Random people calling 911 on other people filming them is a staple of Youtube; banks, coffee store workers, hairdressers, most especially restaurant managers. I don't know why anyone would expect technicians from Flock to be different. It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.
You'd think from the response that this was like the VP/Sales of Flock Safety. But it's just some installer dude probably making $65k/year to climb poles and fasten cameras. I guess that's praxis for you though.
Well, when you’re on the clock, you’re an agent of that company. And when you’re installing an indiscriminate mass-surveillance camera, calling the police on someone that’s video recording you is kind of bananas. Perhaps you don’t find that to be an interesting event, but a lot of people who are rightfully angry at the non-consensual deployment of a mass surveillance network disagree.
It's not bananas. It happens all the time. The police show up, check things out, and inform the caller that the person recording has a right to do so. In this case, it's even less bananas, because the people recording him were literally following him around, which is not what generally happens in these "audit" scenarios where someone parks themselves on the street outside a restaurant or bank.
There's pretty clearly a vibe on this thread that calling 911 is itself a use of coercive force. It is not. 911 is how you're ordinarily supposed to reach the police. In my neighborhood, it's how you'd report a stolen bicycle. It's the job of the police to handle those calls appropriately, and I don't see any indication that the call was handled inappropriately here.
The story doesn't want to give you that context because their goal isn't to inform you, it's to get your blood pumping.
I’m very close with several current police dispatchers, and even have an expired state telecommunicator certification. Calling 911 can absolutely be a coercive force, and people use 911 to harass people all the time because in many instances the dispatcher has no choice but to send uniformed people over there to investigate. Police are equipped and trained to deal with certain kinds of problems, and they’re constantly looking for evidence to support a criminal charge. It’s their job. All they know walking into that situation— as human beings that aren’t immune to the power of suggestion— is that the caller, who is the complainant, says that the other person is doing something wrong. That is not a neutral action. If it was, many departments wouldn’t be adopting non-uniformed, unarmed social worker responses to non-violent situations.
When the police come, they bring with them a nonzero chance of violent, deadly force. Especially if the caller says one of a few magic phrases like “I fear for my life” and “I’m not sure if he has a gun but he might” and (in some areas) “Black male, six foot two.”
Calling the police on someone is like mailing them a bomb with a 0.1% chance of exploding. You have no idea if you are summoning a calm, experienced officer or a power tripping monster with an ego.
I've personally never come across a police department or sherrif in the U.S. that doesn't have a non emergency number. I'd assume thats what you should call for things that aren't an emergency? They've never told me to call back and call 911.
Just want to add that myself to the list of people who can't imagine calling 911 for a non-emergency. Never in my life have I heard anyone assume it's for that purpose.
Let's clarify things. You can call 911 for a non-emergency. That dispatch worker will then redirect the line to a non-emergency line based on the situation. They will also likely remind you of a faster way to reach the non-emergency lines in your area, because they do not want everyone clogging 911 with non-emergencies. But it is very technically a valid way to call.
I will still judge someone for doing it that way, though. Especially in a day and age where a simple search query of your non-emergency line will save the time of such dispatch agents. Or at least 411 if you're of an older generation (411 still works on more cellular lines than you'd think today).
I'll also remind people that abuse of the emergency dispatch lines are illegal (not that this is what happened here), so please do not consider pushing your luck with non-emergencies maliciously.
Except that the reason that the YouTube “1A Auditors” get the attention that they do is that frequently it’s not a simple “check things out, and inform the caller that the person recording has the right to do so”, but the interactions often escalate to threats of unlawful arrest as police default to the side of the caller.
Calling the police, especially in America, can 100% be a coercive use of force. That’s why people threaten to call the cops/DHS/ICE all the time during arguments, and why things like SWATing are as big of a problem as they are. When the behavior of many policy officers is escalate first, ask questions second if at all, it does become a genuine threat.
I don't know what to tell you. I watch these videos all the time (it's one of my vices, bodycam footage in particular) and what I see every time --- when it's "auditors" harassing businesses, not when it's auditors confronting police at police departments --- is business owners being told to suck it up.
I know that in Summer 2020 there was a fashion for saying any call to the police was ipso facto a deployment of coercive force, but I'm rejecting that argument out of hand while also pointing out that in many regions 911 is exactly the thing you're supposed to do when you have uncertainty. It is simply not a demand for violence; it's a demand to have a trained authority come and resolve a situation, rather than having two private citizens with no training at all in the law confront each other and hope for the best.
> A person attaching hundreds of thousands of cameras to poles calling the police to report this act is what is noteworthy
That's one seriously impressive person. If they started as soon as Flock was founded and spend 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year installing cameras they would have to on average have installed a camera every 6 minutes.
> It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.
The technician was in public, bearing a company logo, performing an activity in which there is widespread public interest, and identified himself to law enforcement as an agent of Flock Safety. He is entitled to be unnerved but has no reasonable expectation of privacy here.
