> One key feature of Flock is its national lookup tool.
> Axon, simply, does not have a national network. Meaning that it would not be possible for cops in one jurisdiction to search cameras across the country.
> Police departments using Axon can enter into data sharing agreements with each other, though.
> Denver, just like the City of Ferndale, explicitly mentioned this lack of this national network as part of its decision to ditch Flock for Axon.
This (probably alongside all the bad press Flock has gotten) appears to be the crux of the switching. Ultimately, the tech actually being deployed seems similar.
Also interesting:
> One reason why journalists, activists, and residents have been able to learn so much about what police use Flock for is that the company has built auditing tools that the public can access through records requests.
This is a step in the right direction. Everyone hates public surveillance until they become the victim of a crime, but it's critical that the surveillance is owned and controlled fully on an appropriate level.
You should fully own and control your home security cameras. Right now many homeowners are shipping their data to national datacenters.
Municipalities should fully own and control their public security cameras, on municipal datacenter resources.
Data sharing / federation should always be intentional and time-bound. It should be impossible for a small town cop to unilaterally access security records from a random city he has no jurisdiction in.
If they can get the data to their server to store it, they could just as easily not do that and instead serve it from your local device by proxy through their server.
It’s t he exact same difficulty as what they are already doing. Arguably easier since you don’t have to manage file storage in the cloud.
Do you think they use magic to stream live video with today’s implementation? It already works. We stream HD video out of our homes all day every day.
If the devices can stream live video, and they all can, then they can stream stored video.
As to why they would do that? Online storage costs money. Some users are not comfortable having their videos stored with Amazon. Plenty of good reasons.
This isn’t some lunatic idea, local storage is literally how ALL security cameras used to work, and there are products that do exactly this. They have good reviews too.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
wxw · · focus · HN ↗
> Axon, simply, does not have a national network. Meaning that it would not be possible for cops in one jurisdiction to search cameras across the country. > Police departments using Axon can enter into data sharing agreements with each other, though.
> Denver, just like the City of Ferndale, explicitly mentioned this lack of this national network as part of its decision to ditch Flock for Axon.
This (probably alongside all the bad press Flock has gotten) appears to be the crux of the switching. Ultimately, the tech actually being deployed seems similar.
Also interesting:
> One reason why journalists, activists, and residents have been able to learn so much about what police use Flock for is that the company has built auditing tools that the public can access through records requests.
pphysch · · focus · HN ↗
You should fully own and control your home security cameras. Right now many homeowners are shipping their data to national datacenters.
Municipalities should fully own and control their public security cameras, on municipal datacenter resources.
Data sharing / federation should always be intentional and time-bound. It should be impossible for a small town cop to unilaterally access security records from a random city he has no jurisdiction in.
gilthelander · · focus · HN ↗
In practice it's difficult to do and offer remote access.
asteroidburger · · focus · HN ↗
nullsanity · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
dghlsakjg · · focus · HN ↗
If they can get the data to their server to store it, they could just as easily not do that and instead serve it from your local device by proxy through their server.
It’s t he exact same difficulty as what they are already doing. Arguably easier since you don’t have to manage file storage in the cloud.
gilthelander · · focus · HN ↗
dghlsakjg · · focus · HN ↗
If the devices can stream live video, and they all can, then they can stream stored video.
As to why they would do that? Online storage costs money. Some users are not comfortable having their videos stored with Amazon. Plenty of good reasons.
This isn’t some lunatic idea, local storage is literally how ALL security cameras used to work, and there are products that do exactly this. They have good reviews too.
tomhow · · focus · HN ↗
If you wouldn't mind reviewing <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.