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

WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

winonapost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#81

Post by iAMkenough »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #28

Obviously an unpopular opinion on this site, but I wish we had speed cameras, red-light cameras, and ALPRs everywhere. Cars are incredibly dangerous and large numbers of people drive them like absolute lunatics. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets. That position doesn't even account for the footage helping immensely with other investigations.

Let's take this to the next level, given the current reality.

Binge alcohol consumption is incredibly dangerous and contributes to a large number of national fatalities.

Governments should purchase a contract for a citizen tracking platform operated by a private company that monitors alcohol usage to ensure you're drinking responsibly and quickly detain those that aren't, given the threat they pose to themselves or the public. Governments should make tracking a requirement for legal alcohol consumption.

The private company expands to a nationwide network that allows the federal government, private contractors, and other people that gain access to monitor your environment (or your young kids) whenever they feel motivated, where ever you are.

For the name of safety, let's write legislation that gives the government's private contractors unfettered access to your microphones and cameras to help law enforcement be more efficient.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#82

Post by dbetteridge »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #65
vaylian wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets. Strong disagree. Life in public areas is often still part of private life. And we should treat it with the respect and privacy that it deserves. You going to the doctor? That's part of your private life. You meeting with an old friend to catch up? Also private, even though you do it in a public cafe.

In the USA? Any café you go to is reasonably likely to have cameras, both inside and outside. If you mean driving to a doctor's office, you probably pass by hundreds of cameras along the way: video doorbells, dash cams, Teslas, Waymos, gas stations, ATMs, traffic-flow cameras, etc. If you are in one of the many cities with tens of thousands of existing non-Flock cameras, you are likely passing many more.

Not USA based so do with that what you will.

Independent cameras, often not networked let alone internet connected are not the same thing as a single entity controlling a huge, internet capable, always on, cloud recording panopticon.

Logistically the first limits things like police access by units of both access and time (is it recording? Does the memory card overwrite? Did it expire before a warrant was issued?)

Putting that all in a convenient console and handing direct god eye view to police with a "oh you need a warrant first, wink wink", massively reduces friction for abuse of power.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#83

Post by Tostino »

dredmorbius wrote: post #80
Tostino wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying downvoted, i'm saying flagged. Like almost anything posted related to this surveillance state YC is invested in building.

Irrelevant distinction per this guideline.

Wanna beat the dead horse a little more?

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#84

Post by DANmode »

pj_mukh wrote: post #12
lokar wrote: post #6

A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the public just barely trusts the local police, and a new surveillance system pushes them over the edge into hostility. They need to be working to gain much more trust.

But also, I dont understand all this hand-wringing. EFF has a clear easy solution [1]: Put all the data behind a Warrant. Problem solved. No trust required. Wanna look up where a murderer drove? Go get a warrant Wanna look up where a robbery suspect drove to? Go get a Warrant. Divorce case hinging on one party's whereabouts on a certain date? Warrant. Speeding tickets are automatically filed anyways. [1]: https://www…

> Speeding tickets are automatically filed anyways.

Not in States with coherent Constitutions.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#85

Post by veec_cas_tant »

iAMkenough wrote: post #81
veec_cas_tant wrote: post #28

Obviously an unpopular opinion on this site, but I wish we had speed cameras, red-light cameras, and ALPRs everywhere. Cars are incredibly dangerous and large numbers of people drive them like absolute lunatics. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets. That position doesn't even account for the footage helping immensely with other investigations.

Let's take this to the next level, given the current reality. Binge alcohol consumption is incredibly dangerous and contributes to a large number of national fatalities. Governments should purchase a contract for a citizen tracking platform operated by a private company that monitors alcohol usage to ensure you're drinking responsibly and quickly detain those that aren't, given the threat they pose to themselves or t…

Slippery slope from cameras on public streets to giving contractors unfettered access to your phone’s camera! Why even let the government investigate crimes at all if something bad might happen in the future?

Instead of indulging in hyperbole, why not talk about the great evidence an ALPR outside a bar could provide with current technology? It’s absolutely a great idea. I hope that AI gets good enough to tell whether someone is plastered; that would save a lot of lives lost to selfish assholes.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#86

Post by veec_cas_tant »

dbetteridge wrote: post #82
veec_cas_tant wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the USA? Any café you go to is reasonably likely to have cameras, both inside and outside. If you mean driving to a doctor's office, you probably pass by hundreds of cameras along the way: video doorbells, dash cams, Teslas, Waymos, gas stations, ATMs, traffic-flow cameras, etc. If you are in one of the many cities with tens of thousands of existing non-Flock cameras, you are likely passing many more.

