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

451–460 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#451

Post by ausbah »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #413
ausbah wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have you seen how anyone online reacts when speeding or red light cameras are installed? or when parking becomes discouraged for sake of pedestrians or residents? i am somewhat convinced that Americans views on cars is like that of guns, a absolute right that can and will not be infringed no matter how many must die cars are more of a necessary “evil” than guns so the comparison is a little extreme so i don’t think t…

> have you seen how anyone online reacts when speeding or red light cameras are installed? or when parking becomes discouraged for sake of pedestrians or residents? That didn't address what the poster wrote, it's just a cheap reddit style of internet arguing that doesn't add anything. OP is right, society in general tolerates a bunch of regulations as to what and where and how they can drive. Deaths from road acciden…

i am plainly disagreeing with the assertion that people are unwilling to give up more freedoms of driving to save lives based off my anecdotal experiences online seeing how ppl seem to on avg react to such regulations being passed

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#452

Post by iamnothere »

mothballed wrote: post #365
iamnothere wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should check on that. AFAIK you don’t have to display a plate unless the property owner (or HOA) requires it or it’s a state chartered private road like some turnpikes. Police may still hassle you over it but they shouldn’t. Many farmers have plateless farm trucks, people who live in the woods have plateless UTVs that they drive on private dirt and gravel roads, etc.

I looked this up in my state. They are exempt on private roadways that are only open to select persons via implied or explicit permission []. They do not appear to be exempt on private roadways that have public access, which is what all the roads around me are. I cannot even selectively limit access on my own roadway because it has an easement for the public to pass. But I still fully own it and am responsible for al…

That’s ridiculous! I wonder if that would stand up to a legal challenge. Too bad it would be expensive to contest.

It is like requiring privately owned “public” wifi to collect ID from users. We just don’t do that kind of thing here in the US!

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#453

Post by onetokeoverthe »

jamiequint wrote: post #232
ggoo wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surveillance tech can alter peoples behavior. I know I'm personally more stressed when I know I'm being filmed, even if I'm doing nothing wrong. https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2024/1/niae039/7920510?l...

Untrue at a population level, just compare anxiety disorders and self-reported anxiety between USA and China.

[dead]

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#454

Post by wahnfrieden »

loeg wrote: post #397
turtlesdown11 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We (the US) have more criminality than many peer nations Do you have any empirical evidence to support this claim?

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/international-crime... > U.S. crime rates for the three violent crimes homicide, rape, robbery) were several times higher than the averages for reporting European countries. The U.S. homicide rate was 10.5-7.9 per 100,000 population compared to Europe's less than 2 per 100,000. The U.S. rate for rape was approximately seven times higher than the average for Europe. United Stat…

(1980-1984)

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#455

Post by JuniperMesos »

lenerdenator wrote: post #398
JuniperMesos wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People stealing copper from public infrastructure in public spaces is exactly the sort of serious quality-of-life crime that I want something like Flock cameras to deter.

There's really no stopping a guy from stealing scrap metal if he thinks it'll pay for his next fix. It's like when you try to keep something from being taken by bolting it down and they just come in and steal the bolts too. Some of that's just a part of life.

The ostensible purpose of the criminal justice system is to stop guys from stealing scrap metal obtained by vandalizing public structures in order to buy drugs. Perhaps by arresting them and locking them in a building with armed guards so they can't vandalize and steal things and also can't get drugs anyway.

Insofar as the actual criminal justice system is doing a bad job with this, I want it to do a better job - which may entail "use more public security cameras to detect copper thieves" - and not just accept that pieces of infrastructure in public places might get vandalized and stolen by drug addicts.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#456

Post by JuniperMesos »

nkrisc wrote: post #193
mothballed wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts have been wrong about many things, sometimes for centuries before they've fixed it. Some things they think they've interpreted correctly now that they'll turn around and interpret some other way later. Trying to interpret viewing and recording the plate as speech but not displaying it as speech is trying to have your cake and eat it too. If the camera can stalk my car everywhere and record it under auspice…

Driving a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilege that many of the morons I share the road with seem to take for granted. If they are allowed to drive then I want their plate identifiable on video from my dash cam. Automated mass surveillance of license plates should also be illegal.

What's the justification for why your (and everyone else's) dashcam doesn't count as automated mass surveillance that should be illegal? Lots of people post timestamped dashcam video with the license plates of other cars clearly visible on the public internet, sometimes explicitly to point out that a particular car was driving unsafely or badly. The police can use this footage as evidence to charge people with crimes.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#457

Post by Breza »

HWR_14 wrote: post #265
ThaDood wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely: Scan everyone's home while en-route to the 911 call with an infrared camera. Or scan all of the license plates and faces of people along the way. Possible: Perhaps crash into someone? Or worse.

> Scan everyone's home while en-route to the 911 call with an infrared camera. That's unconstitutional. Use a regular camera and it's fine for some reason.

US law is more murky if they are responding to a perceived emergency. That can give probable cause. Imagine someone calls 911 due to smoke coming out of the neighbor's house. Clearly the drone can legally use IR to look for fire in the house. But it gets complicated fast, which is what worries me. Now imagine a car backfires, a microphone array reports it as a gunshot, and a drone shows up and starts scanning the nearest apartment building.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#458

Post by tt24 »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #430
tt24 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disagree. Flock does not proliferate government bullying.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#459

Post by scottyah »

chaps wrote: post #333
scottyah wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common missiles go about 900 mph faster...

There's more than one definition of missile. Florida criminal code's just one place where a drone could be considered a "missile". Florida criminal code: "790.19 Shooting into or throwing deadly missiles into dwellings, public or private buildings, occupied or not occupied; vessels, aircraft, buses, railroad cars, streetcars, or other vehicles.—Whoever, wantonly or maliciously, shoots at, within, or into, or throws a…

Oh wow, TIL. Thanks!

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#460

Post by yabutlivnWoods »

StackRanker3000 wrote: post #192
yabutlivnWoods wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often what we criminalize is stupid. Giving away food to homeless is a crime in many places. Bad capitalism. Feelings of insecurity are manufactured relative to the danger posed: https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-die...

> Giving away food to homeless is a crime in many places. Bad capitalism. How is this due to capitalism? I mean, I can maybe see how you can tie it to NIMBYism, and from there to capitalism through the desire to maintain or increase property values. But that's a stretch, and only one mechanism There are many drivers for this type of regulation, some more well-meaning than others. Most of them would not go away simply…

Occurs in a society that calls itself capitalist.

I don't care about the definition in some 300 year old scroll.

The majority alive say this is capitalism, then this is capitalism. Appealing to the authority of the dead is no different to me than appealing to Jesus and God.

Post reply on HN