The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work. The bar should be higher for a company that's ostensibly being trusted to provide a law enforcement tool that's prone to misuse than for providing beverages or cosmetology.
>The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work.
Should other law enforcement contractors also be subject to the same higher standard? For instance, should dell get extra flak if one of their contractors called 911, because they were installing PCs for a police department? If not, this just seems like a way of applying a double standard, just because you hate flock. It's fine to hate flock, but it should be actually justified reasons (eg. "they're enabling mass surveillance" or whatever), not spurious ones like "they did a bad that's vaguely common, but we're gonna admonish them extra hard for it because we hate them")
I don't buy into your premise. A hairdresser, barista, Dell installer, etc are not out in the open public. These people are in places open to the public but not considered public. These people can deny your "right" to be there, and impose rules/restrictions on what you can do in their open to the public space. Go against those rules/restrictions and you are no longer welcome.
You are really trying to contort yourself into some very uninteresting twists.
If they called 911 because they were worried about privacy when publically installing a privacy-violating tool, then yes, they 100% should be. Having higher standards for higher impact things isn't somehow hypocritical.
>If they called 911 because they were worried about privacy when publically installing a privacy-violating tool, then yes, they 100% should be.
Seems like the installer was calling because he thought he was being harassed?
>As Keefe began to shoot video, the installer saw him and immediately packed up his equipment and drove away, so Keefe also returned to his car and followed several cars behind, hoping to document the next stop.
>...
>“I work with Flock Safety. And I called originally because I’m getting followed,” the installer can be heard telling a dispatcher after being transferred. “I was getting harassed, pretty much. Taking videos and pictures. And now, the same vehicle that pulled over where I was working at has been following me.”
Sure, you can try to equate "flock setting up a surveillance network" to "physically following flock employees", but what's the implication here? That anyone working for flock should be fair game as a stalking target? What about someone working for NSA? Should it be fine to look through their emails?
The implication is "setting up public security cameras in a city should be fair game to document by journalists". If anything, the solution here seems like it would be a requirement that the date, time, and location of each camera being set up should be public information, so then no one needs to get followed to be able to document what's happening.
> Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard.
It's not the same thing. Flock cameras have terrible privacy implications but at least when I pass by one of them they are also filming everyone else passing by. I'm not being singled out.
They are also sometimes used by stalkers that have access to improperly track people, so if I do acquire a stalker they might help my stalker.
If some person is following me personally around and filming me then I am clearly being singled out.
> one should be held to a different standard than the other.
harassing a worker is not the way to fix the problem. The worker has no agency to affect the changes desired by the harasser. It's an issue with the gov't, and needs civic procedures to change.
This behaviour is the same as harassing hospitality staff for bad prices. Harassers would be considered borderline committing terrorism if they go further.
The worker does have agency. They did not have to take a job installing mass surveillance systems. They're directly doing the bad thing, and the "harassers" are literally doing the same thing the worker is doing, but back to the worker.
Do they even have their own technicians? I believe there have been Dish Network technicians seen working on and setting up flock cameras and even those technicians are contractors of Dish network.
Mix of. Large metros they'll use their own staff to install, rural Americana they'll use Dish's OnTech division. Dish realized they have an entire 'trained' workforce of cable/dish techs that they can put to other technical use, so they pushed into more managed hands tech services.
I noticed a more prominently branded "OnTech" van roaming around my rural slice of life that had a smaller Dish brand logo on it that seemed to be more of that side of the business.
banks, coffee store workers, hairdressers, most especially restaurant managers.
Those people are all working in private premises, and have the right to eject customers for being belligerent or just annoying. The Flock technicians are in public, and as we're always reminded by Flock advocates, have no expectation of privacy. There's no indication that the reporter was harassing him in any way.
There's no indication that anything at all happened to the reporter, is there? A worker had a concern about someone following them and called it in, and that... is the end of the story?
Sure, people working on german army in ww2 were also probably just some guy getting 10k/year salary or something like that. Person doesn’t matter if they are in uniform.
I had a situation like this against airlines recently where I am getting so obviosly screwed but unfortunately the guy that is doing the screwing is “just a guy” so I can’t go off on them.
Guy is not just a technician, he's a technician working for Flock installing surveillance tech to monitor the public. Wrong life choices have consequences like being filmed being complicit in establishing a surveillance regime.
Especially when chances are that this camera installation was the result of local government asking and paying Flock to put it up. I'm not sure why the anger is directed at the company instead of local elected officials, and I understand the plight of the installer who's worried about being labeled as a bad guy for executing public works contracts.
> I understand the plight of the installer who's worried about being labeled as a bad guy for executing public works contracts.
You do unpopular things, you gotta expect to be an unpopular person.
Sophisticated, educated types might understand that parking wardens are just doing their jobs, and they didn't make the policy they're enforcing. But to 70% of the population, the person putting a ticket on their car is an asshole.
The company could have rejected the government deal if they cared about the moral aspect of spying on citizens instead of money; by accepting the deal and executing the contract they are complicit.
This is the disconnect. You say that politicians are allowing them - that's not right. They're directing them to be set up, they're spending citizen tax money on buying them.
The blame lies entirely with government officials who sought out and purchased surveillance tech, and we should not blame the technologists who responded rationally to the incentive that local governments provided for them.
There was an organization I came across that was working with private property owners to set up cameras outside/pointed at politicians, etc and sharing the footage. I can’t recall the name though
yea it is similar to robot mark zuckerburg who purchased everything near his house to protect privacy, but his app is the biggest privacy nightmares, especially rayban glasses.
In my opinion, yes, that makes you a radical. I don’t want an armed organization with a trillion dollar budget stalking me. That’s the common stance in America. We even put it in our constitution.
A frequent argument made in Flock's favor is that if you are in public there isn't an expectation of privacy. That Flock can see where you go just like any other driver. Particularly since Flock is a private entity not the government. This is the Other Driver behaving antisocially towards one driver EXACTLY as Flock does to all drivers.
I agree that that is not a good argument. I am perfectly fine with the government having access to things, for instance taxation or armed enforcers + bodycams, that are illegal for the youtuber.
Well, the government can use Flock camera footage, and YouTubers can film with personal devices on public property. So I guess their capabilities are already pretty different
The government represents the public will of the people and has democratic legitimacy. The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd. I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will.
Due to the monopoly on violence, governments need additional more constraints in some areas. If your government dislikes you and they can track every step you take out in public, it becomes much easier for them to violate your rights without anyone stopping them. And because the government could fetch the same data from any company collecting it, companies too must be banned from doing so.
>The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd.
That is precisely the notion of the US constitution. If some random person chose to take down a flier criticizing the president, that is fair game (legally, or at least it defers to private policy). If a government agent did that, it verges on breaking the first amendment because we know that is a form of government suppression of speech. The first 10 amendments to the constitution pretty much all work to some extent of this logic.
> I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will.
Those are all pretty much state laws outside of taxation, not part of the Constitution. We could setup campaigns to restrict those powers anytime we want to, or to grant them to private citizens in some cases.
Speech and surveillance fall under the constitution. Restricting/granting such power requires a much higher standard of process.
If someone were following around and filming someone who was posting anti-Flock fliers, I would also feel that crosses into harassment after a certain amount of time.
A TV news crew filmed me when I was a freshman setting up my old travel trailer in a new university trailer park. I hated it, but it didn't last long. If they had continued following and filming indefinitely despite my protests, I would have wanted some kind of legal protection from them.
Why do you think you can get legal protection just because the filming lasts longer? AFAIK you can film anyone however long you want as long as you do it exclusively on public property where there's no expectation of privacy and you don't harass them in anyway (maintain a safe distance). Isn't that what happens to celebrities & politicians? AOC doesn't get to complain that the press is following her with cameras everywhere she goes all day long.
I would feel the same way if these people weren't installing a permanent surveillance camera.
I don't think it's fair to cry harassment if you're getting filmed setting up the harassment machine.
If anything, Americans are being too nice to Flock. We're watching the villain and setup of a 1980s dystopian scifi horror, except there's no unlikely hero who can save the world by shooting a single weirdo in a suit on top of a skyscraper.
I think if you're worried about being harassed by your neighbours if they find out what you do during the day, you should be thinking hard about what you do during the day.
I think the long term solution to the privacy problem is going to be to switch to a vehicle marking system which can only be usefully used by law enforcement. Example, if instead of license plates you had a transponder that sends out encrypted metadata about the vehicle in a way that only law enforcement could decrypt it. Obviously there are still problems of abuse of law enforcement keys but it raises the bar significantly and it prevents private companies from building a business out of collecting the data.
You introduce a new problem, which is that eyewitness reports of crimes etc can’t identify the vehicles as easily, but that could be viewed as an acceptable loss. Or the problem could conceivably be solved with more technology if we can have dynamically changing license plates (which, again, require law enforcement keys to map back to a real identity for the vehicle).
The only other way I see is that we change laws so that a company like flock collecting this data and then offering it to the government is treated the same as if the government collected it itself. But now that the cat is out of that bag and there is big money behind it, I don’t really see it going back.
It's kind of ironic that US built the infrastructure(adtech, social media) to track people around the world on the Internet and now their own people are getting tracked in real life.
>The officer said the installer was also concerned about privacy.
"And his worry more than anything is that, you know, he's just an employee. Anybody like you and me. And now he's going to be in the news and he doesn't know if it's going to be targeted at him or his family."
Don’t you understand? He was just following orders.
