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

US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#71

Post by mothballed »

whimsicalism wrote: post #65
snsr wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you're also in favor of some light reading https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/

you think speed cameras violate the 4th amendment?

No but license plate requirements pretty clearly violate the 4th and/or 1st amendment, IMO. And without being required to have your license plate searched (registration 'papers' forced to be displayed) at all times without even an officer presenting RAS or PC of a crime, these cameras become a lot less useful.

I don't see how removing the cameras is compatible with the first amendment, but if you have the right of "speech" to record me in public chasing every place I go in a manner that is the envy of any stalker, I ought to have the right of "speech" not to "say anything" (compelled speech of showing my plate).

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#73

Post by whimsicalism »

ceejayoz wrote: post #68
whimsicalism wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i encourage other people reading to look at the chart so they can assess the veracity of ^ comment

Here it is. https://imgur.com/a/FK3sfna There's an enormous drop in edit: late 2019, and the second drop starts in 2023. https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/your-sfpd/policies/depart... > Starting on March 19, 2024, Flock Safety began installing ALPR cameras in various strategic locations across San Francisco . This rollout is expected to take place over the next 90 days. Per 19B ALPR policy, the administration of the…

that drop is obviously in early 2020, not 2019 and there is no way you can look at that chart and describe car breaks ins as a "COVID blip"

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#74

Post by selectodude »

estebank wrote: post #63
zulux wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's gotten worse: I'm so tired of rampant crime that I'm up for a little surveillance. And I used to donate to the ACLU before they went crazy.

> And I used to donate to the ACLU before they went crazy. When was that? Because in 1977 they defended Nazi's free speech to demonstrate in a town that had jewish people as half its population so it tried to block them, and I don't recall them doing anything nearly that controversial since. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-skokie-case-how-i-...

Yeah that’s when they actually defended free speech. They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. That’s crazy.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#75

Post by ceejayoz »

whimsicalism wrote: post #73
ceejayoz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here it is. https://imgur.com/a/FK3sfna There's an enormous drop in edit: late 2019, and the second drop starts in 2023. https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/your-sfpd/policies/depart... > Starting on March 19, 2024, Flock Safety began installing ALPR cameras in various strategic locations across San Francisco . This rollout is expected to take place over the next 90 days. Per 19B ALPR policy, the administration of the…

that drop is obviously in early 2020, not 2019 and there is no way you can look at that chart and describe car breaks ins as a "COVID blip"

Look at the X axis labels again.

The chart is trending down by January 2020, changes directions (upwards) right around the March 2020 spot, and again around (down) the July 2023 spot.

The fact that they only have data going back to 2018 means it's hard to say if the pre-COVID stuff was the norm or unusual.

To be super-clear, here's the chart annotated to show that 90 day window (black rectangle) in which the cameras were installed. https://imgur.com/a/i00Gna0

"that drop is obviously in early 2020", to reemphasize, is several years before the cameras got installed.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#76

Post by baggachipz »

whimsicalism wrote: post #53
baggachipz wrote: post #43

I drove into a very affluent subdivision this weekend, and like most others around here it had a flock camera recording every car on the way in. This camera, however, had the gall to advertise its presence as a neighborhood security measure. "Flock Safety watches this neighborhood" read the sign on the post, or some such. Of course the residents there had no choice but to accept its installation, as the local police…

we enforce laws presumably in the name of safety, is this really nefarious framing or marketing? seems pretty straightforward to me.

It is very clearly advertising on their part. They have been paid to put that thing there and added the sign to announce the presence. It's like when you get your roof replaced by a business and they ask if they can put a sign in your yard. They're not doing it to make everybody know that you're getting your roof replaced, they're advertising.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#78

Post by baggachipz »

bob1029 wrote: post #56
baggachipz wrote: post #43

I drove into a very affluent subdivision this weekend, and like most others around here it had a flock camera recording every car on the way in. This camera, however, had the gall to advertise its presence as a neighborhood security measure. "Flock Safety watches this neighborhood" read the sign on the post, or some such. Of course the residents there had no choice but to accept its installation, as the local police…

> no choice but to accept its installation You might be shocked to discover there are subdivisions so affluent they can afford physical armed security and access control structures with far more invasive identification and logging procedures.

I am not shocked to know that, but there are Flock cameras all over the town. None of the other ones have this advertisement on them. This neighborhood is not gated. However, Flock decided to do announce its presence only here.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#79

Post by nemomarx »

mothballed wrote: post #71
whimsicalism wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you think speed cameras violate the 4th amendment?

No but license plate requirements pretty clearly violate the 4th and/or 1st amendment, IMO. And without being required to have your license plate searched (registration 'papers' forced to be displayed) at all times without even an officer presenting RAS or PC of a crime, these cameras become a lot less useful. I don't see how removing the cameras is compatible with the first amendment, but if you have the right of "s…

It really doesn't seem like the courts agree that you have a right to travel via car without a visible plate.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#80

Post by esbranson »

BoggleOhYeah wrote: post #35
jdross wrote: post #9

I realize how unpopular flock is, and I will first say that I have literally never personally looked into the privacy concerns. But one city you don’t see named here is SF, which has cited Flock as a primary driver of its 10x reduction in car break-ins, and 30% reduction in burglaries. Those were a quality of life plague while I lived there

Any evidence that the reduction is actually due to the cameras?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN