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

421–430 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#421

Post by teaearlgraycold »

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.

Police officers have on many occasion used these cameras to track people outside of the scope of their jobs. Usually it's a man tracking a woman (like an ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, or just a random stalking target).

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#422

Post by FireBeyond »

tux1968 wrote: post #264
FireBeyond wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? I ask as a paramedic of 14 years, now retired. If EMS has to "search you out" so does the drone. At least in my County, we actually get very good triangulation info from 911. It was very rare that Dispatch told us they only had Level 2(IIRC) location info (which might be to several hundred feet). FAR more common was people who actually told us the -wrong- location. Car accidents that were several miles up the…

> If EMS has to "search you out" so does the drone. The point is that the drone is fast enough to arrive first, and do the searching so that you don't have to. It's just one of many possible scenarios. I totally understand the argument that this might not be the most effective use of money, but I honestly don't understand the lack of appreciation for the number of places this could be used effectively.

Modern fire departments (including my own) are already using drones, and have found that the best use for them is not "how quickly can we find someone", but thermal imaging from above on structure fires.

> and do the searching so that you don't have to

The searching that we did just isn't really solved by drones (and I love them, some of my best photography is from a drone). It's things like "obscured house numbers on a street", "ambiguous address", not "person lost in a forest". Now if you want to talk about the use of drones for SAR? Absolutely. But for the vast majority of 911 "attempt to locate", getting there quickly is rarely the issue. We can get there quickly and still spend minutes figuring out that you're actually living on a flag property (where your home is behind another, but you share a driveway).

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#423

Post by Sebguer »

fsckboy wrote: post #415
Cider9986 wrote: post #263

>[1] Would crime go up, down or stay the same if all surveillance cameras were removed? The answer to that is the only one that matters. At least 40,990 [2] innocent people died in the US in 2023, without significant outcry - that is, on the road, in car accidents. People in the US clearly value the freedom of driving over the deaths of innocent people. In 2023, there were an estimated 19,800 [3] homicides in the US.…

> At least 40,990 [2] innocent people died in the US in 2023, without significant outcry - that is, on the road, in car accidents. in 2025 in NYC 235 people died in auto accidents. in 1900 in NYC, 200 people died in horse related accidents. As the population has quadrupled in that time, the death rate has dropped substantially. Automobiles claim all those saved lives, "innocent" & criminal alike.

this is ice cream = shark bites levels of critical thinking

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#424

Post by jondwillis »

phil21 wrote: post #408
Morromist wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, I never thought about that but its so true. If society breaks down on the extreme level they anticipate the smart thing to do is probably join a super tight-knit community with lots of young people - maybe the furries or the Amish.

If society breaks down it will be too late to join such groups for nearly all outsiders. Unless you bring very valuable skills or other attributes to the table. The time to build your community is now, before things get so bad every helpless individual is looking for a group to save them.

The time to build your community is now, regardless of the threat of apocalypse.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#425

Post by themafia »

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".

Safety is best achieved by layering several systems on top of one another.

Would we have such a problem with cameras if the videos were stored locally and not in the cloud?

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#426

Post by themafia »

Cider9986 wrote: post #263

>[1] Would crime go up, down or stay the same if all surveillance cameras were removed? The answer to that is the only one that matters. At least 40,990 [2] innocent people died in the US in 2023, without significant outcry - that is, on the road, in car accidents. People in the US clearly value the freedom of driving over the deaths of innocent people. In 2023, there were an estimated 19,800 [3] homicides in the US.…

> 40,990 [2] innocent people died in the US in 2023, without significant outcry - that is, on the road, in car accidents.

1/6 of those were pedestrians. 1/6 of those were motorcyclists. 1/2 of those were people driving drunk. 1/2 of those were single vehicle accidents. Young men with high horsepower cars are a significant factor in many of these.

You shouldn't use the statistic to infer "innocence." The picture of what type of accidents lead to fatalities of often more complicated than people would like to assume.

If you die of a heart attack while driving; then yep, you're in that statistic as well. It's _every_ fatality on the road.

A better statistic might be 222,000 people in 2023 died due to "unintentional accidents." We could save 20% of those people by simply outlawing ladders or being more than 6' off the ground without appropriate safety equipment.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#427

Post by tux1968 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #422
tux1968 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If EMS has to "search you out" so does the drone. The point is that the drone is fast enough to arrive first, and do the searching so that you don't have to. It's just one of many possible scenarios. I totally understand the argument that this might not be the most effective use of money, but I honestly don't understand the lack of appreciation for the number of places this could be used effectively.

Modern fire departments (including my own) are already using drones, and have found that the best use for them is not "how quickly can we find someone", but thermal imaging from above on structure fires. > and do the searching so that you don't have to The searching that we did just isn't really solved by drones (and I love them, some of my best photography is from a drone). It's things like "obscured house numbers o…

Yeah, I'm sure they wouldn't be helpful in every call. But the EMT user above talked about sometimes a caller giving the wrong location of a car accident. That's a clear case where a drone quickly on site could warn that crews need to be diverted elsewhere. But if it is just the occasional case where they'd be helpful, that makes them even less economically attractive.

As for fire services, in my city there is always a lead SUV vehicle (I think a captain or supervisor) who is a few blocks ahead of the actual heavy trucks. Presumably to get someone on site as quickly as possible; which made me believe that a drone could assist in that role. But I accept what you say, that there are too many limitations for it to help much, even if it can arrive quicker.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#428

Post by mlrtime »

themafia wrote: post #426
Cider9986 wrote: post #263

>[1] Would crime go up, down or stay the same if all surveillance cameras were removed? The answer to that is the only one that matters. At least 40,990 [2] innocent people died in the US in 2023, without significant outcry - that is, on the road, in car accidents. People in the US clearly value the freedom of driving over the deaths of innocent people. In 2023, there were an estimated 19,800 [3] homicides in the US.…

> 40,990 [2] innocent people died in the US in 2023, without significant outcry - that is, on the road, in car accidents. 1/6 of those were pedestrians. 1/6 of those were motorcyclists. 1/2 of those were people driving drunk. 1/2 of those were single vehicle accidents. Young men with high horsepower cars are a significant factor in many of these. You shouldn't use the statistic to infer "innocence." The picture of wh…

Thank you for providing some logic in an otherwise disruptive and manipulating post. Not to mention the incredible utility that cars give.

Not to say we shouldn't be bringing these numbers down, however that doesn't seem like's OPs goal which sounds like propaganda.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#429

Post by ceejayoz »

conductr wrote: post #419
ceejayoz wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It looks like that rapid increase was a return to pre-covid normal. It never spikes above pre-covid. Given the world was returning to normal, this is precisely what you'd expect most trends to look like, something like in-restaurant dining probably looks similar.

As the authors note, their data only goes back to 2018. So “pre-COVID normal” is tough to confirm here.

Then we have to figure out why it dropped so much pre-COVID. Because the timeline doesn’t say it can possibly be Flock.

Same for the 2023 drop. The timeline simply doesn’t match up with Flock’s rollout.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#430

Post by cucumber3732842 »

tt24 wrote: post #414
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile here I am shopping at Home Depot because they actively fight against the "thou shalt pay a licensed..." laws and codes that the industry groups lobby for. There's no winning.

Truly a difficult choice. One side fights against government bullying and the other… put security cameras up. Decisions, decisions

Both sides are government bullying with slightly different paths to abstract/obfuscate it away. Sure, hairs can be split over the exact nature and amount if desired.
Post reply on HN