Too bad somehow the face that ends up out there as the face of surveillance isn’t the CEO of Flock, not their coders, not the YC people who gave them money to do exactly what they’re doing. It’s the lowest of the low in the chain, the guy sitting in the sun to install the cameras on a post.
This post was #1 on HN and I clicked the link, watched the video, and then it was bumped down to #98 within that time. I've never seen that happen on HN before, but maybe I just didn't notice?
I've gotta mention it because everyone seems to have a learned helplessness with this type of thing. I went and spoke at my county commissioners meeting a couple times after the initial flock roll out (voted on with no discussion a couple years prior) started becoming apparent. The first meeting, the group of me and two other people were half of the people making public comment. Every single person was against it unless they worked for the county. At the second meeting there were a whole lot more people. Again, every single person who spoke who didn't work for the county was against it, this time they had eight+ police officers speak in favor of it.
We managed to swing a couple of the county commissioners who were in favor of it before and were not in favor of it after hearing about the constitutional issues as well as the cyber security issues that flock doesn't really care about.
Pasco county Florida is now removing all the cameras on the public right of ways at the end of this month.
> We managed to swing a couple of the county commissioners who were in favor of it before and were not in favor of it after hearing about the constitutional issues as well as the cyber security issues that flock doesn't really care about.
Do you not see the problem here?
Pasco County has a $2.2B annual budget. These county commissioners have the financial resources, organizational access to expertise, and time to focus on these problems.
Do they really need an under-resourced citizen to inform them about the constitutional issues after deployment? And then they just say “Aw shucks, whoopsies, now I see the light.”
I don’t think it’s fair to call this learned helplessness (a lingering belief after the threat has vanished) when we’re facing off against an active, persistent adversarial threat.
Your county commissioners didn’t make a “whoopsies” when they took a deliberate, informed action against your interests.
Furthermore, it’s unsustainable to require citizens to pour significant time and energy into forcing their representatives to faithfully represent them. That quite literally defeats the purpose of a representative governing body.
The real trick, is to stop going to these meetings, and start running against these politicians. Get the forms, stand out in front of your local post office, collect the signatures, and primary them. Run against them. That's the only thing they listen to
Not everyone has the drive, talent, connections, time, nor resources to run a political campaign. Showing up to your townhall every 2 weeks can already be an overly high barrier given some townhall times, but is much more feasible.
Would be nice, but we (in France) have plenty of cameras already. They may not be branded Flock, but they're there nonetheless. And as far as I'm aware, none of them are ablaze.
Absolutely horrible. They show up on Saturday's yelling at empty buildings. Very rarely does an American protest against a government body change policy. If you want to really do something, show up on a Tuesday morning, stop traffic, flood the phone lines, and the email systems, relentlessly day after day. Americans are far too comfortable to truly protest.
It's true that the order only impacts state highways. It removes approximately 700 license plate readers and then also leaves thousands still up locally. However, in my county, the Sheriffs dept is actually taking them down voluntarily, because of the positive political reception of the state-road ban. And its happening in other jurisdictions near me.
A lot of people instinctively believe Florida only does dumb stuff, but we really do have quite responsive people in charge here. From where I sit, I see good movement on the whole Flock issue in my state and county.
Yes, it really is. Florida is a cultural punching bag, and we take that in stride too. We have a balanced budget, no state income tax, and no flock cameras. We are close to abolishing property taxes as well. Our natural disaster response is some of the most robust anywhere in the world as well.
This is misleading. I'm not sure replacing income tax with sales tax is a positive change. The state is still collecting taxes, but the tools are pretty regressive.
Sales taxes are fundamentally a tax on the poor. Someone making 20x the median income is not spending 20x more on groceries and other goods. It doesn't scale well at all, especially when a lot of net worth goes into housing. And the GP was arguing about ending property tax...
I don't think we're in a good enough economic situation as of now to eliminate sales tax. But an ideal model is a strong progressive income tax model (I'm talking "0% tax under 40k" levels of progressive) with sales tax only employed in bad economic states. In general, taxes should be heavier in good economic times to allow bad economic situations to relax them.
I’m glad that that my state isn’t run that way. Your assumptions about consumption taxes across income brackets not scaling is factually inaccurate. If sales tax is fundamentally a tax on the poor, then so is an income tax.
Florida is one of the lowest taxed states across all income brackets, and even provides good social programs.
I’m glad that people who want to tax the rich to death for the sake of a crusade that isn’t even needed don’t have much of a voice in my state.
>consumption taxes across income brackets not scaling is factually inaccurate
I'd love to hear a proper counter-argument. Maybe Florida works different, but sales taxes tend to be constant (i.e. scaling linearly with consumption), and individual consumption does not scale linearly with income. Someone making 200k may buy more luxury food, but not necessarily 10x as much as someone making 20k. And someone making 2 million a year does not consume 10x as much as the 200k person.
