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

A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

techtimes.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#61

Post by advisedwang »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #31

In this case the issue isn't 19k flock cameras, but an utter lack of repercussion for failure to justify usage. In the same way I'd be arrested and jailed if I breached/used 19K ring cameras that do not belong to me, this guy should be arrested and jailed for his misuse. Police unions are a major root cause of many issues in the USA.

This is the inevitable result of having hundreds of thousands of cameras all collecting data and searchable from one point. Even if every search required a warrant, this would still be abused with cops lying on affidavits etc.

We don't need this system, we don't need to tolerate having this vector for abuse lying around.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#64

Post by sheikhnbake »

rtkwe wrote: post #37
sheikhnbake wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't an initial safety feature. It was added after abuse had already been reported. Flock also needs to require a case number or some other method of validation for legitimate use. Presuming the continue to exist in any capacity. Otherwise we're just going to keep discovering incidents like this.

They'll just keep a random old case number on a notepad to put in.

That's a fair point. The only other validation gate I can think of within our current system would be a valid warrant number. A system where the warrant automatically limits the search by time and geo-fence could be interesting.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#66

Post by maerF0x0 »

advisedwang wrote: post #61
maerF0x0 wrote: post #31

In this case the issue isn't 19k flock cameras, but an utter lack of repercussion for failure to justify usage. In the same way I'd be arrested and jailed if I breached/used 19K ring cameras that do not belong to me, this guy should be arrested and jailed for his misuse. Police unions are a major root cause of many issues in the USA.

This is the inevitable result of having hundreds of thousands of cameras all collecting data and searchable from one point. Even if every search required a warrant, this would still be abused with cops lying on affidavits etc. We don't need this system, we don't need to tolerate having this vector for abuse lying around.

I believe people respond to incentives. What we need are more laws governing the law makers and law enforcers.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#67

Post by maerF0x0 »

kennywinker wrote: post #59
maerF0x0 wrote: post #31

In this case the issue isn't 19k flock cameras, but an utter lack of repercussion for failure to justify usage. In the same way I'd be arrested and jailed if I breached/used 19K ring cameras that do not belong to me, this guy should be arrested and jailed for his misuse. Police unions are a major root cause of many issues in the USA.

It’s clear to me that these networked license plate cameras represent a fundamental impingement on freedom. Just one example: how is a journalist supposed to meet with a secret source if their locations at all times are logged? Even if these databases are only ever searched investigating violations of laws, it’s trivial to find ways to twist that against political rivals, protesters and activists, ex girlfriends, jou…

What freedom is being impinged? AFAIK we have no fundamental right to not being recorded in public, presuming it's not indecent.

And I'd reiterate what i said elsewhere:

I believe people respond to incentives. What we need are more laws governing the law makers and law enforcers. It maybe trivial to shoplift, but the laws (when enforced) make it irrational to.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#68

Post by foolfoolz »

dragontamer wrote: post #30
foolfoolz wrote: post #13

flock isn’t going away. this feels like the 1990s web that grew into a more regulated system with safeguards. flock or a (more advanced) replacement are going to be part of policing in the us forever

Once upon a time, one of the largest companies of the USA, Bell Labratories, was declared an illegal monopoly and eradicated. In the correct political environment, entire companies can be dismantled with one executive action. Not our current political environment, but in the 1980s one it could happen. ----------- Oh, also, companies were literally an act of Congress when this country started. We can change the rules…

bell went away, the technology they were the monopoly over didn’t

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#69

Post by tavavex »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #66
advisedwang wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the inevitable result of having hundreds of thousands of cameras all collecting data and searchable from one point. Even if every search required a warrant, this would still be abused with cops lying on affidavits etc. We don't need this system, we don't need to tolerate having this vector for abuse lying around.

I believe people respond to incentives. What we need are more laws governing the law makers and law enforcers.

No. The recent decades has shown that there are no laws for a sufficiently motivated entity or government. They're just words on paper, a promise. You can't expect them to keep that promise indefinitely, especially when those incentives you speak of (profit for the companies, easy repressions and surveillance for the government) point in the opposite direction. The only way to ensure this doesn't happen is to not have the tools of repression to be available at a second's notice to them. We live in a world of power, not of laws, at least as far as the most powerful are concerned.

Besides, I don't want them to have a right to track and correlate data about my location even if it's the best government ever that only ever uses this to solve the crimes that I agree are bad. No thanks.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#70

Post by 7e »

NBJack wrote: post #55
dylan604 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great. Now put yourself in the same situation the cops are working with and not your arbitrarily applied restrictions. The cops clearly do not have these restrictions, so why are you applying something artificial like this?

Since the context here is the U.S., there are plenty of restrictions they are legally bound by. Here's a small sample: - The fourth amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) - Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 (evidence gained without adhering to the fourth amendment is inadmissible) - Wong Sun v. United States, 1963 (conclusions drawn from unlawfully obtained evidence/illegal entry can be challenged or outrigh…

Flock records public events. None of these apply. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space and the courts have been quite clear on this. Actual legislation would need to be passed to restrict what can be recorded in public settings. A redefinition of "public", basically. And what about the public? Would they also be barred from making their own recordings of public events? Would they be barred from sharing them with law enforcement?
Post reply on HN