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

421–430 of 507 posts

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

#421

Post by iamnothere »

mothballed wrote: post #402
15155 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Private ships Often, the same people crying about Flock will decry private arms ownership through mental gymnastics. These very same ships you speak of that could do "tons of damage" had actual cannonry - with no registration or restrictions on ownership or purchase, either.

You can still buy and bear a cannon with no background check or registration or any of the like, FWIW. Very easy to order on the internet and have shipped straight to your door[]. [] https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index/page/product/product_id/...

You can, but be aware that an exploding cannonball (widely available in 1776) is considered a destructive device, so each shell must have an NFA stamp. Solid shot is not considered a destructive device.

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

#422

Post by faidit »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #370
amrocha wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that was the case then you should wonder what Descartes would think. What Derrida or Baudrillard would think. We both know it’s not about that though.

Wondering what the people who created the government think of the current government is massively different than wondering what either of two French philosophers who never participated in statecraft born 150 years later thinks. It is perfectly normal to wonder what the architect of a system thinks of the current system, and entirely separate from wondering what a pair of unrelated Frenchman think of that system. Even…

Descartes at least was a mathematician and a philosopher with novel ideas. Derrida and Baudrillard were "postmodern" slop faucets.

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

#423

Post by mothballed »

iamnothere wrote: post #421
mothballed wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still buy and bear a cannon with no background check or registration or any of the like, FWIW. Very easy to order on the internet and have shipped straight to your door[]. [] https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index/page/product/product_id/...

You can, but be aware that an exploding cannonball (widely available in 1776) is considered a destructive device, so each shell must have an NFA stamp. Solid shot is not considered a destructive device.

Does the shell have to be serialized? Or does one merely need a stamp that handwaves towards a particular, but generic looking shell?

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

#424

Post by jonway »

djtango wrote: post #373
kcatskcolbdi wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cops do have some unique tendencies but I think the real issue is the cops are able to leverage the power of the government in ways other large groups cannot.

The problem with police is a) that police have to deal with bad people and it is very hard to stay untainted when you constantly deal with bad people, and b) being a cop is no longer a desirable or rewarding job which not only causes applicant pool issues but also polarises the job and police force itself. Then the nature of polarisation is that it is self reinforcing. So if your job isn't rewarding financially or so…

I don’t agree that police isn’t attractive or rewarding, the salaries have gone up and requirements reduced (college degree requirements in places for example)

Come with a pension and active lifestyle with a club(FoP) and a union in some positions, its ostensibly public service and you get to much more than peek behind the curtain.

Personally, I feel both ways about cops writ large. I feel like we could do a lot better really easily(mandatory body cam recordings please? Our guys literally just take them off.), and on the other hand I get it, they’re doing important work often enough.

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

#425

Post by charcircuit »

array_key_first wrote: post #416
charcircuit wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stalking is not illegal at all.

Stalking is very illegal in most US jurisdictions.

Maybe if you are threatening someone. But if you are just following someone in public, that is okay.

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

#426

Post by DetectDefect »

stackedinserter wrote: post #98

Easy solution for Flock problem: get rid of visible license plates. Make them 2x1" of size and RFID-readable, give readers to police, problem solved. Not-that-easy solution is legal ban for such surveillance. None of these both will happen though. You accepted TSA and PRISM, you will get used to Flock too. Next is Flock but for people, with face recognition.

Flock works without license plates. Also, what do you mean "next"?

> if the object class of the identified object is that of a human being, then the object detection module 154 may further analyze the image 501 using a neural network module 507B configured to identify different classes of people (male, female, race, etc.)

https://patents.google.com/patent/US11416545B1

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

#427

Post by AngryData »

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?

It isn't any different, it is the exact same thing with a different PR spin.

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

#428

Post by Barathkanna »

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…

This is the part that doesn’t get enough attention. The real risk isn’t any single vendor, it’s the aggregation layer. Once ALPR, retail cams, traffic cams, ISP data, and vehicle telematics all land in one searchable system, the idea that this will be perfectly RBAC’d and jurisdictionally contained is fantasy. At that point it’s not policing tech, it’s a nationwide surveillance substrate held together by policy promises.

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

#429

Post by Humorist2290 »

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…

I'd bet many of the founders would've been amazed at the technology and insist on wide scale adoption. It could've further cemented the power of slaveholders over their slaves. It could've helped to track the movements of native groups. It could've helped to root out loyalists still dangerous to American independence.

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

#430

Post by eastbound »

overfeed wrote: post #254
eastbound wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not woke, no matter how large you define woke. You can see links with the ACLU or various human rights defense groups, but those groups may have become woke, without “global surveillance” becoming a woke topic. Wokism is about making racist accusations of dominance over an audience who didn’t do it. It’s about unfairness and hyping factions against each other. The global surveillance is not about pitting grou…

"Wokism" is an amorphous culture-war weapon that can be anything an author wants it to be. Diversity is woke, equity is woke, inclusion is woke, non-heteronomative relationships are woke, movies that are barely critical of unbridled capitalism are woke. Not being onboard with "law and order" is woke - and not being 100% onboard with Flock can be reframed as being pro-Criminal and "woke" > global surveillance is not a…

Many gays (or “non-heteronormative” as you say) are anti-woke. You’re operating a dichotomy between your opponents and you, trying to paint them as sweeping generalizators. But this is not wokism. Wokism is when you take “gays” and attribute them to your side, painting the others as nazis.

I’m gay and the single most powerful harm that was made to my life was the emergence of wokism.

Post reply on HN