>If sales tax is fundamentally a tax on the poor, then so is an income tax.
If income tax wasn't progressive it would be. But it is. Not progressive enough, but the idea is there. Higher brackets get taxed more percentage wise, not in a simple linear fashion.
>and even provides good social programs.
Sure. Give your money to insurance premiums that run away when it's time to do their job instead of government program. Sounds much better.
>I’m glad that people who want to tax the rich to death for the sake of a crusade
Always nice to have people be honest with themselves. I'm just being honest with math. We call a 10 millionaire being taxed 90% a millionaire. We call someone making 30k being taxed 10% on the verge of homelessness (likely on government assistance despite working). As long as such inequality exists, we can and should be aggressively taxing the most privileged to build a society that prevents that reality.
>don’t have much of a voice in my state.
We are both under the same federal government. Most of these large scale issues are federal anyway. The winds are changing slowly and I won't pity those who baron robbed the country one bit (many of whom tried to flee to your state) when it's time to pay the piper.
Nope. Florida simply led the way and calmly banned Flock cameras from the entire state. Every other state that cares about individual liberty should follow suit.
I mean, let's not get carried away. Florida still has very oppressive anti-second-amendment legislation and laws on the books, and until they get rid of that, I wouldn't call them anywhere close to having individual liberty.
When I lived in FLA and it was super easy to get a concealed weapon permit. I carried a gun not infrequently just to exercise that right. I was serious about training with it as well.
The other states I’ve lived in haven’t been so straight forward.
Florida is also ironically how we may get cookie banners in line and to actually opt users out as they prosecute websites there as illegal wire taps if you still put cookies on the page after or before the opt out happens.
man, these guys bungled their PR so, so hard. What they should have done is pre-seeded a ton of stories about flock catching some notorious criminal, helping solve xyz serious crimes, helping solve abc minor nuisance issue crimes, and maybe some lines about reducing direct law enforcement interactions.
On the flip side, let Axon, Motorola take some of the heat, paint your enemies as "defund the police", and stop being so obviously branded. Take a page out of Phillip Morris/Altria playbook and keep a lower profile.
Instead, they've managed to unite left and right in hatred. Clown show.
Their problem is they believed their own bullshit and thought they were offering people a good deal that basically amounted to "the government 1984s you more than they already do but your package thief gets arrested, maybe".
Ignoring the fact that that deal is not necessarily good, if they had been slightly scummier, not given two shits about actually reducing petty crimes against the people and instead set out to help municipalities collect civil fines (which have basically no 4th-8th amendment protections these days) they probably could have gotten away without scrutiny for a very long time and gotten their systems deeply entrenched. The useful idiots would've eaten it right up with the flimsiest of pretexts so long as each segment of useful idiots was peddled to individually.
"The truck we saw carrying 2-tons of waste tires away from your tire shop is not owned by an entity on the state approved list, pay up"
"We saw you leaving home depot with a water heater but you didn't pull a permit, prove it didn't go into your house or pay the fine"
"we saw your 2004 Altima emit a puff of blue leaving a light. Per vehicle code XYZ any vehicle that emmits a visible cloud cannot pass emissions inspection, submit proof of passing withing 30d or your resigstration is revoked"
If they had done that a lot of people would have eaten it up and asked for more. But nope, they believed their own BS and built a system for "real" law enforcement. And of course that leads to a bunch of bad interactions with cops and the public doesn't like that.
Data centers in a nutshell too. It's an absolute clown show of a PR event. Pretty clear who they laid off and got advice from to have bipartisan rejection from such a politically polarized population.
I suppose it's like the Cabinet today. The one shimmering light of hope in this darkness is the utter stupidity in execution. This situation should have been a slam dunk for any semi-competent organization.
Flock has solved crimes in my state, including a few horrendous violent crimes.
We forget US society was configured (imperfectly) to allow families to raise their children in stability and safety, with guardrails around both sides of liberty. Surveillance has a legit role in protecting communities and their families - especially the most vulnerable.
Willing to be most of the Flock hate crowd doesn't have kids walking to school in areas where bad things happen - many probably don't have kids.
I tend to agree that when used correctly, a surveillance system like this could have benefits at a societal level.
The problem is the many stories we already have of misuses of this equipment, showing that people in power are not mentally capable of actually managing a surveillance system like this in a societally beneficial way.
If the use of the system was designated as only being allowed to stop heinous crimes and we had a track record and way to prove this was always the case, then I would be 100% in support. But given it has already proven to not be possible is likely why most people are against it.
I simply don't think Humans are capable of proper use of a system like this.
The problem is that these system are setup specifically to be able to be used incorrectly. Flock is getting all the rage right now but they aren't the only vendor. An acquisition and rename later and everyone will have forgotten this all. Police (others?) are setting up stingrays. Stalin's secret police had a maxim: "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime." Remember, everyone who installed a Ring doorbell camera paid to help set up these kinds of networks. (all so that a porch pirate might get caught even though Amazon will reship for free). These systems also set up a huge target for bad actors to hack outside of the law.
