‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

S.F. Democratic Party stands behind Flock surveillance cameras in vote

38 points · 33 comments · mikhael

  1. culi · · focus · HN ↗
    > Both sides acknowledged that the city’s Flock camera data was illegally accessed more than 1.6 million times in 2024 and 2025, with lots of those searches reaching out-of-state agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And, more recently the San Francisco Police Department admitted around 300 out-of-state illegal searches had happened in the last year.

    If the abolition movement wants progress we should start throwing white collar criminals that allow this to happen in prison. See how quickly those with power will start considering transformative/restorative justice alternatives

    We already have laws making a lot of what Flock does illegal. We just don't enforce them

    1. jsbisviewtiful · · focus · HN ↗
      > in prison.

      Personally I think people should start taking them personally to court via class action lawsuits. Prison would be a bonus, but crushing them financially would be the most effective.

      1. mcphage · · focus · HN ↗
        Both? Both is good.
    2. cyanydeez · · focus · HN ↗
      I don't think we need to throw people in prison.

      What we do need is the death penalty to corporations. Reap them, take their cash and tell shareholders to do their due diligence when investing in criminal activities.

      Why we keep protecting corporations just because there's a piece of paper that claims to do XYZ is such a bizarre world.

      1. CamperBob2 · · focus · HN ↗
        How will a corporate death penalty address illegal behavior by police?
        1. cyanydeez · · focus · HN ↗
          They have charters just the same.
    3. 7e · · focus · HN ↗
      There’s an argument that a private citizen operating a Flock-like device is exercising a constitutionally protected right to gather news and observe public events, and sharing those observations is constitutionally protected free speech. And, unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment is worded to restrict government invasion of privacy, not citizen invasion of privacy.

      I expect the Supreme Court to eventually rule on the constitutionality of mass surveillance of public places, at least by the government. Maybe also by random citizens.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.