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

New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

newbedfordlight.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#71

Post by flockpaysforyc »

infinite_spin wrote: post #44

At this point I think it's necessary to notify anyone who has been tracked after a fixed number of days, unless a court order is used to extend that period. An officer using this for legitimate reasons should have few problems getting that court order. This would at least give people some amount of safety net from stalking by LE.

We need strong laws against these authoritarian / fascist companies; and we need to elect representatives who destroy their businesses and zero out the investors.

Seriously. Every dollar that has gone to flock or any similar company needs to be incinerated, or else it will continue, because billionaires like Paul Graham _love_ the idea of having greater control over the masses.

A product that provides surveillance with strict controls and limited scope is potentially great.

This shit is just an attempt to turn America into communist Russia -- where the regular people have no rights, and oligarchs run everything. it's evil, anti-American, and regular people need to ensure that billionaires like Paul Graham, and their lackeys (like hn's own dang) stop being rewarded for their decision to dedicate their lives to the destruction of liberty.

They're evil fucking people, and they will never police themselves. They're all mentally ill.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#72

Post by Godsend69 »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #70
unclebucknasty wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would certainly feel different if followed by an actual human Why would this bother you? Because of the prospect of physical harm, or the idea that they are watching you/invading your privacy?

Mostly due to the antisocial behavior described. I would not feel at all worried if someone walking on the same sidewalk as me was recording their child with me in the frame. Someone following me and jotting down notes is very strange behavior, at least for someone like me without celebrity. Stripping this down a bit: would I be fine with a very friendly camera crew documenting everything I do outside in public? No,…

[dead]

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#73

Post by runtime_terror »

jauer wrote: post #49
infinite_spin wrote: post #44

At this point I think it's necessary to notify anyone who has been tracked after a fixed number of days, unless a court order is used to extend that period. An officer using this for legitimate reasons should have few problems getting that court order. This would at least give people some amount of safety net from stalking by LE.

I think this or similar accountability measures is where we'll need to end up with this kind of technology. It's too useful for catching vehicle theft rings and similar kinds of highly disruptive criminal networks to abandon the technology entirely. LOVEINT has been a thing for as long as electronic surveillance has existed. We fire and/or prosecute people for it. We didn't turn out back on those capabilities. I'd li…

But who's going to police the literal police? They have a track record in this country of having near zero accountability

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#74

Post by King-Aaron »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #70
unclebucknasty wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would certainly feel different if followed by an actual human Why would this bother you? Because of the prospect of physical harm, or the idea that they are watching you/invading your privacy?

Mostly due to the antisocial behavior described. I would not feel at all worried if someone walking on the same sidewalk as me was recording their child with me in the frame. Someone following me and jotting down notes is very strange behavior, at least for someone like me without celebrity. Stripping this down a bit: would I be fine with a very friendly camera crew documenting everything I do outside in public? No,…

You are intentionally trying to argue that your feeling of personal safety outweighs the privacy violations that are being discussed. There is the classic quote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

But to frame it in analogies as you are doing, it is not "a person following you". It is every person following you, at all times. A police officer, your local shop manager who is setting the prices of your groceries, your car insurer, your home insurer, your health insurer. The IRS (etc) agent assigned to you. Me, too. I'm following you, your wife, your children. You don't know me but here I am anyway taking pictures and then selling them to the user above you. Also my bank who sold me a credit card is now also following you. As well as the criminals that want to steal that credit card. Also that criminals kid, who's just curious. There's also a large man in a hat following you. As well as the person who is going to sell you your next car, they're following you too.

All these entities, and more, are following you. Carving you up as a product to sell and exploit.

And to you, you don't mind because you aren't aware. In the same way that a cow in a pen doesn't mind and isn't aware that an enormous system of industry is raising it to be carved up as a product to sell and exploit.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#75

Post by willis936 »

sixothree wrote: post #37
King-Aaron wrote: post #2

It was only about an hour ago I saw yet another mindless commentator on one of these threads saying "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about".

There was a time when you could paste a reddit username into an online tool and it would build a profile of the person in question. And when I came across one of these "if you have nothing to hide..." people, I did just that. After I asked them how the weather was and how their dog was doing they deleted their account. Lightweights.

If you want a bad time just ask a chatbot what it knows about your username.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#76

Post by qmr »

infinite_spin wrote: post #44

At this point I think it's necessary to notify anyone who has been tracked after a fixed number of days, unless a court order is used to extend that period. An officer using this for legitimate reasons should have few problems getting that court order. This would at least give people some amount of safety net from stalking by LE.

At this point I think it's time to ban this dystopian 4th amendment violation surveillance state.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#77

Post by richardfey »

edoceo wrote: post #42
newsomix9xl wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These risks were said to be theoretical what ifs? But headlines are showing that they are quite real problems. Who watches the watchers?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a question that is roughly 2000 years old. Still no good answer. The journalists uncovering this are doing good and necessary work. We need more transparency. Perhaps every search needs to be tied to a specific case and then made public after some time period.

> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a question that is roughly 2000 years old. Still no good answer.

I feel like we are moving towards a very specific answer, without much thought: AI.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#78

Post by qmr »

infinite_spin wrote: post #51
jauer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this or similar accountability measures is where we'll need to end up with this kind of technology. It's too useful for catching vehicle theft rings and similar kinds of highly disruptive criminal networks to abandon the technology entirely. LOVEINT has been a thing for as long as electronic surveillance has existed. We fire and/or prosecute people for it. We didn't turn out back on those capabilities. I'd li…

Fair point, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, however I am fearful of a surveillance state. These trust issues seem to be stacking up, so I think statutory transparency is necessary.

Fuck that baby and the bath water.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

In the words of the civil rights attorney on YouTube, "Freedom is scary, deal with it."

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#79

Post by qmr »

flockpaysforyc wrote: post #71
infinite_spin wrote: post #44

At this point I think it's necessary to notify anyone who has been tracked after a fixed number of days, unless a court order is used to extend that period. An officer using this for legitimate reasons should have few problems getting that court order. This would at least give people some amount of safety net from stalking by LE.

We need strong laws against these authoritarian / fascist companies; and we need to elect representatives who destroy their businesses and zero out the investors. Seriously. Every dollar that has gone to flock or any similar company needs to be incinerated, or else it will continue, because billionaires like Paul Graham _love_ the idea of having greater control over the masses. A product that provides surveillance wi…

> A product that provides surveillance with strict controls and limited scope is potentially great.

It's simply not possible for such a thing to exist.

If it can be abused it will be abused.

This has already been demonstrated, repeatedly, throughout history.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#80

Post by qmr »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #38
Walf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funniest response I've read to this type of reasoning went something like this: a family gathering; topic of privacy came up; boomer-type trotted out the "nothing to hide" line; younger relative asked them if they enjoy a particular type of sexual intercourse with their spouse; red faces and looks of horror; the asker reminded everyone that privacy is important and it doesn't mean one is doing anything wrong.

Isn’t the easy reply here that there is no expectation of privacy in public, unlike in one’s home? There are tens, or more likely hundreds of millions of cameras recording outside in the United States.

The C in CCTV stands for "closed" mate.

Apples to orangutans.

Post reply on HN