If these things were only ever used with the a valid search warrant, that would be a great step forward. But even that will only stop "honest" people from abusing the system.
There is also a large difference between local surveillance (home/business/area CCTV), public surveillance (openly accessible cameras like traffic cams), and dragnet surveillance- I generally trust my local police precincts but don't like the fact that the alphabet soup of federal agencies has warrantless access to track me on the way to and from church or work or Facebook marketplace deals
Does that matter? It's one where I share a common belief in a higher being with other people and we try to build a community and become better people and followers of our specific beliefs.
It just doesn't feel good or sit right with me to be tracked all over the place, and even though none of what I do is illegal (besides taking speed limits as suggestions from time to time, as is the American way /s) just being nearby can get you stuck with charges for things you didn't do.
The fed govt in the US has been doing questionable things on and off American soil for a long time:
- bad analysis
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/09/the-cowboy-of-the-nsa
- not to mention the massive surveillance state exposed by Edward Snowden
> Honest question: If the feds were actually tracking you on your way to church, how does that impact you?
Why do you suppose that stalking is illegal?
Before you write up any "clever" retorts, remember that many illegal activities (theft, kidnapping, murder, etc) are permitted when permission is obtained from a judge.
Except there was literally just a piece a few days back here on HN where a Mom was arrested for letting her kid walk half a mile alone in a gated community with active security patrols. The guardrails you describe aren’t for child safety so much as adult persecution. Surveillance may help solve some crimes, but its goal isn’t safety of the people surveilled as much as protecting the power of those doing the surveilling. Research continues pointing out that cameras don’t do shit to deter crime, and its actual ability to solve crimes is limited to the humans using said tools - and with a longer history of abuses than successes, it’s a fairly safe conclusion that mass surveillance does fuck all to actually protect the populace.
"This technology can be abused" and "this technology provides no public-safety value" are two entirely different claims.
Saying their ability to solve crimes is "limited to the humans using the tools" isn't much of an argument against the technology. That's true of fingerprints, DNA databases, radios, firearms databases, and virtually every other investigative tool.
A police officer can misuse a DMV database to stalk an ex. That means the officer should be prosecuted and access to the database tightly controlled. It doesn't demonstrate that DMV records have no legitimate investigative purpose. The same reasoning applies to LPRs.
By the way, that mom that was arrested? The kid was 5 years old, and was intentionally sent to a pond.
I'm 100% in favor of LPR cameras. Any technology can be abused. The handful of corrupt officers that were caught using the cameras for nefarious reasons shouldn't overshadow the incredible benefit these are.
> Willing to [bet] most of the Flock hate crowd doesn't...
...have a reason at all to worry about LPR cameras tracking their car. Just "something something government."
> anti-recording without policy for use and retention
Not recording on its own, but the linking of data with other cities and making it all searchable by those with access is where it becomes unprecedented mass surveillance.
You’re right that we have to be specific.
> your phone may be recording
They are able to dodge these accusations by just selling voice command logs. “No we don’t record you or sell your audio data” and yet Siri’s AUL reads:
[PhraseSpotter] Detected wake word “Pepsi” with a score 0.942.
[com.apple.voiceactivation] Proceeding with full wake.
A lot of people don’t know there is a low power “always on” processor (AOP) that monitors a small audio buffer on-device.
So no need to sell the audio, just the unrelated logs of some app that uses the AOP.
It’s a smart tactic for governments to use private corporations to do stuff like this. Flock takes all the heat and the government can even make themselves look good by ditching Flock. 2 seconds later they’ll use a different company.
There is no practical difference between the government hiring people to do something and the government hiring a corporation to do the same thing, and if you find yourself blaming Flock instead of the government who funds them, you’re being manipulated by this tactic.
I’m not saying this is legal, I’m saying this is a tactic governments use to deflect culpability from themselves for their actions. The fact people even blame the flock guy and not the politicians who sent him there means it’s working.
To be fair to people, TSA attracts people who live near airports and need jobs, doesn't it?
ICE, yes. At this point you cannot make an argument at all that you are going to join a fair-minded organisation that treats people decently while upholding a lawful function.
People who work for Flock should be considering their futures, but I suspect people who install Flock cameras are more in the TSA bracket: it is a job that will be near them that pays.
I said this a few days ago and got down voted to hell. It amazes me how HN likes to abdicate YC of all wrong doing or negative outcomes from the companies they fund. YC/PG is also the reason that @sama is where he is.
Aside from "PG's blog" this is a community. People wish each other happy holidays, offer support to one another, challenge each other etc... In that sense it transcends both PG and YC. The internet is not what it used to be but HN is a real community to me and I am truly grateful for that. As such, I would like to make an effort to meet more people and hang out in real life.
