Flock Wants the Most Detailed Map of Its Surveillance Cameras Taken Offline

bbookofjoe about 2 hours ago 35 commentsRead Article on theintercept.com

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

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

25% Positive

Analyzed from 794 words in the discussion.

Discussion (35 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

rglover•about 1 hour ago

IMO, when they have to hide, that's the beginning of the end. Too many people are aware of the what/why now. And above all else, once the tables turn on elected officials and they realize they're under the same surveillance, I bet their tune will change (likely due to a public egg-on-face moment involving illegal or suspicious activity). If people keep the pressure on, this will be a "remember when" rather quickly.

Cider9986•about 1 hour ago

Government officials should be highly transparent. Privacy for the people, transparency for the government.

dylan604•33 minutes ago

I'm waiting to find out that Flock systems do not log the data when the plates are recognized as gov't issued plates.

awesome_dude•37 minutes ago

There's a balance that needs to be struck, politicians are humans too

atmavatar•26 minutes ago

Politicians are humans who knowingly choose to enter public office for the sake of exercising power, whether for altruistic or nefarious reasons (or some combination thereof).

The power is why politicians deserve greater scrutiny than the average person, and anyone who wants to keep their privacy intact can choose not to run for office. The loss of privacy (usually at the hands of the press) is already an implied cost of running for and holding office.

black6•33 minutes ago

Not once they put themselves into the public sphere. They become chattel, bought and sold by special interests.

FireBeyond•about 1 hour ago

Some of that is already happening, in DC of all places, where the DC Police Officer's Union is protesting against use of Flock by ... the DC Police (albeit Internal Affairs).

Something about "this technology is invasive and violates the right to privacy of our members"...

derbOac•about 2 hours ago

If Flock wants to be used by public services, it should be subject to maximum transparency. If you don't want your camera locations public, don't offer them to the public for their use.

AKSF_Ackermann•about 1 hour ago

I would like to point out that the website in question has a button to download the entire dataset. Probably would be a good idea to save a copy.

JKCalhoun•about 1 hour ago

I still want to see a driving game, perhaps using Google maps, where you try to get from point A to point B and not pass any Flock cameras.

pennomi•about 1 hour ago

I’m working on an OpenStreetMap-powered map generator in Godot, this would probably be quite easy to build.

nxobject•about 1 hour ago

That would make for a “fun” (if depressing) Glider environmental hazard.

bilekas•38 minutes ago

I am starting a surveillance company in the US. I'll sell the data to anyone who wants. I'll put cameras up wherever I like, call it protection of the people, the police will enjoy it doing a lot of work for them and then I'll point cameras squarely at my competition, 24 hours a day, 365 a year, until they ask for regulations.

If anyone would like to kickstart let me know.

ejj28•7 minutes ago

Y Combinator had no problem backing Flock, you should give them a try.

bilekas•4 minutes ago

Flock are competition, their investors would never like my idea.

NoboruWataya•39 minutes ago

Interesting that the site is only available in the US. I wonder why that is.

ortusdux•about 1 hour ago

Could the map's creator be held liable if Flock can demonstrate this map in particular was used to destroy cameras?

dylan604•29 minutes ago

Can Google/Apple/et al be held liable if demonstrated that any criminal used maps in prep for any crime?

collabs•about 1 hour ago

In my uninformed opinion that would be a dangerous precedent if there is no proven collusion or conspiracy to act together. I anal though so I'll wait for people who know the law to respond.

moate•about 1 hour ago

Highly unlikely (but hey, anything's possible when you're flirting with an authoritarian regime). They would need to demonstrate that the map was made TO destroy cameras if to have real merit.

bookofjoe•about 2 hours ago

https://archive.ph/nEHf5

forshaper•about 1 hour ago

Axon and Motorola must be pretty satisfied with all this.

paimapi•about 1 hour ago

for what it's worth, the DeFlock maps also include Axon/Motorola cams. they pick up my city's custom implementation too so the anti-surveillance movement is really benefiting from this Flock-focused hate

forshaper•8 minutes ago

worth something! I wasn't aware that they picked those up.

heliomattress•about 1 hour ago

flock CEO's last name is "Langley" ? you can't make this stuff up.

protocolture•10 minutes ago

Jimmy CIA here to sell you a new security product.

adolph•about 1 hour ago

Clickbait. The website proprietor received a 3rd party trademark infringement complaint. If people in the company would prefer the map to be offline, they are taking a very roundabout way of accomplishing it.

  On Thursday, Michael was notified that Doppel, which describes itself as an “AI-native social engineering defense platfom,” filed a trademark infringement complaint regarding his site, claiming to be working on Flock’s behalf. Doppel says that the site is using the trademark “FLOCK SAFETY” without authorization, which “may cause customer confusion / harm.” Doppel requested the site be taken down.

ButlerianJihad•3 minutes ago

> "AI-native social engineering defense platfom"

Is that the description of the law firm? Because it sounds like how a law firm would self-describe. Let's get some founders of law firms to put this in their mission statements.

Furthermore, the EFF and Cory Doctorow could embrace this slogan. Especially the FSF. Richard M. Stallman would totally have adopted this description 35+ years ago.

plorg•39 minutes ago

>they are taking a very roundabout way of accomplishing it

  Doppel requested the site be taken down.

Actually that seems pretty direct.

adolph•16 minutes ago

The article says it's a trademark dispute. A cease and desist letter is a normal part of the process.

moate•25 minutes ago

The fact that they can't go to the court and say "It pisses me off that this guy is doing what he's doing" and instead have to, ya know, try a case based on the actual laws that exist, seems to be confusing you about what "direct legal action" is.

adolph•4 minutes ago

The article's headline is the claim: "Flock Wants the Most Detailed Map of Its Surveillance Cameras Taken Offline"

The basis for this is an undisclosed trademark letter from a 3rd party. The company in question may or may not want the map taken down. However, the article offers scant evidence for the headline claim. That is why it is clickbait. It promises something large and delivers something minimal.

The security researcher in question has certainly made a splash however. Promising new levels of people mad at Flock is definitely the way to create some bona fides.