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

At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025

stateofsurveillance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 373 posts

Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025

#341

Post by appplication »

smsm42 wrote: post #315
patcon wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that part of the insight is that many people reading this story may want it to be true as stated. All the upvotes and it's propagation in networks may lossily lay this claim (of course debatable) The beauty of surveillance is that it mutes the ability to cover the distance between desire and action. Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect" As I understand, part of any story being shared is that…

> I feel that part of the insight is that many people reading this story may want it to be true as stated. People that are writing this story surely would. They, of course, wouldn't do it themselves - I mean, you could be arrested and lose your job and go to jail... but if somebody else would bear those consequences, then of course it's fine! > Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect" Yes, that's kind…

Not all criminal activity is bad. See: John Lewis and “good trouble”

Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025

#342

Post by ipython »

patcon wrote: post #191
taylodl wrote: post #175

25 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.

I feel that part of the insight is that many people reading this story may want it to be true as stated. All the upvotes and it's propagation in networks may lossily lay this claim (of course debatable) The beauty of surveillance is that it mutes the ability to cover the distance between desire and action. Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect" As I understand, part of any story being shared is that…

Totally. Like, for example, the so-called throngs of roaming domestic terrorists setting Teslas on fire across the US. My dad still asks me if anyone has vandalized mine. (No, and I’m personally unaware of anyone who has had theirs vandalized. At least 1/3 of vehicles in my area are teslas)

Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025

#343

Post by culi »

amazingamazing wrote: post #40
JKCalhoun wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be enough energy for both?

The irony is destruction of private property will only justify the very surveillance one is trying to avoid. Would you agree ring cameras should be destroyed too? The police can use their footage. In practice they are similar to flock.

It's not valid "private property" if it's spying on the public. Your right to punch ends where my nose begins.

You do not have the right to own and operate something that infringes on my rights.

Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025

#345

Post by pandaman »

martin-t wrote: post #328
EvanAnderson wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think increasing the size of the House would make representatives more responsive to their constituents. I also don't think it'll ever happen for exactly that reason.

As an European, the biggest issue with US politics I see is that you only have 2 parties. It makes no sense. As a voter, you can only express a binary choice and whatever you choose for the issue you care about most effectively decides what you vote for regarding all other issues. I'd like to see more separation. If we are to keep indirect democracy, at least have separate representation for criminal law, economic de…

It indeed makes no sense, do you have parties voting in Europe? In the US we have representatives each casting their own vote.

Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025

#346

Post by piloto_ciego »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #263
piloto_ciego wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say, "you can't commit violence against a camera" but now everything is violence if it costs someone money.

...only if it costs a corporation money. Someone shoplifts $50 worth of stuff from Wallyworld and the cops come a runnin' (if they're not already there, because they station a cop full time there.) Someone steals your $500 bicycle and cops tell you not to bother filing a police report because nothing will happen. How did we start tolerating public employees not only discouraging people from making them do their jobs,…

They're only there to enforce property rights ultimately.

Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025

#347

Post by cortesoft »

sevenzero wrote: post #212
cortesoft wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In return for everyone giving up privacy. I need a lot bigger of a return if I am going to give up privacy.

Most of you use a smartphone, you're already giving away most of your privacy...

And I get a lot in return

Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025

#349

Post by DevKoala »

threecheese wrote: post #229
DevKoala wrote: post #76

[flagged]

Great, deploy cameras there, and have them monitored by the local police for violent crime. Don’t: - use the cameras to capture license plates, vehicle type/color/trim/stickers/personalization, and individual persons with clear biometric markers like faces, gait etc - use that data to populate a commercial database of citizen movements spanning the nation, which can be used to trivially match to an identity (if that…

These are great points and I was truly unaware of these concerns.

Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025

#350

Post by Groxx »

woadwarrior01 wrote: post #327
linolevan wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pangram is legit. I don't work at pangram, we integrated it in our paper website and one of the cool emergent behaviors I've seen is that on AI papers with example rollouts, it will accurately mark the paper's main text as human generated and the rollouts as AI generated. My understanding is that they strongly believe in no false positives, so it's definitely possible to slip something by them but if it marks somethi…

> Pangram is legit. Their 99.98% accuracy claim[1] makes me doubt that. [1]: https://www.pangram.com/solutions/chrome-extension

Rather obviously they're choosing the one that makes them look best. Another they link to¹ shows 98% for example.

Much more importantly, 9/10 dentists agree it's the best.

1: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15654, linked from² https://www.pangram.com/blog/third-party-pangram-evals (the second section)

2: the third study they link there is based entirely around the assumption that Pangram is correct, and seems to have been a collaboration or something as they're included in the credits area.

Post reply on HN