HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
64% Positive
Analyzed from 1767 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#flock#should#why#public#more#surveillance#privacy#tech#cameras#access
Discussion (56 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
In this case this officer was searching numerous networks over and over again, that alone should trigger some metrics that raise the question "uh ... why?"
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.
LOVEINT has been a thing for as long as electronic surveillance has existed. We fire and/or prosecute people for it. We didn't turn out back on those capabilities.
I'd like to see someone using systems not available to the general public to to look up info on people without a legitimate purpose be treated as a kind of aggravated stalking.
Government employees should be held to a higher standard because they are in a position of public trust, but TBH people at companies like Google, Meta, Verizon, Comcast abusing internal tools for this should be similarly held accountable because they have access to resources far beyond e.g. one hobbyist logging TPMS IDs on passing vehicles.
Who watches the watchers?
The journalists uncovering this are doing good and necessary work. We need more transparency. Perhaps every search needs to be tied to a specific case and then made public after some time period.
;-)
See also: https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/
Because of the motivations and degrees of agency associated with under-regulated capitalism, derived data about vehicles and people will be stored indefinitely because it has value to be extracted, to be sold and leased, to the highest bidder, be it to data brokers, police agencies (as is the supposed mission), and intelligence agencies. They won't necessarily be US-based entities either. It will be used to form judgements, discriminate, make inferences, and accusations about people with limited or wrong "evidence" anytime between now, days, years, and who knows for how long in the distant future. No privacy and unknowable risks of misuse and abuse that manifest with use of new technology developed or "connections" made with new information at any time in the future.
Like I said in the last thread... I went and spoke at my county commission meeting today against these cameras: https://www.youtube.com/live/1OmEmpL-7qY?t=720
I went back and got transcripts for the rest of the meetings for the day, and after saying it was not up for a vote today, two of the commissioners attempted to push it through within 10 min of the end of day, but it ended up failing in a tie. So, decision is delayed, and there is actually a chance of fighting these being put up, as well as the ones already there.
YC’s an investor after all
The tech angle is very weak otherwise too similar to the ordinary news. It's not that we don't care or even disagree.
I'm not saying this to stir an argument either. I'm just giving an honest answer why the rest of us ordinary folk flag these. They go into the same bin as most of the AI posts.
As well, I can't speak for everyone, but the pushback replies to my comment here (if any) would likely be assumed bots/paid engagement.
This problem isn't unique to HN either. The discussion can be fine sometimes, especially if it's more about the tech than the politics, but if people wanted reddit or the ordinary news they'd be over there and wouldn't come here. You can bang your drum over there.
This is a crime that could not be committed without AI, the internet, and relatively inexpensive cameras using solar panels. It is a very tech oriented crime that could not be committed 30 years ago.
They are enabling a different type of mass surveillance than was possible before due to the new tech available today for searching through mass amounts of video and audio, and aggregating data from all sources in one easy to use interface.
It's like saying she drove a Ford police car during these activities therefore Ford is evil, QED.
It's more worthy of discussion noting New Bedford is a shithole and the armpit of Mass.
A person with a Ford can do all the things car owners can do. But very few people are trusted with access to ALPR cameras.
So: I disagree.
I have no qualms with New Bedford and I'm sure it has lots of, or even mostly, upright police officers who follow the law.
New Bedford being a dump is a non-sequitur; it has as much connection and relevance to the incident as does Flock.
I didn't bring up New Bedford.
I agree trust is good. I also believe Flock has implemented some auditing tool to flag frivolous searches which is why these cases are popping up.
I am not against trust, but verifying those who we trust are trustworthy is important, I think.
As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.
If the cop used an unauthorized GPS tracker without a warrant, you could take them to court for a Fourth Amendment violation and stand a pretty good chance at winning.
Even if you want to argue it was done purely as a personal citizen vs. citizen matter, you could almost certainly win a lawsuit for harassment and stalking.
There's plenty of precedent for both types of cases.
Flock cameras are stalking at scale, and they should not be tolerated.
Nobody's calling for outright banning of cameras. It's about the way these and their feeds are being deployed, integrated and utilized.
Neither "make the device" illegal, but they do make using them for the designed purpose illegal. In the same way owning a sawzall is legal, but using one to cut down all flock cameras in your town is illegal. As it stands, they're about $100 on Amazon with several options to choose from.