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

Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 534 posts

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#471

Post by Kuinox »

t-3 wrote: post #469
Kuinox wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The American and French revolutions originated in the middle classes. I don't know about the american revolution, but that's wrong for the french revolution. I'll link to french wikipédia pages since they are far better on the subject. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tats_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9raux_... Here we can see the first National Assembly was half nobility and clergy. The third estate was the other half. https:/…

> Which indicate that the majority of the third estate representative were bourgeois. The bourgeois are the middle class.

Were the middle class, but what people think of middle class today, doesn't apply to what it was back then.

> The bourgeoisie are a class of business owners, merchants and wealthy people, in general, which emerged in the Late Middle Ages, originally as a " middle class" between the peasantry and aristocracy. They are traditionally contrasted with the proletariat by their wealth, political power, and education, as well as their access to and control of cultural, social, and financial capital.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie

Today the meaning of bourgeoisie, still applies to "business owners, merchants and wealthy people", but is now seen as upper class.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#472

Post by t-3 »

Kuinox wrote: post #471
t-3 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which indicate that the majority of the third estate representative were bourgeois. The bourgeois are the middle class.

Were the middle class, but what people think of middle class today, doesn't apply to what it was back then. > The bourgeoisie are a class of business owners, merchants and wealthy people, in general, which emerged in the Late Middle Ages, originally as a " middle class" between the peasantry and aristocracy. They are traditionally contrasted with the proletariat by their wealth, political power, and education, as wel…

Yes, the proletariat has been brainwashed and convinced that they're the middle class, while the middle classes have become the new aristocracy. The disappearance of hereditary nobility and rise of liberalism (which brings along separation of church and state, which removes the power of the clergy) made the old distinctions less useful, so we have the modern lower (proletariat), middle (skilled workers), and upper (bourgeois) classes.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#473

Post by DangitBobby »

cg5280 wrote: post #370
pesus wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Don't you want to stop all the crimes happening in bathrooms too? That would be a logical step if privacy is always an acceptable tradeoff for security (or at least the illusion thereof).

The difference is that public streets are public spaces. You necessarily have a limited expectation of privacy in public spaces. The government likewise already deploys cameras in public places to maintain a reasonable level of order on them. If you want to put a camera in your personal toilet you absolutely can.

"Public" is not a blanket excuse for constant surveillance in a space. I do not have an expectation of being surveilled in public and it's not acceptable to normalize it.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#475

Post by rangestransform »

runarberg wrote: post #445
realo wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not live in the USA, but my understanding of those omnibus bills is that they are government blackmail of its people. I remember being horrified the first time I heard this was legal in the USA. How can the US citizens accept such a brutal denying of good governance is beyond me.

I‘m not (yet) a citizen of the USA, but I’ve lived there for a while. As I understand it, there is hardly any political opposition in this country. I would actually describe it as a controlled opposition. A lot of people here tend to think the only role of the opposition is to run the right candidate and win the next election. As such, there is no real resistance when the majority government oversteps their boundarie…

> To make matters worse, labor unions are equally politically inactive, and most often their only political moves are endorsing candidates.

This isn’t true, UAW almost got Biden to transfer wealth directly from taxpayers to them via the union made EV credit bonus, laundered through government motors

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#476

Post by 0_____0 »

palata wrote: post #465
0_____0 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it just a bunch of IR LEDs? Surface mount or through-hole? What's the module power rating? What's the power supply power rating? Are there any secondary optics like lenses over the LEDs? Is there a diffuser of some kind? If it's a cluster of garden variety through-hole LEDs with domed tops (like you would see on a TV remote), they're necessarily low power on account of having poor thermal performance. Another way…

Yeah, let's say something like this: https://www.instructables.com/DIY-IR-Infrared-Illuminator-Ni... > Let me be clear - you're still responsible for verifying the safety of your stuff Obviously yeah. I was just wondering if there were known rules like "these wavelengths under this power are fine for humans and wildlife, even if they put the LEDs right in front of their eyes", and also if you have an array of such IR…

Invisible wavelengths can absolutely hurt your retina, but as wavelengths go farther beyond visible, your eye begins to not focus them properly on the retina, so the risks change. E.g. with 1550nm IR (common in telecom, sometimes in LIDAR) the risk of eye damage is to the surface of the eye rather than to the retina. Short wavelengths like UV will be absorbed by the lens at near-UV, and then eventually just be absorbed at the surface at shorter wavelengths.

I think it would be a cool exercise to figure out how much optical power you would see at, idk, 5cm from your illuminator. I assume it's a shortwave IR close to visible light, so you can assume it will focus like visible light, more or less.

Ideally you'd use an optical power meter but you could get a first pass by looking at the circuit and seeing how many mW pass through each LED, applying a conservatively high efficiency factor of W_optical/W_electrical, projecting that into a radiated cone for each LED and multiplying the power received on a dilated pupil sized spot at 5cm by the number of emitters.

Then you have to work out what the irradiance at the retina is once the light is focused. The hazard criteria include a time factor, so you'll have to decide if you/foxes would like to stare directly into the beam for 10 seconds? Or for the entire duration of your meditation session.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#477

Post by insane_dreamer »

xt00 wrote: post #263
linkjuice4all wrote: post #40

The easier fix seems like doxxing politicians and embarrassing them until they protect all of their constituents against things like this. We got a small modicum of privacy with the Video Privacy Protection Act [0] after Bork's video rental history was going to be released. [0] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=video+r...

I imagine there is a process in place to allow cities / states / communities to place the cameras on polls. If Vegas somehow got around public comment process to put these on poles, then what would stop any random company from requesting to put their own camera there? Like lets say a motivated individual went through some process to put a camera on a pole someplace near somebody that would definitely make the govt of…

I'm not sure that public comment can stop the city council from doing what they want in the end.

This is the sort of thing that should be put to a city referendum.

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#478

Post by kouru225 »

School-Cotton wrote: post #428
henryteeare wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One vote isn't enough. Just Obama was insufficient when congress was not sufficiently aligned.

But I have no power to vote for anyone but the president, two senators and one representative.

What he’s saying is that you need to vote with a consistent message. Voting for Bush, then voting for Obama, then voting for Trump is unlikely to make any lasting change

Re: Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

#479

Post by wat10000 »

achierius wrote: post #122
wrs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What confuses me is that no revolution is required. All we had to do to avoid this was to vote. Voting would still (probably) work.

Just like how all we had to do to shut down Guantanamo Bay was vote for President Obama, right? So glad that that worked out. By and large, our institutions are not democratic, in that they are not responsive to 'popular opinion'; while there are certain arenas where, for one reason or another, the will of the majority does sway the day (e.g. the influence of scandals on individual elected officials), by and large mo…

Not closing Guantanamo is, unfortunately, an example of democracy working. Public support for closing it has never been anything close to a majority. Obama got elected despite, not because, of that promise. Congress blocking his attempts to do so was a reflection of the will of the people, even if perhaps coincidentally.
Post reply on HN