Not USA based so do with that what you will. Independent cameras, often not networked let alone internet connected are not the same thing as a single entity controlling a huge, internet capable, always on, cloud recording panopticon. Logistically the first limits things like police access by units of both access and time (is it recording? Does the memory card overwrite? Did it expire before a warrant was issued?) Put…

When the police ask for video evidence, they simply ask. They do not need a warrant. They might need a subpoena to force someone to hand it over, but I’m guessing that’s incredibly rare because people and businesses with cameras generally want to help. The issue is the incredible waste of time and money. It is incredibly inefficient to send a team out to collect footage instead of simply checking Flock, Axon, etc. No doubt, that hurdle prevents abuse, but it also hinders legitimate investigations. I would prefer strong safeguards against abuse while still allowing for real investigative wins.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#87

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

Alternative to archive.ph

No risk of CAPTCHA or geo-blocking

No cookies, no Javascript, text-only

  curl -A "" -Haccept: https://www.winonapost.com/news/wpd-wont-replace-stolen-flock-cameras-citing-public-trust/article_06a67859-2d97-414b-aa8f-d8751ad214bb.html \
  |egrep -o '(og:image.*https://.*..image.jpg)|()' \
  |sed '1s/^//;
         s|og:image\" content=\"|Photo|' > 1.htm
  firefox ./1.htm
  #links https://www.winonapost.com/news/wpd-wont-replace-stolen-flock-cameras-citing-public-trust/article_06a67859-2d97-414b-aa8f-d8751ad214bb.html

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#88

Post by basch »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #63
basch wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is the people reacting to the data. Cops coming at an innocent someone, guns drawn, because of database and human error. If that person weren't so calm and level headed in the moment, when they were attacked by confused and mistaken aggressors, would they still be alive? https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-flock-cameras-wrongly-trac...

I don't disagree: bad policing is a terrible issue. That does not mean we should prevent investigating stolen vehicles because a human might enter the characters incorrectly. I don't even understand how this story happened: > In fact, four other 34 ## DTM cars were being tracked around Minnesota that week, according to Officer Ganshyn Maybe we need even more AI, because I think Claude would probably flag this as goof…

>No human involved thought that it was wild they would stop something like 100 or 1,296 vehicles?

Because each city or county is doing its whole thing.

Which comes back a bit to, it's one thing for my county to be tracking its residents, but should officers in Texas have carte blanche? If anything, the local county should have to "release" before search results are opened up to someone foreign. My officers should be protecting me from invasions abroad.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#89

Post by iAMkenough »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #85
iAMkenough wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take this to the next level, given the current reality. Binge alcohol consumption is incredibly dangerous and contributes to a large number of national fatalities. Governments should purchase a contract for a citizen tracking platform operated by a private company that monitors alcohol usage to ensure you're drinking responsibly and quickly detain those that aren't, given the threat they pose to themselves or t…

Slippery slope from cameras on public streets to giving contractors unfettered access to your phone’s camera! Why even let the government investigate crimes at all if something bad might happen in the future? Instead of indulging in hyperbole, why not talk about the great evidence an ALPR outside a bar could provide with current technology? It’s absolutely a great idea. I hope that AI gets good enough to tell whether…

My point is if you trust the people on the other side of the camera, you should trust them with a camera that’s always on you.

Let’s put them outside Gay bars and Planned Parenthoods, just in the name of safety.

Think of all the college age women some guy halfway across the country can stalk.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#90

Post by dTal »

arjie wrote: post #45
veec_cas_tant wrote: post #28

Obviously an unpopular opinion on this site, but I wish we had speed cameras, red-light cameras, and ALPRs everywhere. Cars are incredibly dangerous and large numbers of people drive them like absolute lunatics. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets. That position doesn't even account for the footage helping immensely with other investigations.

I agree. I was able to talk to my local SF supervisor the other day and congratulate him on his work with speed cameras and red-light cameras. He shares the same position as you: there is no constitutional right to drive one's car on public streets without enforcement of the rules. We recently got permission to expand red-light cameras and I'm hoping that this kind of neutral machine-based enforcement of laws helps m…

It's not "neutral machine-based enforcement", it's a general purpose panopticon that tracks and logs everything, ready to be queried later by arbitrary people for arbitrary reasons.
Post reply on HN