And this is the ideology that got us to where we are now. There is no problem with making money but bending politics/society to your will, and even voting for destructive parties, only for the good of personal interest is abhorrent, antisocial behavior.
One would think that these "geniuses" would understand that living in a society where lower class people do not live with constant existential threats would be a positive for them too...but I guess they find it easier to be hated by everyone and be forced to hire bodyguards, private armies, and live in gated communities and bunkers in fear of getting in touch with the real world.
I don't particularly agree with Ezra Klein or Francis Fukuyama, often vehemently disagree. But on the latest episode of Klein's NYT show it was interesting to hear Francis mention this coupling of wealth and political power being one of the core problems the US is grappling with.
Separate the nouveau robber barons from political power like we did the clergy?
In the United States, clergy never had formal political power. Religious movements did play major roles in the abolition of slavery and Prohibition of alcohol.
The United States had campaign-finance laws to limit the political influence money can buy. The McCain–Feingold Act restricted “dark money”. The Supreme Court struck it down in Citizens United v. FEC.
I think he’s referring to the separation of church and state that was codified at the founding of the US based on experience of how things went in Europe prior to that
Indeed. If you hold your duty to your net worth above your duty to civil society, you can't be trusted with civil society. To paraphrase Patrick Henry.
It won’t be the first or hundredth society to falter due to the hubris of leaders. At this point it’s just a race to see if AI or climate disaster gets us first, with the former accelerating the latter.
I don't think that's true. The anti-flock sentiment ranges, of course, but it's pretty widespread. The idea of living in a society that is highly surveilled at all times, where that data is processed by AI to determine suspicious behavior, when the panopticon is abused by those with access to it -- this is not an idea with widespread appeal.
Here in rural Michigan its bipartisan against flock. Sheriff rolled it out on Monday and ended the 90 day trial on Friday. Next weeks road commissioner meeting revoked the permit for em on the right of way.
Which is to say our cops are pro-flock but they've gotten too much heat from them from a largely uneducated public.
Meanwhile I've recently seen a rural Tennessee sheriff drop their contract when they found they were lied to about the data sharing.
I was literally not aware of this. I don't know if I'm going to be coming back to this site anymore. I've got some thinking to do. I am so ridiculously anti-Flock that I am not willing to discuss it, because it would be a pointless conversation.
I understand what you mean but I do not think the answer is to disengage. They will not stop. HN is an amazing place with brilliant people. I have been wrong so many times here and I own it; the amazing thing is the grace I have been shown, the support and all of the ways the community here has made me a better, more knowledgable person.
It's an echo chamber full of self-important piles of dogshit.
The real world is amazing... but this is a place for self-centered douche canoes like yourself to masturbate to your own imagined greatness. It's a place for assholes. It's a place for people whose fathers fucked up badly.
Sounds like you're contributing to your own narrative here. The only self-centered douche canoe of a comment I see in this thread is from you.
HN has its share of good & bad, but I've generally enjoyed talking to some of the people on this site; much more than sites like Reddit which imo fit your description much much better.
Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio has become too much work than worth.
New people who come here as novices now are given horribly bad to wrong advice constantly and even technically wrong examinations. And beyond that, now the same larping types here downvote real expertise.
It’s normal for forums so I can’t complain too much, but be aware as nice as this place is, it’s wildly uninformed.
If there's anything Flock does that Axon doesn't, it's only because Axon doesn't have people smart enough to do it yet. Once the funding shifts from Flock to Axon, they'll hire the people who can make it happen, especially if enough money shifts that they can pilfer the exact same engineers.
The police want the capability. Flock just happens to temporarily have the better technology.
Axon Fusus AI is very much similar to what Flock offers. Why are you talking about body cameras to make it seem like I am comparing Flock with simple body cameras?
Does Axon retain the data it is collecting? If so, even if they have no plans to use it like Flock does, those plans can change, sometimes even without the company's blessing. They sound like the lesser evil right now, but the core issue that goes well beyond Flock, Axon, and similar companies is that if data is collected and retained, someone will find leverage to use it for their own purposes.
Personally I think that having funding from investors rather than taxes doesn't preclude evil from being called out (although in this case a lot of revenue certainly comes from tax money)
OFC, YC is in the business of making money and simply doesn’t care or consider ethics whatsoever. They just don’t care.
But this is pretty standard for this class of people. To get super rich you have to fuck people over, there’s simply no way to amass a billion ethically.
It's really both. And that applies to a lot of HN darlings. Sadly, people's perspective can get cloudy when a positive perspective is tied to their financial well-being.
Old accounts criticize it too and are opposed to it as well. Accounts like yours, I don't know where they stand, but old accounts definitely don't like Flock.
