Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
55% Positive
Analyzed from 1819 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#cameras#flock#crime#camera#access#doesn#demo#footage#why#person
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 1819 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (61 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
the two things i still dont understand are:
1) why is there not a dedicated demo environment for demos, like practically every other software? i cant think of any reason why they need live data for a demonstration. (this might be addressed in the article, but the paragraph where it looks like it might be mentioned is also where the article is cut off)
2) is the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta (MCJCCA) city-owned? if not, the city should not be able to give permission to use the cameras. if so, was the MJCCA notified that the cameras would be used for demo purposes? were the parents notified?
It’s much easier to just show live footage rather than rig up canned looping footage.
It’s pretty astonishing how no one watching the demo with me seems to care. No one asking “Hey, will you just be able to do this with our video if we buy from you?”
And, lest you think generating "600,000 lines of production code on 60 days" [2] is potentially problematic, has also fully solved the primary failure modes of AI coding identified by Karpathy, once and for all: "Karpathy's four failure modes? Already covered." [1]
As someone who has experienced mania, including with a programming bent specifically, it's hard not to raise an eyebrow to the idiosyncratic human-y bits of ideas floating throughout the sea of em-dashes and it's not X it's Y in his manifestos.
(Also volunteering this in am interview)
[1] https://github.com/garrytan/gstack[2] https://github.com/garrytan/gstack/blob/main/docs/ON_THE_LOC...
...is how I imagine that one goes.
Why is the camera there in the first place??
Presumably there are people that have access to it. And if you are demoing software that connects to cameras, then someone gave the sales guy access to those cameras.
I’m also assuming those probably weren’t the only cameras…
I imagine its for security. Ie if there are reports of robbery, you can find who did it. I know its not that popular in the states but its common elsewhere, but with better controls. (well, "better" as in controlled by shitty IoT devices)
I think the thing with flock is just how poorly put together everything is. They are obviously insecure, and the entire network has massive holes in it. Yet its still being rolled out.
Jewish Community Centers are targeted more for attacks than a YMCA.
That said, if there wasn't a crime the camera footage should be deleted.
The camera doesn't prevent crime. It just displaces it. Even when it doesn't it will not prevent the crime from happening. It _may_ provide you an opportunity to prosecute the person who committed it.
In reality the only real reason to have one is to reduce your insurance premiums.
> crime has been solved
A perpetrator was potentially caught and now has to be tried or negotiated into a plea. I understand we use the term "solve" as a term of art but it's a particularly poor one. It speaks to the need of police to clear their books of negative indicators and not to any first order desirable social outcome.
> That said
That said, if during a demo, you access another customers equipment, I will _never_ do business with you. That's just extremely unprofessional behavior.
That's why I periodically leave a bunch of bicycles with cheap locks downtown. They act like a kind of criminal sacrificial anode, reducing crime in the rest of the city.
And that is worth something in itself, at least in areas where disputes between people are the norm. Gyms in particular suffer from theft to sexual harassment.
There is someone that is making the decision right?
Or are you just saying the person placing the cameras is decoupled from the person making the decision to aggregate them all.
But I still feel like the accountability is on who is giving the access to sensitive cameras.
We decided this was a privacy and security risk, and have gone in a completely different direction, but it would not surprise me if most businesses used one of these companies and just went with whatever they suggested without understanding at all what is at stake or who has access to the data.
That's exactly what's happening.
People are buying webcams which are cheap and have in their ToS something to the effect of "we get to sell everything the camera can see". Which, in turn, allows them to partner with Flock and sell video footage directly to them.
Consider the fact that at one point, Amazon partnered with Flock to sell their ring camera footage to Flock. [1] It only got botched because of the creepy superbowl commercial selling the spying as "finding lost puppies".
[1] https://apnews.com/article/amazon-flock-super-bowl-surveilla...
I was attacked by "a good dog" and then blamed for provoking the dog (like that is valid excuse for starting an attack). I defended myself, and dog owner joined the attacked together with their dog!
After that, I have cameras everywhere, I even record many interactions on my phone. I refuse to be at mercy of random beasts and their "owners". If people start using leashes and muzzles, I may consider taking down cameras!
I'm sorry you had a bad experience and using cameras to protect yourself is a thing but filming kids doing gymnastics seems very very far from purely defensive.
I want to have video evidence, if some crazy person blames kid for provoking the attack!
Usually the government is trying to wrap the spying/privacy breaches by "save the children", but this time if you want to save your children from some older dude watching them on a screen, you actually have to be against this privacy nightmare.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47772012
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47784045
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47784045