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

Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 507 posts

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#391

Post by godelski »

fusslo wrote: post #131

I wonder what our founders would think about tools like Flock. From what I understand these systems are legal because there is no expectation of privacy in public. Therefore any time you go in public you cannot expect NOT to be tracked, photographed, and entered into a database (which may now outlive us). I think the argument comes from the 1st amendment. Weaponizing the Bill of Rights (BoR) for the government agains…

  > because there is no expectation of privacy in public
Funny enough thats actually not true. Legally speaking. It's often claimed but it is an over simplification.

I think maybe the worst part is that the more we buy into this belief the more self fulfilling it becomes (see third link). But I don't expect anyone to believe me so here's several links. And I'd encourage people to push back against this misnomer. In the most obvious of cases I hope we all expect to have privacy in a public restroom. But remember that this extends beyond that. And remember that privacy is not binary. It's not a thing you have complete privacy or none (public restrooms again being an obvious example). So that level of privacy that we expect is ultimately decided by us. By acting as if it is binary only enables those who wish to take those rights from us. They want you to be nihilistic

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/09/you-really-do-have-som...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_priv...

https://legalclarity.org/is-there-an-expectation-of-privacy-...

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#392

Post by Cornbilly »

kernal wrote: post #60
estimator7292 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about when ICE uses this data to abduct and deport your spouse and family members? Will you be grateful then?

[flagged]

Are you grateful for all of the legal immigrants and citizens that ICE has swept off the streets?

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#393

Post by spiderfarmer »

bakies wrote: post #372
mysterydip wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought that show "person of interest" was a bit far fetched. how could one system have access to that much data? privacy concerns would surely stop it.

Along with all the cop shows I'm thinking it's almost intentional at this point to normalize things.

It’s the entire reason some shows and movies exist. The Pentagon, CIA and other agencies routinely and openly assist hundreds of films and TV shows with equipment, locations and expertise in exchange for script changes that protect U.S. military and intelligence reputations.

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#394

Post by bigiain »

SamInTheShell wrote: post #12
edot wrote: post #6

Flock or their defenders will lock in on the excuse that “oh these are misconfigured” or “yeah hacking is illegal, only cops should have this data”. The issue is neither of the above. The issue is the collection and collation of this footage in the first place! I don’t want hackers watching me all the time, sure, but I DEFINITELY don’t trust the state or megacorps to watch me all the time. Hackers concern me less, ac…

Nothing will be done until one of the investors of the tech end up embarrassed from weaponization of the tech against themselves. These people have no clue how creepy some of their technologic betters can be. I once witnessed a coworker surveilling his own network to ensure his girlfriend wasn't cheating on him (this was a time before massive SSL adoption). The guy just got a role doing networking at my company and t…

> Nothing will be done until one of the investors of the tech end up embarrassed from weaponization of the tech against themselves.

I propose that it become mandatory for all senior managment, board members, and investors in Flock - to have these Condor camears and their ALPR cameras installed out the front of their houses, along their routes to work, along the route to nearby entertainment precincts, outside their children's school and their spouses workplace (or places they regularly visit if they don't work) - all of which must be unsecured and publicly available at all times.

(Yes I know, I'm dreaming. I reckon every Meta employee's children should be required to have un-parental-controlled access to Facebook/WhatsApp/Messenger/et al...)

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#395

Post by doctorpangloss »

dogman144 wrote: post #311

Was fortunate to talk to a security lead who built the data-driven policing network for a major American city that was an early adopter. ALPR vendors like Flock either heavily augment and/or anchor the tech setups. What was notable to me is the following, and it’s why I think a career spent on either security researching, or going to law school and suing, these vendors into the ground over 20 years would be the ultim…

I will offer an alternative POV: if your big brilliant plan is, sue the elected institutions over administrative decisions, don’t go to law school. It would be a colossal waste of your time. You will lose, even if you “win.”

You are advocating that talented people go for Willits as a blueprint of “civil service,” which is a terrible idea. It’s the worst idea.

If you have a strong opinion about administrative decisions, get elected, or work for someone who wins elections.

Or make a better technology. Talented people should be working on Project Longfellow for everything. Not, and I can’t believe I have to say this, becoming lawyers.

And by the way, Flock is installed in cities run by Democrats and Republicans alike, which should inform you that, this guy is indicting civil servants, not advocating for their elevation to some valued priesthood protecting civil rights.

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#396

Post by AlexCoventry »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #345
edot wrote: post #6

Flock or their defenders will lock in on the excuse that “oh these are misconfigured” or “yeah hacking is illegal, only cops should have this data”. The issue is neither of the above. The issue is the collection and collation of this footage in the first place! I don’t want hackers watching me all the time, sure, but I DEFINITELY don’t trust the state or megacorps to watch me all the time. Hackers concern me less, ac…

How is this different from the CCP surveillance? I guess this is easier for third parties to access?

The PRC has nothing remotely corresponding to the Fourth Amendment, as far as I know.

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#397

Post by tomrod »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #363
mothballed wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd have not forced license plates to be displayed at all times to begin with, as they are a search of your papers without probable cause your vehicle is unregistered. Private ships in those days (probably the closest equivalent of something big and dangerous that could do tons of damage quickly on the public right of way) did not have required hull numbers or anything like that. Of course that doesn't totally sol…

Ships then, and now, don’t really need numbers for identification. There are various unique numbers that they can and do use occasionally for specific purposes(IMO numbers and hull numbers). However, a ship’s name and home port were, and are, more than sufficient to identify a ship for legal purposes. You don’t need a registration number on a ship, and certainly wouldn’t have needed one then. The authorities absolute…

Cars, wagons, carts, are not ships

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#398

Post by tomrod »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #316
rimbo789 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea they would have had no issue with flock if it was for capturing escaped enslaved people

They aren't a monolithic group. There was a wide range of opinions on slavery and many other topics. Do a bit of research.

The only acceptable opinion today should be that slavery of all stripes, practiced both before the emancipation proclamation, as well as today in both prison settings and trafficking, is abhorrent.

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#399

Post by edot »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #345
edot wrote: post #6

Flock or their defenders will lock in on the excuse that “oh these are misconfigured” or “yeah hacking is illegal, only cops should have this data”. The issue is neither of the above. The issue is the collection and collation of this footage in the first place! I don’t want hackers watching me all the time, sure, but I DEFINITELY don’t trust the state or megacorps to watch me all the time. Hackers concern me less, ac…

How is this different from the CCP surveillance? I guess this is easier for third parties to access?

I hate the CCP surveillance too. No state should have this close of an eye on its people. It’s anti-freedom.

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#400

Post by tomrod »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #325
aucisson_masque wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That definitely wouldn't happen in the states. Corruption only happens in poor countries.

laughs in Ukrainian board of directors

Wasn't there a whole impeachment or two about that?
Post reply on HN