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

361–370 of 534 posts

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#361

Post by mv4 »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #345
mv4 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call these material luxuries, just like big screen TVs are no longer a luxury. Being able to visit a doctor or a dentist on the other hand...

By "luxury" I mean approximately "anything beyond bare survival". My point is that the vast majority of material possessions have become absurdly cheap by historic standards. However that doesn't preclude severe societal dysfunction (housing, children, retirement, or as you note doctors and dentists).

Thank you for clarifying. It is true that many of such possessions have become incredibly cheap (and therefore affordable) especially when it comes to media consumption and other forms of escapism, but they do very little to address our fundamental needs (physical safety & health, financial security, emotional stability).

True luxuries (not having to worry, not having to waste time) are increasingly out of reach for most people.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#362

Post by kotaKat »

daemonologist wrote: post #167
kotaKat wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I recall they’re just a crappy 5 megapixel Arducam camera module based on teardowns. https://www.cehrp.org/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera/ https://www.arducam.com/product/arducam-ov5647-noir-camera-b...

Lol that's almost literally the cheapest possible option. You can get these for $3-4 (on a board and with a mipi cable and everything) from China - I have a dozen in a box that I bought to test out a camera array idea before shelling out for nicer sensors.

The best part is seeing someone tear a Flock camera apart, see the camera, and immediately go slap it on their 3D printer and hook it into their Pi and just have it work out of the box ;)

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#363

Post by thephyber »

runarberg wrote: post #347
thephyber wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you vastly undersell how much of the US voters supported extreme measures in reaction to Sept 11. There was a social panic to “protect us against terrorism” at pretty much any cost. It was easy for the party in power to demonize the resistance to the power grab and nobody except Libertarians had a coherence response.

I don‘t think it really matters how much people supported these extreme actions. This policy was clearly wrong. The general public mounted a much more significant opposition against this policy then the Democratic party did. Some members of the Democratic party did some opposition, but the party as a whole clearly did not oppose this, and therefor it was never truly on the ballots. To be clear, I personally don‘t thi…

> I don‘t think it really matters how much people supported these extreme actions. This policy was clearly wrong.

This is wrong and ignorant of how we select elected representatives. They have no incentive to do “what is right” and all of the incentives to do “what is popular”. The representatives who stood up against the Patriot Act, the surveillance state, “you’re either with us or either the terrorists”, etc were unable to hold any control in Congress.

The reason we have stereotypes of politicians as lying, greasy, corrupt used car salesmen is because their incentives align with those qualities.

I am exclusively discussing the _is_, not the _ought_ (which is where I would agree with you)

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#365

Post by tartoran »

bandofthehawk wrote: post #348
bullfightonmars wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ahistoric. No-one ever said we had to "just vote for Obama" to close Guantanamo Bay. Frankly, Obama _tried_ to close Guantanamo Bay. He significantly shrunk the population of inmates, but it was ultimately Congress, and the courts that prevented the closure Obama spent a huge amount of time and political capital trying to clean up Bush's messes.

Obama only tried to close Guantanamo by moving the prisoners to the United States, which is arguably worse than having them in Guantanamo. It would mean that you could hold prisoners in the United States indefinitely without trial. What he should have done was give the prisoners fair trials or release them.

Having prisoners in the US is a lot more hassle and subject to scrutiny than keeping them tucked away on some out of bounds military prison where few have access to, which was probably the reason to put prisoners there in the first place. Anything could be done to prisoners on Guantanamo, including torture.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#366

Post by cg5280 »

toephu2 wrote: post #311
cg5280 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My confusion stems from the fact that mass surveillance is already pretty normal in major cities. Your face is on a dozen cameras anytime you walk through the grocery store. Your precise location is pinged off cell towers multiple times a day. I understand specific qualms with Flock as a company and how they manage the data, but this libertarian demand for total privacy in public spaces has been long lost and the bee…

If you think USA has mass surveillance you haven't been to Asia (South Korea, Taiwan, China, Singapore, Etc). I can drive down highways in most cities in the USA without my license plate being read (Flock isn't on highways). Also Flock as integrated mostly just records license plates. It's not recording video 24/7.

I actually touched on this in another comment below yours, using Asia as a specific example. Our crime rates are also much higher than those countries.

But while our surveillance is not as widespread as other developed nations, it is still quite commonplace. There are cameras everywhere and recording license plates seems like such a tiny and justifiable expansion.

People in the US also get angry at speed cameras or red light cameras, yet I personally think both are very rational things to want in busy areas!

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#367

Post by K0balt »

autoexec wrote: post #331
K0balt wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, studies undertaken by MIT over a decade ago show that when it comes to law writing and passing, voters have no statistically measurable input at the federal level. (Since citizens united) It’s all just identity politics. I will say that Trump has proven the exception to this rule, enacting a whole lot of policy that circumvents the law and has real effects. (And is likely mostly unconstitutional if act…

It shouldn't be a surprise that a willingness to violate the law works quickly when congress is unwilling to do anything to stop it. The ability for the law and constitution to be ignored when all three branches of government collude to do exactly that is a huge weakness in the system

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#369

Post by ranger_danger »

bezier-curve wrote: post #228
margalabargala wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you replied to is saying usage Flock is violating the constitution.

I was confused by the "barking up the wrong tree" opener because the parent commenter was not contradicting that line of thinking either. Though destroying property is not going to get anyone anywhere, that I can agree with if that's GP's point.

> destroying property is not going to get anyone anywhere

I seem to remember something about tea in Boston having a different outcome.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#370

Post by cg5280 »

pesus wrote: post #306
steviedotboston wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't watching you in the bathroom. They are recording cars on public streets and analyzing the footage.

Why not? Don't you want to stop all the crimes happening in bathrooms too? That would be a logical step if privacy is always an acceptable tradeoff for security (or at least the illusion thereof).

The difference is that public streets are public spaces. You necessarily have a limited expectation of privacy in public spaces. The government likewise already deploys cameras in public places to maintain a reasonable level of order on them.

If you want to put a camera in your personal toilet you absolutely can.

Post reply on HN