At this point I think it's necessary to notify anyone who has been tracked after a fixed number of days, unless a court order is used to extend that period. An officer using this for legitimate reasons should have few problems getting that court order. This would at least give people some amount of safety net from stalking by LE.
I don't understand why a regular patrol officer would / should even have access to something like this without some level of extra authorization. They're not detectives running an open investigation ...
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?"
Pacheco has been one of the top users of the Flock system this year, according to data The Light previously obtained from the city. The most common reason inputted since April for her searches has been “traffic infraction.”
Just thinking of that reason, I don't even know what Flock would tell you at that point. It would tell you where else they were? Not going to do any good. Makes that reason pretty suspicious.
Celebrities get special treatment in hospitals built into pretty much all EHR software. Names are obfuscated, while searches and views get instantly flagged. I highly suspect the same thing exists here.
How else could they have arrested that wisconsin guy for driving to michigan to purchase cannabis? You know, apparently a totally valid use for such technology..
It was only about an hour ago I saw yet another mindless commentator on one of these threads saying "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about".
The funniest response I've read to this type of reasoning went something like this: a family gathering; topic of privacy came up; boomer-type trotted out the "nothing to hide" line; younger relative asked them if they enjoy a particular type of sexual intercourse with their spouse; red faces and looks of horror; the asker reminded everyone that privacy is important and it doesn't mean one is doing anything wrong.
Isn’t the easy reply here that there is no expectation of privacy in public, unlike in one’s home? There are tens, or more likely hundreds of millions of cameras recording outside in the United States.
It's not that simple. If you were in public, going about your business, but someone followed you around perpetually, noting down everything you did, you should feel stalked and harassed. That is exactly what these machines are doing. Being in public means that you're not hiding any one part of your behaviour, but nor are you telling everyone where you've been and where you're going, etc.
The underlying principle here is that secrecy and privacy are not the same thing. The famous illustrative example is that when you’re taking a shit it’s no secret what you’re doing in there, but most people still prefer not to be watched when they do it.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a question that is roughly 2000 years old. Still no good answer.
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.
There was a time when you could paste a reddit username into an online tool and it would build a profile of the person in question. And when I came across one of these "if you have nothing to hide..." people, I did just that. After I asked them how the weather was and how their dog was doing they deleted their account. Lightweights.
Wonder how quick this will get removed off the front page, like the last one about a woman pulled over at gunpoint multiple times because the ALPR kept making a mistake.
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.
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.
The tech angle is weak? This is about the impact of tech, on privacy, surveillance, and society.
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.
If the tech angle is so weak, why is YC invested in the company?
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.
This is actually one of the more limited and benign risks of voluntarily installing a municipal/private panopticon system owned by a corporation.
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.
I don't see a connection to Flock specifically in this lovers' spat. If it wasn't Flock it would be any number of other things. This is a literally-who-cares incident that is being built up into something it isn't.
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.
Its a good example of those who say "surveillance systems can and will be used inappropriately" - a jilted lover cop with access is exactly the kind of irrational person who could do so.
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.
The world is full of and depends on trusted people. You're attacking technology and tools rather than a person that abused their trust to the community.
New Bedford being a dump is a non-sequitur; it has as much connection and relevance to the incident as does Flock.
There’s a difference between the abuse potential of ‘a car’ and ‘a nationwide surveillance network that tracks your location any time you’re on a public road’
If you do this as an individual, this could get you anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony in some states. If you're a cop and do it, it counts as a 4th amendment search.
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.
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.
I think even the most ardent supporter of CCTV or Flock or whatever would agree that misuse should be treated harshly. Zero difference between Flock and any number of investigative powers afforded to the government, many without a warrant. Misuse by an officer should be very heavily punished.
I would question why individual police officers would be able to plant pucks administered by the agency and track using (a combination of third-party and) agency infrastructure at will without oversight and properly reviewed papertrail.
Nobody's calling for outright banning of cameras. It's about the way these and their feeds are being deployed, integrated and utilized.
A more relevant question is why does some knuckle dragging street pig have access to surveillance tech? This should be regulated exactly the same as wiretapping--specific reasons, specific cases, specific authorization, etc. It should not have been possible for this piece of shit to access the system at all.
At this point I think it's necessary to notify anyone who has been tracked after a fixed number of days, unless a court order is used to extend that period. An officer using this for legitimate reasons should have few problems getting that court order. This would at least give people some amount of safety net from stalking by LE.
I don't understand why a regular patrol officer would / should even have access to something like this without some level of extra authorization. They're not detectives running an open investigation ...
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?"
You never worked for a startup where the CEO demanded administrator rights to everything just because he's CEO?
Patrol officer isn’t the equivalent of a CEO.
Pacheco has been one of the top users of the Flock system this year, according to data The Light previously obtained from the city. The most common reason inputted since April for her searches has been “traffic infraction.”