10+ years of posting doesn't give you a pass to skirt the HN guidelines.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
I'm well aware of the guidelines. The point isn't to actually accuse OP of being a sockpuppet, it's to point out the hypocrisy. That's why specifically enclosed the accusation with "uncharitably: ...".
Flock was seed round funded by YC, not "a YC company".
It's not like they control it, manage it, and what was pitched may be significantly different than what happened since then.
YC isn't perfect, but what words you use, and their order is important. And the way you're phrasing it, you make it sound as if they are a subsidiary of YC. Or as if YC is on the board.
If any of these things are true, you should plainly state them. Otherwise, what you're saying is incorrect.
YC funds companies and we are all aware of that so by saying it's a YC company because they gave them seed money is already exactly the correct wording
Holy conspiracy theorists. I surely was not expecting this amount of paranoia from a sound place like HN. Either way, drama is always welcome, for it is ultimately unavoidable, in one form or another.
I just don't like moral distortions. Is YC in control of Flock or responsible for their choices? Who are "them", what are we ignorant about and why is it Marxism?
But what are you saying? YC are to blame for the unsavory future directions of the companies they fund. Counterargument, no they're not, what are you banging on about.
Same thing on a smaller scale, and they never would have got venture capital funding if they didn't have an upward trajectory from HOAs. There's only one path upward from private HOA surveillance, and that's government surveillance.
I’m not making anything up any more than you are. Neither of us was there. My point: you don’t get YC funding unless you have a disruptive business idea. “Cameras, but to a niche HOA market” is not that.
> From the moment we started Flock Safety, we had an incredibly clear, boldly audacious mission ... We provide a life-or-death product, a mission-critical system for cities
An HOA has a lot more leeway to do whatever it wants than other local governments. They get to act as government sometimes, then as a corporation sometimes, and then as a group of amateur lawyers sometimes. They can both pass laws and try you for violating them without recourse. And IME only the most toxic people stay on the board for very long.
It started as license plate readers and expanded to include identifying people by clothing, body type, etc. storing it in a database that communicates with surveillance networks in other cities.
I don't really have a strong opinion either way on Flock but this is a strange objection. YC is a well-known startup accelerator that makes (pre-seed!) investments. I don't know if anyone has ever sincerely taken "YC company" to mean a subsidiary of YC. That's like confusing "a Sequoia company" as a subsidiary of Sequoia.
> When Demo Day was over, after we had booked meetings with investors and were well on our way to our first fundraising round, YC set the tone for scaling Flock doggedly, purposefully, and with consistent velocity, for years to come.
Damn, its almost like YC really set the stage for mass AI surveillance from the founders own mouth
133 posts out of 30022 (0.443%), with an emphasis on last month. You're complaining two weeks into this month, despite the volume having clearly dropped off and gone back to early July levels. If anything, the topic is winding down!
133 posts, of which people basically didn't interact with 78, and barely interacted with 38, leaving 17 posts that were appreciably interacted with. This is out of 1283 total posts of the same caliber, a rate of 1.325%.
Even if we consider frontpage presence, only 31 of those 133 posts actually made it, and that is in the context of 3160 frontpagers total, so a rate of 0.981%:
They're doing a bit stronger in this metric this month, but it's still a drop in the bucket overall.
I could accept identifying this as a "persistent presence as of late", but identifying the whole place with this now is more than a bit hyperbolic, I hope you can acknowledge. There's a higher percentage of impurities in prescription pharmaceuticals than this, to give you a parallel.
Would you really say that <1% of the frontpage being Flock related makes this forum flocknews.com to you?
See also the sibling comment about AI. I don't think I need to run the numbers to convince you just how much the place has been overtaken by related news, and how it is leaps and bounds more prominent and emblematic than news about Flock ever will be.
No, it hasn't. And yeah, man, I hope hackers give a shit about YC and Flock enabling the dismantlement of any semblance of privacy, and normalizing total surveillance culture.
If someone came up to me and started filming me while I was in public, and then when I got in my car they followed me, I would also call the police.
The double standard demonstrated by Flock isn't the issue, they are the pieces of shit and of course they have no moral consistency.
But "He who fights with monsters should be careful, lest he thereby become a monster." I thought we were united that people have a reasonable sense of temporal privacy in public - that being in public is ephemeral and not some permanent record to be analyzed in perpetuity. We should not be fine stalking people and making them feel threatened, even those that want to build the panopticon state.
But you're not working for Flock, are you? We could go on much further until we reach the what Popper called the Tolerance Paradox: "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
The point is that total surveillance is like the destruction of tolerance or in thie case privacy, and it makes watching the watchmen impossible. There's a point of no return and before that one is reached resistance IS allowed or else you lose everything.
You'd think from the response that this was like the VP/Sales of Flock Safety. But it's just some installer dude probably making $65k/year to climb poles and fasten cameras. I guess that's praxis for you though.
I think this is just a ragebait piece.
reply