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

A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

coveillance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 339 posts

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#51

Post by s1artibartfast »

myrmidon wrote: post #13
smithkl42 wrote: post #10

I wonder what they mean by this? > The camera can have different ways of seeing encoded in it, including kinds of gazes that enforce social agreements about what kinds of behavior and people are considered “normal” The phrase "kinds of gazes" strikes me as the sort of thing that's only going to make sense to people trained in a very particular and idiosyncratic flavor of ethical critique. What a normal person sees he…

My best guess would be [[Surveillance cameras normalize/denormalize behavior in a way that is easily biased and undemocratic.]] It might e.g. direct the full force of law against a drunk urinating on a tree (easy to spot/classify), while tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language (missing data/difficult to detect). Letting automated surveillance systems judge people will inevitably…

Seems like a fundamental problem if we dont want the laws we passed to be enforced.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#52

Post by saltyoldman »

emptybits wrote: post #44
seethishat wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until one of them communicates a threat, then it is a criminal matter.

Perhaps, depending on specific intent, credibility, and the nature of harm threatened. But since this is about surveillance, I hope that detection of verbal threats is not a goal of government surveillance because it's difficult to imagine how that could be accomplished without significant loss of privacy or other liberties.

I can see it in court now. Our AI monitoring system did indeed know about the threat to the building where 800 people died on Sunday.

It says: " Agent: Voice to text detected: I have everything ready - all the XXX chemicals are ready in the van and I'm going to park in the 900 S Crap St now"

Agent: Thread Level HIGH.

Agent: Looking up local codes.

Agent: Mayor signed SB-1238 in 2026 - no surveillance devices may be used for audio threat determination.

Agent: Threat silenced, but logged.

Judge: Oh, that makes sense. Make sure to bag and tag and bill the families for the bags.

City Employee: We also know who parked the van, should we arrest them.

Judge: No it looks like SB-1238 would forbid us from using this data for the purposes of arrest. I guess send them a thank you letter for testing our laws.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#53

Post by stickfigure »

trbleclef wrote: post #37
Fogest wrote: post #33

I still feel so conflicted on things like the Flock cameras. On one hand I understand that they have the capability of incredibly enhancing the ability for police departments to solve more crimes. Especially things related to vehicle theft, they could likely track down your stolen vehicle very quickly especially if they have a wide network of cameras. However, my concern is always about the possibility for misuse. Ev…

What's that quote about essential Liberty and temporary Safety again...

When you get a gun pointed at your face, or your home violated, or your car stolen, you tend to rebalance your principles a little. The cameras are a symptom of bigger problems.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#54

Post by Fogest »

stickfigure wrote: post #47
reaperducer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand I understand that they have the capability of incredibly enhancing the ability for police departments to solve more crimes. Do they? There are millions of these cameras all around the country, yet when pressed about their value, Flock and cops can only point to one or two crimes prevented/solved at a time. And they're usually things like "caught a burglar after the fact," or "stopped someone from dumpster…

I share the parent's internal conflict, but this is an interesting critique that I hadn't considered: The cameras don't actually work. Do we have any data on that? Seems like I hear about stolen cars (and their drivers) getting picked up fairly frequently due to these cameras. Is it marketing or is it true?

I think they are just being intentionally ignorant on the topic due to their dislike of the system overall and I don't think that is fair of them. There is lots of videos even of YouTube via bodycam videos with many police departments making good use of these cameras to aid in solving crimes. I'm sure there are many articles and maybe even research out there which would show this.

I think it's just a way to try and dismiss the cameras without trying to tackle the heart of the problem. When you have to contend with the fact that the cameras have a lot of useful purposes, it makes arguing against them much more challenging. If you can pretend they are not useful, it may be a way to try to stiffle any productive discussion around them.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#56

Post by forrestthewoods »

trbleclef wrote: post #37
Fogest wrote: post #33

I still feel so conflicted on things like the Flock cameras. On one hand I understand that they have the capability of incredibly enhancing the ability for police departments to solve more crimes. Especially things related to vehicle theft, they could likely track down your stolen vehicle very quickly especially if they have a wide network of cameras. However, my concern is always about the possibility for misuse. Ev…

What's that quote about essential Liberty and temporary Safety again...

It’s a pretty unhelpful quite imho. You can use that quote to oppose anything beyond pure anarchy!

Yes the police can be abusive tyrants. But a society with no rules and no rule enforces is not a prosperous society. And yet if you lived in total anarchy you could oppose anything beyond pure rules and any rule enforcement with that quote.

Clearly the slope is very very very very very slippery. And yet the ideal, dare I say necessary, point is not at the far end cap.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#57

Post by goda90 »

Fogest wrote: post #33

I still feel so conflicted on things like the Flock cameras. On one hand I understand that they have the capability of incredibly enhancing the ability for police departments to solve more crimes. Especially things related to vehicle theft, they could likely track down your stolen vehicle very quickly especially if they have a wide network of cameras. However, my concern is always about the possibility for misuse. Ev…

What if instead of trying to figure out how to catch criminals, we focus on building a society where no one wants to be a criminal? Can we find solutions to what causes crime, like desperation, greed, fear, failure to understand and have compassion for other people, etc?

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#58

Post by brk »

There are too many technical inaccuracies in this to take it serious (or to try and address them all here). Directionally it is fairly accurate, but the author clearly has very little knowledge of surveillance cameras, their capabilities, or even broadly how to identify ALPR vs. traffic control cameras (and similar nuances).

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#59

Post by AndrewKemendo »

trbleclef wrote: post #37
Fogest wrote: post #33

I still feel so conflicted on things like the Flock cameras. On one hand I understand that they have the capability of incredibly enhancing the ability for police departments to solve more crimes. Especially things related to vehicle theft, they could likely track down your stolen vehicle very quickly especially if they have a wide network of cameras. However, my concern is always about the possibility for misuse. Ev…

What's that quote about essential Liberty and temporary Safety again...

Keep quoting it and people will continue to ignore it

Look around.

99% of people couldn’t care less about privacy and are begging to give over their whole personal life data for (insert corporation) “points/rewards/discounts”

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#60

Post by mackeye »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #51
myrmidon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My best guess would be [[Surveillance cameras normalize/denormalize behavior in a way that is easily biased and undemocratic.]] It might e.g. direct the full force of law against a drunk urinating on a tree (easy to spot/classify), while tolerating vicious verbal attacks disguised by somewhat subdued body language (missing data/difficult to detect). Letting automated surveillance systems judge people will inevitably…

Seems like a fundamental problem if we dont want the laws we passed to be enforced.

"we" didn't pass them --- i don't think changing the severity of law enforcement alone can achieve what i wish for in society, but the existence of many laws (and severity of their punishment) i disagree with and thus do not want enforced
Post reply on HN