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

381–390 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#381

Post by blindriver »

xracy wrote: post #245
gorgonical wrote: post #21

Musician-turning-tech anarchist (?) Benn Jordan is making a very interesting series of videos about Flock cameras, their poor safety, and their gray-area interfacing with local governments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMIwNiwQewQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU1-uiUlHTo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ I recommend them.

I think his comment about "why dogs might provide actual neighborhood safety" is a good reminder that the thing that makes communities safe is "knowing your neighbors." You don't get safety by building a castle with a moat and a million cameras. You get safety by building a community with context that can respond without having to just "react" to the 6s version of "what happened".

Don't tell this to Trayvon Martin, who was gunned down by a neighborhood watch zealot, because he looked "suspicious" because he was wearing a hoodie.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#382

Post by ceejayoz »

whimsicalism wrote: post #368
ceejayoz wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe! I might question the benefits of making the poor area even poorer via fines they likely can't afford. I might wonder if there are confounding factors like poorly maintained roads and vehicles at play. I might wonder if the yellow lights have the same timing as in the suburbs.

I might question why you are so opposed to interventions that save the lives of people in poorer neighborhoods (disproportionately not owners of cars).

I question the premise that it will.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#383

Post by ceejayoz »

conductr wrote: post #366
ceejayoz wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID makes it spike up (after a months long downward trend long before the cameras), not down. Nation-wide, incidentally. The cameras were added where the black rectangle is here: https://imgur.com/a/i00Gna0

There are two nearly identical peaks on this chart. The trough between them is Covid. I’m not seeing anything I can call a Covid spike

The lowest point of the first trough is when COVID starts. It then rapidly increases and stays high for two years.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#384

Post by ceejayoz »

whimsicalism wrote: post #373
conductr wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two nearly identical peaks on this chart. The trough between them is Covid. I’m not seeing anything I can call a Covid spike

well that's because you're discussing in good faith

Where am I using bad faith?

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#385

Post by cindyllm »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #377
ceejayoz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where the data shows people are getting caught running red lights. Which isn't necessarily where the most incidents are.

In my experience it's the rich areas chock full o' Karens that get the latest and greatest in jackbootery because they have all the money for the new hotness, no real problems to divert their attention and almost nobody who's ever been on the business end of government enforcement so they don't see any real problem with dispensing it at the drop of a hat.

[dead]

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#386

Post by xracy »

blindriver wrote: post #381
xracy wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his comment about "why dogs might provide actual neighborhood safety" is a good reminder that the thing that makes communities safe is "knowing your neighbors." You don't get safety by building a castle with a moat and a million cameras. You get safety by building a community with context that can respond without having to just "react" to the 6s version of "what happened".

Don't tell this to Trayvon Martin, who was gunned down by a neighborhood watch zealot, because he looked "suspicious" because he was wearing a hoodie.

I need you to reread my comment, and then paraphrase what you think I said, for me. Cause I don't get how this is someone's response to my comment in a million years unless it's like intentional rage bait, or something.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#387

Post by JuniperMesos »

rudhdb773b wrote: post #209
jonas21 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is much less concerning to me than mass surveillance. If someone calls 911 and you need to send a first responder, why not send a drone to get there faster while a person is on their way?

Because today it will be used as a first responder. Tomorrow a police officer will suggest that these drones (that we are already using successfully) could be very useful for checking up on that "dangerous" neighborhood.

In the city I live in, there is a chronic shortage of police officers and a lot of dangerous neighborhoods. If a drone could be used to do the same or a substantially-similar policing job in those neighborhoods that a human cop would, without having to pay for a human cop (not just their salary in and of itself, but also in terms of making the police department a place people are willing to work for at that salary), this would be an improvement to public safety and quality of life.

Also remote-operated drones don't need to fear that they will get suddenly shot or stabbed to death by a criminal suspect whose potential crimes they are investigating, like a human cop does; and this would itself have some beneficial effects on policing.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#388

Post by JuniperMesos »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #311
jm4 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s actually really cool and I don’t feel like it’s invasive. It’s surveillance in a specific location for a specific purpose and in response to certain emergencies. Active shooter is probably the first thing that comes to mind, but accidents, fires, unexpected disasters, etc. could all be situations where this technology helps assess the situation and inform response.

"CITIZEN there has been a report of a shooting in the area, please remain motionless as we scan your face for biometrics. Scan complete. Please do not move or attempt to leave the area until you have been notified via the 'GovernmentForYou' app that you are cleared to leave the area. Because you have been identified in the active area police have been granted legal probable cause to search your home. Please unlock yo…

What would actual human cops do if there was a report of a shooting in an area, and they were investigating it?

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#389

Post by JuniperMesos »

jamiequint wrote: post #215
schlap wrote: post #178

These companies build this tech in SF and Seattle, cities with some of the gnarliest public safety problems in the country, then turn around and sell it to smaller towns where it does more harm than good. Most places in America don't have problems that surveillance solves. They have problems they already know about and won't act on. Cameras don't fix homelessness or addiction or underfunded services. They just make l…

"Cameras don't fix homelessness or addiction or underfunded services. They just make life harder for regular people." In what way do cameras make life harder for regular people? If anything rampant crime (and progressive legal systems' unwillingness to lock up repeat offenders for a long time or at all) makes life much harder for regular people than a camera just sitting there.

One of the services that is most underfunded is the service of arresting, trying, and incarcerating homeless people who commit petty thefts, vandalism, and in some extreme cases physical assault or even murder. Insofar as cameras drive down the cost to the legal system of gathering enough evidence to convict and incarcerate people who do these things, this would make life better for regular people.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#390

Post by JuniperMesos »

eitally wrote: post #116
anthonypasq wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think politicians have seriously underestimated how much people don't like crime, and most people would take constant surveillance if it could actually improve feelings of safety in urban environments.

I think it's also true that many people are wildly out of touch when they think about how "safe" their local municipality is. The Bay Area is objectively safe, for example, yet I constantly run into neighbors in affluent neighborhoods who are afraid of venturing various places, letting their kids play outside or bike to school, or just generally exploring around. I was at a BayFC match last weekend, for example, and…

> The Bay Area is objectively safe, for example, yet I constantly run into neighbors in affluent neighborhoods who are afraid of venturing various places, letting their kids play outside or bike to school, or just generally exploring around.

A lot risks associated with "venturing various places" (which specific places?) and generally exploring around are not well-tracked in official crime statistics, precisely because the people who are affected by these crimes don't expect the police or criminal justice system to do much about them.

Arranging your bodies in a swastika pattern on the football field and photographing it isn't a crime in the US (nor should it be). It's reasonable to be more concerned about the school where a student brought a gun to campus. Although really both of these things sound like isolated incidents that don't say much one way or the other about what things would generally be like at either school for that incoming student.

Post reply on HN