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

91–100 of 166 posts

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

#91

Post by sidewndr46 »

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #41
jmward01 wrote: post #33

I might be good with legal guarantees, meaning jail time for those involved, that the only place images on these devices went was local to the municipality collecting them and that they were only accessed for very well defined reasons by very specific people. The core issues are that aggregation and exfiltration of this data means that privacy is dead and the AI world allows analysis for almost no cost. We need an id…

There is another looming threat of modern day surveilance: previously hidden correlations. The data you found benign sharing in the past might allow unpleasant conclusions in the future and might not even come from you personally . Think about what toys you bought for your kids, or in what college milieu your worldview developed.

This is a myth that continues to be propagated. Using previously unobservable correlations is a bedrock concept in Federal investigations in the US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

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

#92

Post by [deleted] »

autoexec wrote: post #54

> Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin said the city disagrees with the ruling and is concerned about who could obtain the footage. “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.” These people are fooling themselves if they think that keeping the cameras but not allowing th…

[deleted]

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

#93

Post by Zigurd »

autoexec wrote: post #54

> Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin said the city disagrees with the ruling and is concerned about who could obtain the footage. “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.” These people are fooling themselves if they think that keeping the cameras but not allowing th…

Cops and DV. And crash coverups.

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

#95

Post by jemmyw »

manarth wrote: post #88
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…

"it's unclear what the lawmakers, road designers, and police intend" In many cases, there's a gap between the original intention and the current need. Many speed limits and policies were established in an era of fewer cars, but also much less capable cars with fewer safety features - many speed limits were established before the adoption of ABS, stability control and airbags, and more recent innovations in lane-keepi…

> UK default of 60mph for a single-track road, but if you were to try that in many rural locations (think Cornwall, Scotland, Wales) you would likely find yourself upside-down in a ditch.

The way the national limit is framed is more limit than road speed. It's interesting how we think of the limits as drivers: we get frustrated when other people go slower than the limit, we don't treat it as a limit, we treat it as the speed you should be traveling at.

I live fairly rural in New Zealand (UK expat) and even though you necessarily get a lot of speed variation on the roads around me, due to being winding, having farm traffic, sometimes narrow, you still get idiots who have to be going at the exact limit (or over) and tailgate 1m behind any vehicle in their way. Including trucks who can't really see them when they do that. I enjoy driving fast on those roads but I still don't understand the impatience.

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

#96

Post by schiffern »

autoexec wrote: post #54

> Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin said the city disagrees with the ruling and is concerned about who could obtain the footage. “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.” These people are fooling themselves if they think that keeping the cameras but not allowing th…

The mayor is making a great argument for not blanketing your city in a surveillance dragnet.

Policymakers were warned about precisely these dangers ahead of time. They went ahead anyway, and now they want to play blameless and are trying to shift the blame on anyone but themselves.

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

#97

Post by p_ing »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #89
fc417fc802 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we also have hatching cameras (yellow hatched boxes mean no stopping, usually at junctions) Weirdly I've never encountered these in the US (only red light cameras) and do we ever need them. I'm generally opposed to government associated cameras due to concerns about turnkey authoritarianism but if we have to have cameras at intersections they could at least curb the awful self centered behavior.

Most states ban speed cameras and many ban red light cameras as 4th amendment violations. You cannot face your accuser when your accuser is a robot. As a result, speed camera tickets have always used some legal sleight-of-hand to nail you into confessing, and this has become unpalatable. If we raised speed limits (almost) across the board to the actual safe limits of modern cars, I think a lot more people would be ok…

Other states deal with it by making it a civil infraction, not a moving violation, bypassing the 4th amendment issue.

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

#98

Post by randallsquared »

SlightlyLeftPad wrote: post #10
timschmidt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if they had nothing to hide... /s

> “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.” No concern over the dozens (or hundreds?) of cases of police or government employees themselves doing exactly what they’re afraid of here. Strange.

> No concern over [...] government employees themselves

Three paragraphs later someone else is paraphrased as including immigration enforcement agents among the problematic users, and in the current political environment, federal law enforcement being made more effective might be the real problem for state and local government.

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

#99

Post by criddell »

manarth wrote: post #88
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…

"it's unclear what the lawmakers, road designers, and police intend" In many cases, there's a gap between the original intention and the current need. Many speed limits and policies were established in an era of fewer cars, but also much less capable cars with fewer safety features - many speed limits were established before the adoption of ABS, stability control and airbags, and more recent innovations in lane-keepi…

> Speed-limits typically remain grandfathered in at their original value

That depends on where you are. In Texas, state highway speed limits are determined though a traffic study[1]. The monitor traffic for a while, then set the limit to the 85th percentile.

People can use this to get out of speeding tickets. If you find that it's been a long time since a speed study was done on the road you were on, the judge might throw the ticket out.

There are some hard limits though. For example, the maximum speed limit that can be set on a road is 85 mph.

[1]: https://www.txdot.gov/safety/driving-laws/speed-limits/speed...

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

#100

Post by Angostura »

ben_w wrote: post #56
egorfine wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another example is road traffic law. Even just speeding offences, I think you probably catch everyone who actually drives in the UK, often enough that after a month the only people left allowed to drive would be people like me who don't even own a car. You don't have to strip the driving licenses. You should impose a fine and not an extremely painful one for starters. And then probably within less than a year the w…

That's covered by "system has to be radically changed". UK driving licences give you room for 12 "penalty points" worth of mistakes before you risk being banned from the road, of which speeding costs you at least 3: https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/endorsement-c...

Indeed. 4 strikes and you are out seems fine to me (as a UK driver). You can also opt to take a speed awareness course in leu of the points, I believe
Post reply on HN