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

Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

wltx.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 166 posts

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#41

Post by throwawayqqq11 »

jmward01 wrote: post #33

I might be good with legal guarantees, meaning jail time for those involved, that the only place images on these devices went was local to the municipality collecting them and that they were only accessed for very well defined reasons by very specific people. The core issues are that aggregation and exfiltration of this data means that privacy is dead and the AI world allows analysis for almost no cost. We need an id…

There is another looming threat of modern day surveilance: previously hidden correlations.

The data you found benign sharing in the past might allow unpleasant conclusions in the future and might not even come from you personally. Think about what toys you bought for your kids, or in what college milieu your worldview developed.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#42

Post by bsder »

sneak wrote: post #35
jmward01 wrote: post #33

I might be good with legal guarantees, meaning jail time for those involved, that the only place images on these devices went was local to the municipality collecting them and that they were only accessed for very well defined reasons by very specific people. The core issues are that aggregation and exfiltration of this data means that privacy is dead and the AI world allows analysis for almost no cost. We need an id…

Then the feds come in with a national security law and bypass all those state/local protections and slurp it all up into an AI-powered Palantir database, the very existence of which is classified. Suddenly you’re the victim of parallel construction and don’t even know it. The database CANNOT EXIST SAFELY. Why don’t people who “might be okay with this IF…” understand that? Collect the data and it WILL be misused, even…

> The database CANNOT EXIST SAFELY. Why don’t people who “might be okay with this IF…” understand that?

You have to point out the Jews in Amsterdam. They had nothing to hide--until they did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Amsterdam_civil_registry_...

Or Martin Niemoller: a good Protestant German pastor who viewed the anti-theist attitudes of the Socialists and Communists as more threatening than Nazis. And then the Nazis put him in a concentration camp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#44

Post by thfuran »

bilbo0s wrote: post #37
thfuran wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the government needs to be restricted from buying data it wouldn’t be permitted to collect itself.

Meh. If the government is only restricted from buying the data, then they'll just have someone else buy it. Palantir is not the government. So they can buy the real time feed, analyze it in real time, and give the real time results of that analysis to the government without issue. Restricting the government from buying that data does nothing. If you want to stop the government taking advantage of the data, then you w…

>give the real time results of that analysis to the government without issue.

Presumably they’re not doing this for free.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#45

Post by achierius »

Gigachad wrote: post #32
neverkn0wsb357 wrote: post #20

I think the person requesting to access the data was doing the right thing and I agree with the judge’s ruling. The fact that they’re gonna shut it down, implies the scale of indiscriminate nature of data capture and the volume of data being captured. These cameras are popping up all over the nation and if people realize how much data is being captured and where that data is going (or who it’s being sold to) and how…

The laws need to be updated. CCTV in public used to be fine because no one was actually watching it unless there was an incident. Now it’s possible to have AI watch every camera and correlate everything everywhere we need new privacy laws to reflect this capability.

It was not fine then -- what we have now is simply even worse. We do not need to make concessions to our oligarchs: none of this is OK.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#46

Post by close04 »

neverkn0wsb357 wrote: post #20

I think the person requesting to access the data was doing the right thing and I agree with the judge’s ruling. The fact that they’re gonna shut it down, implies the scale of indiscriminate nature of data capture and the volume of data being captured. These cameras are popping up all over the nation and if people realize how much data is being captured and where that data is going (or who it’s being sold to) and how…

> the scale of indiscriminate nature of data capture and the volume of data being captured

It took a lot of naivete, to put it gently, and head-in-sand attitude to believe otherwise. Flock had everything in place to collect a treasure trove of data but they would decide not to do it? Out of principle? Or even if we take the very charitable interpretation that they don't do it today, but also that they'll never cave in to the pressure to do it in the future?

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#47

Post by fc417fc802 »

Gigachad wrote: post #32
neverkn0wsb357 wrote: post #20

I think the person requesting to access the data was doing the right thing and I agree with the judge’s ruling. The fact that they’re gonna shut it down, implies the scale of indiscriminate nature of data capture and the volume of data being captured. These cameras are popping up all over the nation and if people realize how much data is being captured and where that data is going (or who it’s being sold to) and how…

The laws need to be updated. CCTV in public used to be fine because no one was actually watching it unless there was an incident. Now it’s possible to have AI watch every camera and correlate everything everywhere we need new privacy laws to reflect this capability.

I don't mind a local AI on an airgapped security camera network monitoring a camera and issuing an alert to a security guard. The issues are internet connectivity, data retention/mining/sale, and non-local processing (ie handing stuff off to a third party that does who knows what and probably doesn't take security seriously).

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#48

Post by ben_w »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #47
Gigachad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws need to be updated. CCTV in public used to be fine because no one was actually watching it unless there was an incident. Now it’s possible to have AI watch every camera and correlate everything everywhere we need new privacy laws to reflect this capability.

I don't mind a local AI on an airgapped security camera network monitoring a camera and issuing an alert to a security guard. The issues are internet connectivity, data retention/mining/sale, and non-local processing (ie handing stuff off to a third party that does who knows what and probably doesn't take security seriously).

Even with that, I do mind.

Just as two trivial examples, even though neither affects me personally:

The estimated number of heroin users in the UK exceeds the total prison population. The number of class-A drug users in the UK is estimated to be so high that if they actually followed the minimum sentencing guidelines for possession, it would cause a catastrophic economic disaster both from all the people no longer working and also all of the people who suddenly had to build new prisons to hold them. I'm not interested in drugs (and I don't live in the UK, but I assume the UK isn't abnormal in this regard).

Another example is road traffic law. Even just speeding offences, I think you probably catch everyone who actually drives in the UK, often enough that after a month the only people left allowed to drive would be people like me who don't even own a car.

The entire legal system has to be radically changed with far less punishments for almost everything if you have perfect, or even 30% of the way to perfect, surveillance.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#49

Post by fc417fc802 »

ben_w wrote: post #48
fc417fc802 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind a local AI on an airgapped security camera network monitoring a camera and issuing an alert to a security guard. The issues are internet connectivity, data retention/mining/sale, and non-local processing (ie handing stuff off to a third party that does who knows what and probably doesn't take security seriously).

Even with that, I do mind. Just as two trivial examples, even though neither affects me personally: The estimated number of heroin users in the UK exceeds the total prison population. The number of class-A drug users in the UK is estimated to be so high that if they actually followed the minimum sentencing guidelines for possession, it would cause a catastrophic economic disaster both from all the people no longer wo…

I was a bit unclear. I agree, I don't want the government using AI to identify all violations of the law. That sounds like a very straightforward dystopia.

What I don't mind is private companies using AI analysis to support their security guards. I object to any sharing of the data with third parties though. It should be illegal for the data to leave their internal network and it should be illegal to retain it for more than a few days.

I don't care if grocery store loss prevention has eyes on every aisle. My concern is data warehousing and subsequent misuse.

Post reply on HN