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

Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

ipvm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#41

Post by dang »

netsharc wrote: post #40
dang wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't do this here. Even if you don't mean it literally, someone else is going to take it that way. (I know this, because they already did.) Also, please don't do this here either—it's against the site guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). > some important monkey

Take what literally? That the CCO is a monkey? I'm genuinely asking what I'm not supposed to do and why it could be taken "literally", considering the words of my comment you quoted.

No by taking it literally I meant taking your comment about how great it would be to dox someone and their family as an incitement to do such things or worse. (I don't think you meant it literally.)

The 'monkey' bit was a different problem with what you posted.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#42

Post by otterley »

Despite the references to recent cases like Carpenter, this isn’t a cogent legal analysis. These recent cases have been focused on the question as to whether law enforcement activity involving cameras, cell phone locations, etc. constitutes a “search” and therefore must satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. In the challenged cases, the Government didn’t obtain a warrant and the defense was trying to suppress the introduction of evidence.

But it says nothing as to what the Government can do when they do have a warrant. If they get a judge to sign one, provided the warrant meets the particularity requirement, they can go obtain what they need.

As far as Flock is concerned, it’s mainly a process thing. Right now they might be able to share their data with law enforcement without a warrant. If the law changes, the data will still be there, except henceforth, law enforcement will need to obtain a warrant before getting it. So there will be that safety mechanism, although security vulnerabilities could make it available to hackers.

The bigger question in my mind is “should such systems even exist in free states,” but as written, our Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid them.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#43

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

bko wrote: post #9
jvanderbot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Online" has become such a trite dismissal. I'm calling out, specifically, that "A camera capturing an image of a license plate that is openly displayed on a vehicle is not searching for someone's private life. It is recording what anyone standing on the same street could already observe." ... implies that a very absurd and objectionable thing like folks standing around each playground recording children and comparin…

> Automated logging of people in public places is dystopian You went from recording license plates on public roads to logging people in public places. If someone steals my car, I would want to be able to give police my license plate and have them track down the person very easily by all the cameras on public roads. This is not dystopian. This is what an orderly society should look like. You're talking about children…

> You went from recording license plates on public roads to logging people in public places.

This is kind of a misconception about the technology; there is not really much distinction between these things. Firstly, they are cameras which have no means of differentiating between a license plate or a dog or a tree. In addition to that, they are (presumably linux) computers that have software to find license plates in the images the cameras take, both of which (license plates and images) are stored on Flock's servers. That's how the "recording license plates on public roads" bit works.

The point is that the images can still be ran through creepy software written by creepy people to find children to get to "logging people in public places". And let's say, to put it mildly, it does not fill one with confidence to research the security in practice of Flock's image data.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#44

Post by jraph »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #32
jvanderbot wrote: post #2

It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this.

>It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this. This is a systemic problem. There's a ton of things that are considered bad and questionably legal when small timers do them but if you spend millions producing fake…

Have you tried to put a solar panel on your shed, though?

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#45

Post by bko »

browningstreet wrote: post #31
bko wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its entirely reasonable that license plates are recorded on public roads and accessible to police in lawful requests, like tracking stolen vehicles or dangerous suspects. Your hysterics about photographing children in a park is silly and no one but the most online ideologue would find it at all comparable. Find a better argument if you want to convince other reasonable people who just want to live in safe nei…

> I think its entirely reasonable that license plates are recorded on public roads and accessible to police in lawful requests, like tracking stolen vehicles or dangerous suspects. And I don’t. I think my right to privacy shouldn’t arc to nil. Cops don’t care about stolen cars. Or stolen things from cars. I’ve given them footage of such a crime and.. nada. And they have armies of police and armament to do the other p…

> Cops don’t care about stolen cars. Or stolen things from cars

So you're just anti police. You take the most uncharitable view about the police you're impossible to argue with.

> I’ve given them footage of such a crime and.. nada.

Why would they accept "trust be bro" when you give them a license plate and ask them to shake down someone. That's why they need the technology themselves so there is clear chain of custody and impartial witness.

> Instead of just dismantling all civic rights for _some_ property rights, maybe we should have a national convention about what police are obligated to do and their best practices to do so.

Police don't do these things because there's no follow through. They arrest people and they don't get put away because of activist district attorneys and judges. Almost all cops sign up because they want to do good, which means removing bad people from society. If arresting people and chasing down crime results in just paper work, risk from false accusations and mildly inconveniencing criminals, they won't bother.

So let's have that conversation. But restricting technology is pointless and just makes their jobs harder.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#46

Post by cucumber3732842 »

jraph wrote: post #44
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this. This is a systemic problem. There's a ton of things that are considered bad and questionably legal when small timers do them but if you spend millions producing fake…

Have you tried to put a solar panel on your shed, though?

Without the right last name or the right palms being greased that'd probably incur the permitting hassle of both.

Re: Flock Defense "No Expectation of Privacy in Public" Is Wrong

#47

Post by 1718627440 »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #32
jvanderbot wrote: post #2

It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this.

>It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this. This is a systemic problem. There's a ton of things that are considered bad and questionably legal when small timers do them but if you spend millions producing fake…

> but if you spend millions producing fake bullshit paperwork to legitimize it it becomes a good thing.

As a German, that is precisely how Nazi Germany operated and why so few people complained: They had the proper process and paper for everything.

Post reply on HN