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

Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement

ohio.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement

#51

Post by dghlsakjg »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #44
dghlsakjg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that the supremacy clause makes this a grey area. Simplified: you can make something illegal locally, but federal law will almost always win out.

Sure but the end result of that is simply that local agencies could not legally use this technology, not that they can just ignore local laws because the federal government wants them to. The federal government can maybe force Flock to turn over data, but local governments then cannot use Flock in accordance with Illinois law. In the case of Illinois, this is indeed causing some local governments to reconsider their…

Well, not quite.

The local governments are in compliance with state law until the feds use it for immigration enforcement. Then the supremacy clause takes over and more or less nullifies it. As long as it isn’t the local agency using it for enforcement, then they are in the clear.

I think that Flock contracts are getting cancelled due to unpopularity, not because of compliance worries. Can you point to any actual cases where enforcement of the state law led to a termination of service?

Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement

#54

Post by BobaFloutist »

righthand wrote: post #47
GorbachevyChase wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So assuming you drive, when a police car gets really inappropriately close behind you for a couple minutes and then backs off, then they are probably using their eyes to look at your license plate and having someone run that or texting while driving to do that on the computer in the car. I don’t think there is a fundamental difference between this process and using a camera other than a camera doesn’t expect you to g…

The cops actions are vetted and have responsible party attached. The camera is used to bypass responsibility of bad actors entirely. Infact the camera is used to enable bad actors instead of catching bad actors. Huge difference in my opinion but okay just shrug your shoulders and claim there’s no difference.

And, crucially, cops are expensive, so the percentage of drivers they can do this to is low.

Whereas a stationary camera can scan the license plates of ~100% of cars that go past it and save that data for later fishing expeditions. And is cheap enough that we can (and have) blanketed roads with them.

Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement

#55

Post by kloop »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #17
kloop wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That probably just means it's illegal for local governments to use cloud based cameras in Illinois

> probably just means it's illegal for local governments to use cloud based cameras in Illinois Probably not. A state can regulate how its own resources are used. It can't block a federal warrant.

> It can't block a federal warrant.

Exactly. If they all submit to federal warrants, and the state has a law effectively against that, then it becomes illegal to use the cameras.

Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement

#56

Post by xp84 »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #26
xp84 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> non-citizens don’t have any particular rights beyond the Geneva Convention That's just untrue. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8... > Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976) ("There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amen…

Show me where it says sending them to their home country is depriving them of life, liberty, or property.

If I'm overseas and overstayed my visa and broke, it's a huge favor if the authorities there pay my airfare to come home -- not a human rights violation.

Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement

#57

Post by xp84 »

righthand wrote: post #35
xp84 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You have a brain dead interpretation of the law it seems. You may be interested in the US Constitution Amendments 4-14 should give you quite a few answers to your confusion on how we treat people here. Your interpretation of the laws would make you an illegal for misinterpreting the laws. Let’s deport you.

You and others here have so much to say about these legal details, but you haven't explained where it establishes a right for people with no legal status here to just show up and move in, even commit crimes, and not be sent home.

I'm not saying people should be harmed. I'm saying they should be fingerprinted (to track repeat offenders) and sent home.

IMHO part of why things have gotten so toxic, stuff like ICE etc. is that one side of the debate has staked out the position that coming here illegally should be met with zero consequences whatsoever - not even being gently walked back across the border with a stern but toothless warning! And any response other than complete acceptance of this form of immigration is a crime against humanity, racist, evil, fascist.

And most of the Democrats who hold those opinions live in large cities in the North with manageable amounts of such migration, not the rural border areas where the impact is most felt. So, with this going on for 30 years or so and not being taken seriously by Washington, it's in turn radicalized the other side of the debate, such that they are more likely to support measures we should all view as probably too extreme, like armed ICE agents being sent out on exploratory missions.

Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement

#58

Post by righthand »

suburban_strike wrote: post #33
righthand wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spying on people is a violation of plenty of amendments. Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony. Stop treating the law as a binary illegal or not. It just leads to brain dead interpretations of the law. There is plenty of “illegal” things people do every day and yet we don’t install public dragnet cameras to stop it. Illegal immigration hasn’t shown any real harm to people that regular citizens don’t also…

[flagged]

Lol you’re a troll account and looking at your comment history reveals how pathetic and non-serious you are. Most likely non-American.

The borders are enforced quit making up lies. In United States of America we still extend due process because that allows us to punish actual criminals. Instead you want to label everyone and deport them to a safe distance but do not want to actually punish anyone with the law or determine innocence. You have no respect for any law, and just use your own ideas of how things should work. So what is the point of the laws and punishment system if we can’t use it? When you just deport someone without due process you’re letting the “illegal” off the hook without consequences. But you know this, hence your phrasing.

Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement

#59

Post by LocalH »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #49
pavel_lishin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that hypocritical?

Because if public video surveillance was only used for legitimate purposes, worked well and made everyone‘s life better as a consequence there wouldn’t be as much opposition to it. In practice this is not always the case. If every new proposed law to combat „child abuse“ was well intentioned and actually worked, there wouldn’t be much opposition either. But since they are mostly an underhanded tactic to censor the in…

The misuse of "child welfare" as a wedge for illegal legislation heavily predates the common use of the Internet. I remember Tipper Gore with music, Joe Lieberman with video games. I remember the "Satanic panics" of the 80s, which led my parents to forbid me from Dungeons & Dragons, because it was "evil" and "Satanic".

Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement

#60

Post by LocalH »

xp84 wrote: post #57
righthand wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a brain dead interpretation of the law it seems. You may be interested in the US Constitution Amendments 4-14 should give you quite a few answers to your confusion on how we treat people here. Your interpretation of the laws would make you an illegal for misinterpreting the laws. Let’s deport you.

You and others here have so much to say about these legal details, but you haven't explained where it establishes a right for people with no legal status here to just show up and move in, even commit crimes, and not be sent home. I'm not saying people should be harmed. I'm saying they should be fingerprinted (to track repeat offenders) and sent home. IMHO part of why things have gotten so toxic, stuff like ICE etc. i…

I've said for years that the correct way to do it would be to pick up an undocumented immigrant, and give them the option right then and there to begin the legal process of immigration, in return if they accept then they will not be deported.

Strangely I've never seen that idea pick up ground (and it's a basic idea, there's no way I'm the only one to have ever come up with it).

Post reply on HN