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

Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–507 of 507 posts

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#501

Post by overfeed »

eastbound wrote: post #430
overfeed wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Wokism" is an amorphous culture-war weapon that can be anything an author wants it to be. Diversity is woke, equity is woke, inclusion is woke, non-heteronomative relationships are woke, movies that are barely critical of unbridled capitalism are woke. Not being onboard with "law and order" is woke - and not being 100% onboard with Flock can be reframed as being pro-Criminal and "woke" > global surveillance is not a…

Many gays (or “non-heteronormative” as you say) are anti-woke. You’re operating a dichotomy between your opponents and you, trying to paint them as sweeping generalizators. But this is not wokism. Wokism is when you take “gays” and attribute them to your side, painting the others as nazis. I’m gay and the single most powerful harm that was made to my life was the emergence of wokism.

> Many gays (or “non-heteronormative” as you say) are anti-woke.

That doesn't mean other conservatives dont see gay rights and marriage equality as "woke". You just proved my point though, "woke" is the bespoke set of things you don't like.

Do you want links to the numerous instances of conservatives lumping the existence of gays with being "woke"? Or before they hijacked the term, derided the "gay agenda"? Even the Log Cabin Republicans cried uncle[1]

1. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-fl...

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#502

Post by docjay »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #497
docjay wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend, I've said only what I've said. Past my casual "that's not really how murders play out", through the comma, sits "special name”, which isn't "the general population." Serial killer, serial murderer, and spree killer aren't synonyms for general population. The mere existence of those terms gave you all the information you needed to determine that they’re distinct from the general population and simple “murde…

Okay, dozens, not thousands. My point still stands. If you really want to split hairs over the exact number, maybe also consider the number of murderers who committed other crimes prior to their first murder, and whether getting caught sooner in their criminal career might have prevented such escalations, plus the larger society-wide deterrent effect of the increased clearance rates of crimes in all categories. You d…

Yes, how foolish of me to put numbers in the way of you being correct.

I concede. You have “won” this discussion, as I’m sure was decided years ago, and you may add me as another defeated foe in your flawless record.

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#503

Post by givemeethekeys »

mvkel wrote: post #166
givemeethekeys wrote: post #24

At what point does the top brass at Flock get arrested?

Should we also arrest computer co execs because computers are used to hack into things?

Let's say a computer maker created a computer specifically for hacking. They then advertised that computer to government agencies to let them hack into suspicious computers. They did not put any safeguards in place to prevent anyone from hacking anyone else, but their marketing outreach said kept insisting that they have "best in class security" and "only the appropriate agencies have access".

If that happened, then yes, they should be arrested.

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#504

Post by handoflixue »

lubujackson wrote: post #118
eightysixfour wrote: post #13

I don't want these cameras to exist but, if they're going to , might we be better off if they are openly accessible? At the very least, that would make the power they grant more diffuse and people would be more cognizant of their existence and capabilities.

Did you see the other post about this where the guys showed a Flock camera pointed at a playground, so any pedo can see when kids are there and not attended? Or how it has become increasingly trivial to identify by face or license plate such that combining tools reaches "movie Interpol" levels, without any warrant or security credentials? If Big Brother surveillance is unavoidable I don't think "everyone has access"…

If you're that worried about child molesters knowing where the kids are, I've got very bad news for you: https://www.statista.com/statistics/254893/child-abuse-in-th...

Turns out, 95% of the predators already know exactly where the victims are, usually because it's their kid. Probably we want to worry about that a lot more.

Doubly so since, y'know, this only works if the predator lives close enough to act on the information before it changes - so the tiny possibility of a predator, a tiny possibility that they didn't already know this, and a tiny possibility of being able to act on the information...

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#505

Post by simplesocieties »

fusslo wrote: post #131

I wonder what our founders would think about tools like Flock. From what I understand these systems are legal because there is no expectation of privacy in public. Therefore any time you go in public you cannot expect NOT to be tracked, photographed, and entered into a database (which may now outlive us). I think the argument comes from the 1st amendment. Weaponizing the Bill of Rights (BoR) for the government agains…

> From what I understand these systems are legal because there is no expectation of privacy in public.

This is a common line of phrasing parroted by Flock and their supporters to no end but it's a myth. The SC, as much of a joke as they are now, established that a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy in their long term movements in Carpenter v. United States (2018). To date there is NO precedent carved out in the constitution or ANY Supreme Court case stating that people have zero expectation to privacy in public.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#506

Post by Lord-Jobo »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #453
tdeck wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the 40 percent of cops who are domestic abusers and the white supremacists militias recruited wholesale into ICE will use this power responsibly.

You can go onto the ICE subreddit and see a ton of posts that ask if their previous domestic abuse/gross misconduct/ejection from police academy/etc will effect their ICE application. These aren't people who should hold any kind of intel. It's an actual danger to the population to give these people this much power.

They aren’t people that should be walking free, if we are being honest. Lock them up until we can get enough prison reform to genuinely try to rehabilitate them. The damage they are doing to our country is too high to hedge on this issue.

>“That’s so extreme, they just shouldn’t have power, freedom is paramount, return to normal” etc.

Sorry, too late for this. I advocated for more gentle measures 10 years ago when they were possible/plausibly effective. Just like any other infection, if you wait too long to address the problem you are forced towards extreme action. Or death. No third option.

Re: Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves

#507

Post by dghlsakjg »

tomrod wrote: post #397
dghlsakjg wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ships then, and now, don’t really need numbers for identification. There are various unique numbers that they can and do use occasionally for specific purposes(IMO numbers and hull numbers). However, a ship’s name and home port were, and are, more than sufficient to identify a ship for legal purposes. You don’t need a registration number on a ship, and certainly wouldn’t have needed one then. The authorities absolute…

Cars, wagons, carts, are not ships

Thanks. I didn't think they were, but that confirms my understanding.

I will keep that in mind on this thread about ships.

Post reply on HN