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

An interactive map of Flock Cams

deflock.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 255 posts

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#91

Post by nullsanity »

burningChrome wrote: post #35
snailmailman wrote: post #5

This is a quite scary map. They are all over my local area. It may technically be possible to route a drive around them, but if you take the most convenient path between any two points at least one camera will spot you. I'd have to leave my neighborhood through back roads and enter local shopping areas through sidestreets. This data shouldn't even be collected in the first place, let alone consolidated into a nationa…

>> This is a quite scary map. It can be. FLOCK data was used to put Bryan Kohberger at the scene along with other people's security camera's. Cops regularly use FLOCK camera's to get hits for criminals that have warrants for violent crime. I can see why people are ok with them when they're used to get criminals off the streets. However, I've seen multiple times where cops initiate a felony stop (where people are pull…

Which is fine, because those are owned by private citizens and companies and those citizens are giving their permission to the police to use them. That's the difference between centralized government survalience and CCTVs

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#92

Post by dawnerd »

doctor_radium wrote: post #40
glitcher wrote: post #24

In my area I'm seeing a few random ones on roadways, but mostly clusters of them in the parking lots of Home Depots, Lowes, and Wal-Marts.

Same here, but just Lowes stores. That I know of. I surveiled the two local Lowes roughly a month ago and found two cameras not mapped, which I gleefully added myself. Want to send them a snail mail complaint at some point stating they won't be getting my business until they step back from turning us into a police state.

I contacted them about it too and got the most generic corpo pr about them being essential for the safety of their employees.

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#93

Post by dawnerd »

boelboel wrote: post #50
tonymet wrote: post #37

I volunteer for my city & county , and I'm a privacy advocate, so I have an ambivalent opinion on Flock cameras. Given the completely untenable demands on law enforcement, and extreme driver recklessness , the only practical way to enforce law and order with drivers is some sort of automated surveillance. Since covid, driver recklessness has been out of control. Running reds, extreme speed, escaping police are all co…

Police just aren't doing their job in the US, who even knows what they're doing at this point. Basically no country had the post-covid driver issue as much as America. Some states basically halved fines lol, make them do their jobs.

Seriously. People run reds in front of cops and they do nothing. I was tboned and the person that hit me had no license or anything to identify and ran a red and still was let go without anything.

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#94

Post by nullsanity »

burkaman wrote: post #67
mikece wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and according to Steve Ballmer (back in the day) Linux Torvalds was a terrorist. People are allowed to say stupid things.

I don't think this is true, I can't even find anyone else claiming this happened.

[dead]

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#95

Post by carefulfungi »

snailmailman wrote: post #5

This is a quite scary map. They are all over my local area. It may technically be possible to route a drive around them, but if you take the most convenient path between any two points at least one camera will spot you. I'd have to leave my neighborhood through back roads and enter local shopping areas through sidestreets. This data shouldn't even be collected in the first place, let alone consolidated into a nationa…

You should assume every police cruiser has a plate reader, too.

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#96

Post by debarshri »

LordGrey wrote: post #49

Coincidentally, a nearby county has just announced that they have begun installing new Flock cameras [0]. Their stated reason is: "Along with the cameras being used to reduce crime, the sheriff’s office said they may also be used for public safety concerns, including AMBER Alerts and Silver Alerts." The cameras are good when we're all on the happy path, but as soon as a bad actor gets involved, all of that surveillan…

Small counties generate huge revenues with traffic cameras.

I think reducing crime and road safety is an excuse.

There are true innovators in the traffic camera space but i think counties often choose vendors who give them best ROI.

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#97

Post by mulmen »

xXSLAYERXx wrote: post #51
burningChrome wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> This is a quite scary map. It can be. FLOCK data was used to put Bryan Kohberger at the scene along with other people's security camera's. Cops regularly use FLOCK camera's to get hits for criminals that have warrants for violent crime. I can see why people are ok with them when they're used to get criminals off the streets. However, I've seen multiple times where cops initiate a felony stop (where people are pull…

> However, I've seen multiple times where cops initiate a felony stop At what point do we accept that all systems are flawed? There could be many variables as to why the perp wasn't in the car. Maybe the perp stole the car. Maybe the perp borrowed the car. Maybe these systems do not work well in fog etc etc. I don't know how we're supposed to advance technology that makes us safer without getting into these muky situ…

Technology is a means to an end, not the end itself. If you can’t make it safe then don’t deploy it.

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#99

Post by pibaker »

LordGrey wrote: post #49

Coincidentally, a nearby county has just announced that they have begun installing new Flock cameras [0]. Their stated reason is: "Along with the cameras being used to reduce crime, the sheriff’s office said they may also be used for public safety concerns, including AMBER Alerts and Silver Alerts." The cameras are good when we're all on the happy path, but as soon as a bad actor gets involved, all of that surveillan…

> Along with the cameras being used to reduce crime, the sheriff’s office said they may also be used for public safety concerns, including AMBER Alerts and Silver Alerts.

Hot take: AMBER alert is a way to keep the public paranoid about child abduction by strangers, an evil but extremely rare act, and turn their paranoia into support for law enforcement. It may not be the intended purposes, but the (real) purpose of a system is what it does.

It is no surprise that Flock, like other parties pushing for the erosion of privacy and personal freedom, are following the same playbook. Don't you want your kid (or your doggo) to get home safe? If you don't let us spy on you your literally supporting child abductors. Checkmate libertarians.

The reality of AMBER alert is they overwhelmingly come from custody dispute cases where the child's safety is not in jeopardy, because they tend to be the only kind of cases where they know enough about the "abductor" to issue an alert that is not just "look for a man driving a white van." The reality of child abuse is you should be infinitely more worried about authority figures dealing with the child — parents, relatives, teachers, pastors, coaches and yes, the police — than strangers driving unmarked white vans.

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#100

Post by bubblewand »

dylan604 wrote: post #11
bigwheels wrote: post #3

When your car gets stolen, suddenly nobody can access the data. Are there any coordinated efforts for widespread scrubbing or removal of these parasitic devices?

When your car gets stolen, even with camera data, the police will not do anything.

I've yet to see an amount of property crime that can get the cops to lift a finger. I've seen them ignore a low-six-figures-stolen string of after-hours break-ins at businesses, captured at multiple location on camera with clear shots of the vehicle, legible plates, and faces of the perps. Just straight-up gave the impression they thought anyone believing they might want to look into it was a moron. And no, given where this happened it wasn't because of that "prosecutors won't charge anyway" thing people complain about some places (it's led me to wonder how much of that is cops just looking to pass the blame on cases they had no intention of investigating anyway).
Post reply on HN