the way.

Flock tracks everyone.

By the time we get down to the point of mentioning that "everyone" includes the subset of people who are criminals, that part almost seems like a bug instead of a feature.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#322

Post by hackable_sand »

anthonypasq wrote: post #85
gosub100 wrote: post #17

Someone in my hometown was arrested for vandalizing them. The media chose to say "city owned security camera". It's amazing how they will rush to defend private enterprise.

the alternative is to not punish vandalism? what are you even saying?

It's unfortunate they got caught. It is nice to be reminded that every community has people willing to fight for freedom though.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#323

Post by Krasnol »

burningChrome wrote: post #313
Cider9986 wrote: post #263

>[1] Would crime go up, down or stay the same if all surveillance cameras were removed? The answer to that is the only one that matters. At least 40,990 [2] innocent people died in the US in 2023, without significant outcry - that is, on the road, in car accidents. People in the US clearly value the freedom of driving over the deaths of innocent people. In 2023, there were an estimated 19,800 [3] homicides in the US.…

FYI when cops arrive at a homicide scene, they don't go looking for the FLOCK camera's, they go looking for people who have RING cameras and businesses that have security cameras. Anything that is within sight of the crime scene is where they start. If you think FLOCK is an issue, you're barking up the wrong tree. You can remove all the FLOCK camera's you want and it won't change the already overwhelming passive surv…

> So as much bad as you think it does, there are clear cases where its helped

You can "justify" so much with that sentence, that it becomes meaningless.

Also, it won't hide the fact that this surveillance infrastructure can cause much much more harm then it prevents. We've seen what it might do in repressive states and we see today that even those states which represented the idea of individual freedom on this planet, you are only one election away from madness.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#325

Post by turtlesdown11 »

loeg wrote: post #312
turtlesdown11 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have empirical evidence that we "habitually coddle criminals"? The united states locks up more of their people than pretty much any other nation...

> Do you have empirical evidence that we "habitually coddle criminals"? In this context, we're talking about SF, not the US at large. Yes, SF is well known for coddling criminals. This is, obviously, a qualitative characterization -- it cannot be proven empirically. But we can point at characteristic examples: https://ktxs.com/news/nation-world/san-francisco-ends-5m-alc... https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-s…

> We (the US) have more criminality than many peer nations

Do you have any empirical evidence to support this claim?

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#326

Post by bnjms »

burningChrome wrote: post #313
Cider9986 wrote: post #263

>[1] Would crime go up, down or stay the same if all surveillance cameras were removed? The answer to that is the only one that matters. At least 40,990 [2] innocent people died in the US in 2023, without significant outcry - that is, on the road, in car accidents. People in the US clearly value the freedom of driving over the deaths of innocent people. In 2023, there were an estimated 19,800 [3] homicides in the US.…

FYI when cops arrive at a homicide scene, they don't go looking for the FLOCK camera's, they go looking for people who have RING cameras and businesses that have security cameras. Anything that is within sight of the crime scene is where they start. If you think FLOCK is an issue, you're barking up the wrong tree. You can remove all the FLOCK camera's you want and it won't change the already overwhelming passive surv…

I’m for looking for the existing cameras. I’m against a panopticon where any “trusted” LEO with an account can query and have ring + flock + OnStar + Tesla etc all aggregated to follow anyone. Ring has this now. I would guess some cities have it for traffic cameras. What I’m really against is having it privately owned as an end run around laws restricting government surveillance.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#327

Post by Zigurd »

loeg wrote: post #316
Zigurd wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me one big city PD that isn't corrupt enough that this is just a minor corruption snack to them.

This is a bizarre comment. What level of absence of evidence would you accept to prove "not corrupt enough?" The "corruption snack" language strongly suggests you aren't really interested in changing your mind even if such evidence could be provided.

If you know of one I would gladly hold it up as a shining example and a template for others to follow. And yet...

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#328

Post by AlBugdy »

alephnerd wrote: post #180
AlBugdy wrote: post #55

Non-US citizens - what's the situation with cameras in public spaces where you live? In my town every 2nd hour or building entrance has a private camera pointed at the street. It's very depressing because the cops don't care - I've asked 2 in a patrol car when there was a mild case of vandalism I witnessed. Technically it's illegal, but nothing happens. The public cameras are on intersection and some bus stops. Too m…

Japan is exporting it's AI-enhanced crime prediction platform across LatAm after successfully deploying it in Tokyo [0]. Japan is doing similar work to analyze financial transactions [1]. South Korea has also deployed a similar surveillance platform called Dejaview [2]. Even Finland has been deploying surveillance camera fusion centers [3] The brutal reality is everyone is doing this and there's nothing you can do ab…

> The brutal reality is everyone is doing this and there's nothing you can do about it.

Maybe not me personally, but society can.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#330

Post by Barrin92 »

jamiequint wrote: post #232
ggoo wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surveillance tech can alter peoples behavior. I know I'm personally more stressed when I know I'm being filmed, even if I'm doing nothing wrong. https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2024/1/niae039/7920510?l...

Untrue at a population level, just compare anxiety disorders and self-reported anxiety between USA and China.

anxiety in the sense you're talking about is a function of private surveillance and in that regard America is much worse. State led surveillance in Chinese public spaces is real and effective in producing compliance (20 years ago public theft, pulling people off motorcycles was a daily occurrence) but in private China is a significantly freer society.

Foucault used to distinguish between models of authority that operate on "make die and let live" vs "let die and make live". China's the former, the US with its moral busybodies both in progressive and religious flavors the latter.

The US now is a society of public disorder and personal policing, China is a society of public order and largely indifference in private life. Of course the former creates anxiety. American Beauty, a film about permanent surveillance without any state, would make no sense in China.

Post reply on HN