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

91–100 of 100 posts

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

#91

Post by unclebucknasty »

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,…

>maybe exposes hypocrisy

I don't know that hypocrisy is the word, but it does seem that you're going a long way to carve out an exception, where there is no real difference.

That is, it appears that you've simply decided one scenario is okay, even though that scenario itself begs the question. The article on which you're commenting demonstrates one reason that's so—the potential for abuse.

So, seems it all boils down to "out of sight, out of mind" in your framing. As long as you don't see the people invading your privacy, you're okay with believing that no one is. You don't mind that all of the tools of surveillance are in place, because you've defined a scenario wherein it's not possible that they're being used to actually surveil you.

In sum, your thought experiment is essentially, "would this be OK in a world that doesn't exist". But, you're answering "yes" in the world that does.

Maybe that's what you're sensing as "hypocrisy".

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

#92

Post by veec_cas_tant »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #91
veec_cas_tant wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> maybe exposes hypocrisy I don't know that hypocrisy is the word, but it does seem that you're going a long way to carve out an exception, where there is no real difference. That is, it appears that you've simply decided one scenario is okay, even though that scenario itself begs the question. The article on which you're commenting demonstrates one reason that's so—the potential for abuse. So, seems it all boils dow…

Potential for abuse is an issue that should be met with legal constraints, not an abandonment of video evidence. A world without Flock or competitors is still a world with hundreds of millions of cameras recording public spaces at all times. There is zero privacy in public spaces, it’s part of the name. That footage is inefficient to access, but does not require a warrant of any kind. It would not surprise me at all if the compliance rate on law enforcement asking for footage from most homes or businesses is above 90%.

I would much rather have an efficient system with strict rules around access vs an inefficient system where each investigation takes massive amounts of human time.

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

#93

Post by veec_cas_tant »

King-Aaron wrote: post #74
veec_cas_tant wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 polic…

It’s a nice dystopian fantasy but completely unrelated to cameras of public spaces in our current world. It sounds like you are more against the internet than cameras in public spaces, way better tracking data there!

There is zero liberty being given up here. There are already tons of cameras, hundreds of millions in the United States alone, recording public spaces. Banning filming in public spaces absolutely would infringe on our freedoms however, which is not something I would support.

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

#94

Post by veec_cas_tant »

wfvr wrote: post #87
veec_cas_tant wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of their laws, Germany has plenty of CCTV style cameras outdoors just like NYC and other major cities worldwide.

CCTV cameras that are recording on a rolling tape that only keeps a few days of footage that is looked at by no one unless something happens can't be compared to internet connected systems that centralize all the camera feeds and uses AI to track vehicles and people.

> CCTV… is looked at by no one unless something happens

Exactly as these new more efficient systems should be used.

> … uses AI to track vehicles and people

Why would wasting a team of people’s time manually reviewing hours of footage be preferable to a computer doing it? If an Amber Alert goes out, why would we not want to use all technology possible to locate the suspect vehicle? The argument seems to have switched to cameras are fine, just not if they are efficient.

You can set up all kinds of horror scenarios with CCTV cameras, AirTags, cell phones, gps trackers, etc. There is, without a doubt, far less excuse for AirTags to exist than cameras in public spaces when comparing benefits to potential harm.

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

#95

Post by walls »

threatofrain wrote: post #47
duxup wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patrol officer isn’t the equivalent of a CEO.

I've built such software for bigger police departments. I listen to what the stakeholders want and balance them against users. If the stakeholder wants a way to bypass this or that, then that's what's going to happen. Neither users nor stakeholders will want to be handcuffed in the name of public accountability. Nobody wants to be handcuffed, really.

The world would have been better without you.

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

#96

Post by duxup »

threatofrain wrote: post #47
duxup wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patrol officer isn’t the equivalent of a CEO.

I've built such software for bigger police departments. I listen to what the stakeholders want and balance them against users. If the stakeholder wants a way to bypass this or that, then that's what's going to happen. Neither users nor stakeholders will want to be handcuffed in the name of public accountability. Nobody wants to be handcuffed, really.

