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

Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

wltx.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 166 posts

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#71

Post by direwolf20 »

thfuran wrote: post #44
bilbo0s wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh. If the government is only restricted from buying the data, then they'll just have someone else buy it. Palantir is not the government. So they can buy the real time feed, analyze it in real time, and give the real time results of that analysis to the government without issue. Restricting the government from buying that data does nothing. If you want to stop the government taking advantage of the data, then you w…

>give the real time results of that analysis to the government without issue. Presumably they’re not doing this for free.

It's a free charity service, and the hundred million dollars per year the taxpayers pay the same person for some other excuse has nothing to do with it, honest

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#72

Post by tsimionescu »

Thorrez wrote: post #67
ben_w wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with that, I do mind. Just as two trivial examples, even though neither affects me personally: The estimated number of heroin users in the UK exceeds the total prison population. The number of class-A drug users in the UK is estimated to be so high that if they actually followed the minimum sentencing guidelines for possession, it would cause a catastrophic economic disaster both from all the people no longer wo…

Speeding is a special case, because it's unclear what the lawmakers, road designers, and police intend. When the speed limit is 65 mph, do they actually intend for everyone to go no faster? I don't think so. I think the lawmakers, if driving in traffic, want people to go a bit faster. Same with the police. And I think the road designers design the roads knowing most people will speed. I want to follow the law. But wh…

> When the speed limit is 65 mph, do they actually intend for everyone to go no faster? I don't think so.

Where is this supposed ambiguity coming from?

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#73

Post by speleding »

ben_w wrote: post #48
fc417fc802 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind a local AI on an airgapped security camera network monitoring a camera and issuing an alert to a security guard. The issues are internet connectivity, data retention/mining/sale, and non-local processing (ie handing stuff off to a third party that does who knows what and probably doesn't take security seriously).

Even with that, I do mind. Just as two trivial examples, even though neither affects me personally: The estimated number of heroin users in the UK exceeds the total prison population. The number of class-A drug users in the UK is estimated to be so high that if they actually followed the minimum sentencing guidelines for possession, it would cause a catastrophic economic disaster both from all the people no longer wo…

I'm going to argue the other side: in Chinese cities like Chongqing they've seen a drastic reduction in crime after blanketing the city with cameras and monitoring technology.

Whole categories of crime disappeared. Women and elderly feel safe to walk the streets at night. No one locks their bike anymore in Chongqing.

I care about privacy, but I think we should be smart enough to work out a way to get some of those benefits without going full 1984. For example by having surveillance that can only be queried by an AI with very strong guard rails.

Admittedly, I live in a country with very strong democratic institutions, and I trust we would take action the moment something gets abused or surveillance overreaches. I would probably feel differently living elsewhere.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#74

Post by cucumber3732842 »

neverkn0wsb357 wrote: post #20

I think the person requesting to access the data was doing the right thing and I agree with the judge’s ruling. The fact that they’re gonna shut it down, implies the scale of indiscriminate nature of data capture and the volume of data being captured. These cameras are popping up all over the nation and if people realize how much data is being captured and where that data is going (or who it’s being sold to) and how…

>The fact that they’re gonna shut it down, implies the scale of indiscriminate nature of data capture and the volume of data being captured.

Or it implies that the .gov, it's agents and those associated with it are not squeaky clean and that any aggrieved party being able to request footage would be bad for the .gov.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#75

Post by Thorrez »

tsimionescu wrote: post #72
Thorrez wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speeding is a special case, because it's unclear what the lawmakers, road designers, and police intend. When the speed limit is 65 mph, do they actually intend for everyone to go no faster? I don't think so. I think the lawmakers, if driving in traffic, want people to go a bit faster. Same with the police. And I think the road designers design the roads knowing most people will speed. I want to follow the law. But wh…

> When the speed limit is 65 mph, do they actually intend for everyone to go no faster? I don't think so. Where is this supposed ambiguity coming from?

Are you asking (1) why I think what I think?

Or are you asking (2) how we wound up in this situation as a society?

(1) I think what I think for several reasons. Basically everyone speeds. Probabilistically that includes he very lawmakers writing the laws, the police, and the road designers. I've also read some articles talking about road design, and in it it's mentioned that the designers factor in that most people will speed if the road conditions are amenable. I've also seen police cars driving around without their lights on, passing people at higher than the speed limit, and when unable to pass, the appear annoyed to me.

