Flock Cameras Can Track Every Car in America. Police Love Them. Citizens Don't

ppseudolus about 2 hours ago 18 commentsRead Article on nytimes.com

RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

80% Positive

Analyzed from 766 words in the discussion.

Discussion (18 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

rsalus•about 2 hours ago

Regardless of the benefits (of which there are a few, despite what fellow detractors may say), I am completely unwilling to submit myself to mass surveillance. Once that kind of power is obtained by the state, it will be abused. The article already cites several instances of this, including a police officer using it to stalk someone. And let alone the malicious usage, what if there are simply errors in the software or mistakes made by human operators? I don't trust police departments and public officials to implement this capability competently.

Morromist•about 2 hours ago

Its commonly said by people who seem to love this tech that we don't get to have a right to privacy in public spaces (anywhere but shut inside our houses with the window blinds drawn) but it appears now we also don't have a right not to be surveilled intensely, our every movement recorded, tracked and noted down permanantly, analysed with Algorithms & scrutenized for potential crimes.

Land of freedom they say.

tehlike•about 2 hours ago

People who support second amendment to stand against government tyranny love to give government power to do tyranny.

AngryData•42 minutes ago

Plenty of leftists in rural areas that love the 2nd amendment too.

vinyl7•about 1 hour ago

This is an opposite problem. Flock is a private unelected unaccountable corporation. That's exactly of right leaning libertarians want, for some reason.

rconti•about 1 hour ago

They say "you don't have an expectation of privacy driving a car on a public road/your license plate is public info". They don't address the fact that these are cameras, not ALPRs. They collect vehicle metadata. We have no way of knowing what other metadata they collect but don't "use". We'll have no idea when the software update goes out that adds facial recognition if it's not already there.

King-Aaron•about 2 hours ago

I frankly do not trust a single word or single opinion of a person that doesn't see the immense problem with this kind of surveillance technology. They are either not arguing in good faith, making me question their entire agenda, or are simply not equipped to understand the implications.

ButlerianJihad•about 2 hours ago

Have you ever seen Wim Wenders’ original, “Wings of Desire”?

I heartily recommend it to anyone who is irrationally opposed to state surveillance, (or, by extension if you simply resent the idea of an omniscient God) just because it is an achingly beautiful and true film that proposes a more reasonable viewpoint.

King-Aaron•about 1 hour ago

> Have you ever seen Wim Wenders’ original, “Wings of Desire”?

Literally never heard of it, and honestly I'm not sure I care to if your response to my comment is thinking I'm "irrationally opposed to state surveillance".

PyWoody•about 1 hour ago

I'll bite: How is a movie about an angel falling in love with a trapeze artist pro state surveillance?

poopbutt16•about 1 hour ago

Will it still apply if I'm rationally opposed to state surveillance?

Wait, lol do you thing an omniscient god and the state police are the same thing?

betaby•about 1 hour ago

There is no benefit of tracking for citizens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUNZZWq1dXM

glenda•about 2 hours ago

Interestingly "Police love them, citizens don't" also applies to police themselves

allenrb•about 2 hours ago

Care to take a guess who wins when an issue comes down to citizens vs police?

oofoe•about 1 hour ago

You're either police... or little people.

lowbloodsugar•about 1 hour ago

Might be time for a "Take your license plates off" day of protest.

pseudolus•about 2 hours ago

https://archive.ph/LPQQX

waltwalther•about 1 hour ago

Thank you.

wwarner•about 2 hours ago

Unpopular opinion: I’m fine with cameras if they can be shown to solve crimes and lower the crime rate. No, I’m not ok with ICE surveillance, or secret police punishing free thinkers, but the extreme anti position simply cedes the technology to the authoritarians. So basically, if you’re promising London safety and the freedom and safeguards of the UK, I’m all for it!

rconti•about 1 hour ago

> the extreme anti position simply cedes the technology to the authoritarians

I have no idea what this means. It seems to me the extreme "yes, please surveil me" position cedes the technology to the authoritarians.

wwarner•31 minutes ago

It means that there is a spectrum of outcomes, and there is a band left of center which is anti-crime enough to support cameras with laws to govern them.

lowbloodsugar•about 1 hour ago

>So basically, if you’re promising London safety and the freedom and safeguards of the UK, I’m all for it!

Is this sarcasm? A good friend is a criminal defense barrister and his opinion does not match yours on the justice perspective. Meanwhile two good friends were hospitalized in two separate incidents in London. Just random violence. "Nothing we can do" said coppers. Daily you tube videos of pickpockets targeting tourists. etc.

Unless you are very rich, London's surveillance state isn't helping you.

Bonus: the Mayor of London and the Mayor of the City of London are different people, because the City of London is a semi-independent state with different police force. IIRC the Tower of London, Tower Bridge and St Pauls are within the "square mile".

wwarner•36 minutes ago

Uh, I guess you haven't compared my town's crime rate to London's. I'm for curtailing people's gun rights as well, for essentially the same reason as I'm for more cameras. There was an apparently random shooting at an intersection not far from me, and the shooter escaped in a car. The police pieced together some footage from the two private cameras that showed the car first getting some gas, and then parking before the shooting. They found the driver and he confessed to the shooting.

lowbloodsugar•30 minutes ago

Perfect dystopia. Make sure all criminals have guns, then tell citizens "Look! We used the surveillance state to catch this one criminal!" Not all criminals. Certainly not rich criminals. Just enough of the "wrong kind" to make the news now and again, keep you scared and voting the right way.

Like, did you know that more money is stolen via wage theft, than all of shoplifting and burglary combined?

You think that's unrelated? The solution to gun violence is not surveillance state - because the state benefits from gun violence. The solution to gun violence is ending poverty and inequality.