Just thinking of that reason, I don't even know what Flock would tell you at that point. It would tell you where else they were? Not going to do any good. Makes that reason pretty suspicious.
Because no one important cares and no one will do anything about it.
Celebrities get special treatment in hospitals built into pretty much all EHR software. Names are obfuscated, while searches and views get instantly flagged. I highly suspect the same thing exists here.
How else could they have arrested that wisconsin guy for driving to michigan to purchase cannabis? You know, apparently a totally valid use for such technology..
It was only about an hour ago I saw yet another mindless commentator on one of these threads saying "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about".
People who have nothing to hide get ambushed by police at gunpoint, because surveillance system misidentifies them.
The funniest response I've read to this type of reasoning went something like this: a family gathering; topic of privacy came up; boomer-type trotted out the "nothing to hide" line; younger relative asked them if they enjoy a particular type of sexual intercourse with their spouse; red faces and looks of horror; the asker reminded everyone that privacy is important and it doesn't mean one is doing anything wrong.
Isn’t the easy reply here that there is no expectation of privacy in public, unlike in one’s home? There are tens, or more likely hundreds of millions of cameras recording outside in the United States.
It's not that simple. If you were in public, going about your business, but someone followed you around perpetually, noting down everything you did, you should feel stalked and harassed. That is exactly what these machines are doing. Being in public means that you're not hiding any one part of your behaviour, but nor are you telling everyone where you've been and where you're going, etc.
The underlying principle here is that secrecy and privacy are not the same thing. The famous illustrative example is that when you’re taking a shit it’s no secret what you’re doing in there, but most people still prefer not to be watched when they do it.
"Does your phone have a passcode? What are you hiding? Can I look through your text messages?"
These risks were said to be theoretical what ifs? But headlines are showing that they are quite real problems.
Who watches the watchers?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a question that is roughly 2000 years old. Still no good answer.
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.
There was a time when you could paste a reddit username into an online tool and it would build a profile of the person in question. And when I came across one of these "if you have nothing to hide..." people, I did just that. After I asked them how the weather was and how their dog was doing they deleted their account. Lightweights.
Let them show themselves.
https://i.ibb.co/WWWYznHX/flock-future.png
;-)
See also: https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/
News that it’s a woman for once.
Wonder how quick this will get removed off the front page, like the last one about a woman pulled over at gunpoint multiple times because the ALPR kept making a mistake.
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.
> Wonder how quick this will get removed off the front page
YC’s an investor after all
That's not why these are getting flagged.
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.
The tech angle is weak? This is about the impact of tech, on privacy, surveillance, and society.
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.
If the tech angle is so weak, why is YC invested in the company?
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.
This is actually one of the more limited and benign risks of voluntarily installing a municipal/private panopticon system owned by a corporation.
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.
I don't see a connection to Flock specifically in this lovers' spat. If it wasn't Flock it would be any number of other things. This is a literally-who-cares incident that is being built up into something it isn't.
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.
Its a good example of those who say "surveillance systems can and will be used inappropriately" - a jilted lover cop with access is exactly the kind of irrational person who could do so.
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.
The world is full of and depends on trusted people. You're attacking technology and tools rather than a person that abused their trust to the community.
New Bedford being a dump is a non-sequitur; it has as much connection and relevance to the incident as does Flock.
I am not attacking tools or people. This article and my statements aren't attacks. The article is an (alleged) fact, and mine are opinions.
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.
I'm using it as a literary device and I think you're reading my post too literally.
If we assume surveillance tools will be use inappropriately, that alone is not justification to do away with it.
As with nearly all tools comes great responsibility.
The same argument can be made for police carrying weapons.
Some places like the UK deny the police weapons but have surveillance up the ass.
There’s a difference between the abuse potential of ‘a car’ and ‘a nationwide surveillance network that tracks your location any time you’re on a public road’
If she used a GPS tracker instead of an ALPR as alleged, would you be demanding they be outlawed?
As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.
If you do this as an individual, this could get you anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony in some states. If you're a cop and do it, it counts as a 4th amendment search.
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.
No need to outlaw the device.
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.
I think even the most ardent supporter of CCTV or Flock or whatever would agree that misuse should be treated harshly. Zero difference between Flock and any number of investigative powers afforded to the government, many without a warrant. Misuse by an officer should be very heavily punished.
I would question why individual police officers would be able to plant pucks administered by the agency and track using (a combination of third-party and) agency infrastructure at will without oversight and properly reviewed papertrail.
Nobody's calling for outright banning of cameras. It's about the way these and their feeds are being deployed, integrated and utilized.
If all people had to have gps trackers installed on their cars and that data was easily accessible to cops, yeah I would demand they be outlawed.
A more relevant question is why does some knuckle dragging street pig have access to surveillance tech? This should be regulated exactly the same as wiretapping--specific reasons, specific cases, specific authorization, etc. It should not have been possible for this piece of shit to access the system at all.