(2) I think this situation arose in sort of a "normalization of deviance" manner. Police didn't want to be too strict, or didn't want to bother fighting tickets for people speeding only a little, so only gave tickets for people speeding a lot. Then over time many people realized that, and started speeding a little. More are and more people started speed just to fit in with the surrounding traffic, until eventually everyone was speeding. Peer pressure. I've heard driving the same speed as the surrounding traffic is generally safer than driving significantly slower (or faster). Once everyone is speeding, that includes lawmakers, road designers, and police. And they factor that in when they write laws, design roads, and enforce laws.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#76

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

ben_w wrote: post #48
fc417fc802 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind a local AI on an airgapped security camera network monitoring a camera and issuing an alert to a security guard. The issues are internet connectivity, data retention/mining/sale, and non-local processing (ie handing stuff off to a third party that does who knows what and probably doesn't take security seriously).

Even with that, I do mind. Just as two trivial examples, even though neither affects me personally: The estimated number of heroin users in the UK exceeds the total prison population. The number of class-A drug users in the UK is estimated to be so high that if they actually followed the minimum sentencing guidelines for possession, it would cause a catastrophic economic disaster both from all the people no longer wo…

I have a friend that was just fired from a job, driving 18-wheelers, because he was being monitored by an AI, and the AI malfunctioned, yelling at him for hours to put on his seat belt (it was on). He put a piece of tape over the speaker, and was fired for that.

One of the best, and most experienced big rig truckers in the area. They lost an invaluable employee, and he got another job in minutes (truckers are still a valuable commodity).

One of the things about computers, is that they can’t cut you (or themselves) slack.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#77

Post by [deleted] »

tsimionescu wrote: post #72
Thorrez wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speeding is a special case, because it's unclear what the lawmakers, road designers, and police intend. When the speed limit is 65 mph, do they actually intend for everyone to go no faster? I don't think so. I think the lawmakers, if driving in traffic, want people to go a bit faster. Same with the police. And I think the road designers design the roads knowing most people will speed. I want to follow the law. But wh…

> When the speed limit is 65 mph, do they actually intend for everyone to go no faster? I don't think so. Where is this supposed ambiguity coming from?

[deleted]

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#78

Post by Thorrez »

direwolf20 wrote: post #68
Thorrez wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speeding is a special case, because it's unclear what the lawmakers, road designers, and police intend. When the speed limit is 65 mph, do they actually intend for everyone to go no faster? I don't think so. I think the lawmakers, if driving in traffic, want people to go a bit faster. Same with the police. And I think the road designers design the roads knowing most people will speed. I want to follow the law. But wh…

The purpose of a system is what it does. In Australia, they want you to go 50. In the USA, they want a reason to fine you.

> In the USA, they want a reason to fine you.

In my area of the US, I don't think so. I'll go 9mph over the speed limit when I drive by a police car. I've never been pulled over.

In some other areas of the US, you're right, which is why I'm less likely to speed in other areas.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#79

Post by stingraycharles »

neverkn0wsb357 wrote: post #20

I think the person requesting to access the data was doing the right thing and I agree with the judge’s ruling. The fact that they’re gonna shut it down, implies the scale of indiscriminate nature of data capture and the volume of data being captured. These cameras are popping up all over the nation and if people realize how much data is being captured and where that data is going (or who it’s being sold to) and how…

Yeah, it appears they have a lot of things backwards, for example:

> “We were very disappointed,” Franklin said. “That means perpetrators of crime, people who are maybe engaged in domestic abuse or stalkers, they can request footage and that could cause a lot of harm.”

The whole point is that they should have been collecting data on perpetrators of crimes only in the first place, not a massive dragnet.

Re: Everett shuts down Flock camera network after judge rules footage public record

#80

Post by tremon »

Gigachad wrote: post #32
neverkn0wsb357 wrote: post #20

I think the person requesting to access the data was doing the right thing and I agree with the judge’s ruling. The fact that they’re gonna shut it down, implies the scale of indiscriminate nature of data capture and the volume of data being captured. These cameras are popping up all over the nation and if people realize how much data is being captured and where that data is going (or who it’s being sold to) and how…

The laws need to be updated. CCTV in public used to be fine because no one was actually watching it unless there was an incident. Now it’s possible to have AI watch every camera and correlate everything everywhere we need new privacy laws to reflect this capability.

Oh how the public opinion has been moved already. Rewriting your argument to echo the sentiment from a generation ago:

> The laws need to be updated. Having police officers monitor public streets was fine because they wouldn't actually recall anything unless there was an incident. Now it's possible to go back and review specific footage and identify everyone on those camera's -- we need new privacy laws to reflect this capability.

Post reply on HN