> Nobody wants to be handcuffed

I’m sure that’s the case for everyone, but we have permissions and security and auditing for reasons none the less.

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

#97

Post by unclebucknasty »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #92
unclebucknasty wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe exposes hypocrisy I don't know that hypocrisy is the word, but it does seem that you're going a long way to carve out an exception, where there is no real difference. That is, it appears that you've simply decided one scenario is okay, even though that scenario itself begs the question. The article on which you're commenting demonstrates one reason that's so—the potential for abuse. So, seems it all boils dow…

Potential for abuse is an issue that should be met with legal constraints, not an abandonment of video evidence. A world without Flock or competitors is still a world with hundreds of millions of cameras recording public spaces at all times. There is zero privacy in public spaces, it’s part of the name. That footage is inefficient to access, but does not require a warrant of any kind. It would not surprise me at all…

>There is zero privacy in public spaces

You've agreed that this fact does not preclude uncomfortable scenarios, even for yourself. So, the discussion is about where people fall in their comfort.

I would sum up my response to the rest of your comment by noting the difference between individual citizens recording as they please, and a state-operated, always-on surveillance network, with the capacity to surveil every citizen outside of their homes.

It's worth noting here that the government famously faces stricter constitutional limits than do citizens.

The inefficiency you decry is what others value, as it protects privacy and constrains state power. There's long been a trade-off between efficiency and rights, which much of our legal system seeks to balance—as enshrined in various amendments.

Abuse of the frankly violative sort outlined in this article is but one concern, and likely cannot be properly contained in any case—particularly absent the requirement for warrants. This is precisely the reason warrants exist. We don't merely trust law enforcement to abide by its own "rules".

So, the larger point is that the very existence of state-operated surveillance networks is considered an intrusive form of abuse by many. One that uses previously unimaginable technology to circumvent the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which consistency tells us would have otherwise explicitly protected us from such abuse.

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

#98

Post by threatofrain »

duxup wrote: post #96
threatofrain wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've built such software for bigger police departments. I listen to what the stakeholders want and balance them against users. If the stakeholder wants a way to bypass this or that, then that's what's going to happen. Neither users nor stakeholders will want to be handcuffed in the name of public accountability. Nobody wants to be handcuffed, really.

> Nobody wants to be handcuffed I’m sure that’s the case for everyone, but we have permissions and security and auditing for reasons none the less.

Yes, because a stakeholder wanted it.

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

#99

Post by veec_cas_tant »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #97
veec_cas_tant wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potential for abuse is an issue that should be met with legal constraints, not an abandonment of video evidence. A world without Flock or competitors is still a world with hundreds of millions of cameras recording public spaces at all times. There is zero privacy in public spaces, it’s part of the name. That footage is inefficient to access, but does not require a warrant of any kind. It would not surprise me at all…

> There is zero privacy in public spaces You've agreed that this fact does not preclude uncomfortable scenarios, even for yourself. So, the discussion is about where people fall in their comfort. I would sum up my response to the rest of your comment by noting the difference between individual citizens recording as they please, and a state-operated, always-on surveillance network, with the capacity to surveil every c…

> One that uses previously unimaginable technology to circumvent the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which consistency tells us would have otherwise explicitly protected us from such abuse

Is it the AI or the number of cameras? It can’t be cameras in general, and I struggle to believe it’s the number of cameras because we have so many cities with tens of thousands of cameras already. So it’s just that it became too efficient and instead, for any investigation, we should pay a team to spend hundreds of man hours collecting and reviewing footage that a computer could have finished immediately?

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

#100

Post by duxup »

threatofrain wrote: post #98
duxup wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody wants to be handcuffed I’m sure that’s the case for everyone, but we have permissions and security and auditing for reasons none the less.

Yes, because a stakeholder wanted it.

I really wasn't asking you about what you do. It's a larger question than that.
Post reply on HN