‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Federal judge calls Flock 'indiscriminate mass surveillance'

483 points · 267 comments · sbulaev

  1. JKCalhoun · · focus · HN ↗
    License plate reader?

    So the device should require very specific license plates to scan for—not the current dragnet. The software should only "ping" when there is a confident match with said license plate(s)—and merely log which license plate, time stamp a single photo, and note the confidence level of it being a match.

    The frame buffer should be the only place (a frame of) video is ever stored at all (excepting the high-confidence match indicated above).

    The only issue remaining would be whether we trust the device/software to have complied (and not have a backdoor) and of course there needs to be a legal warrant for every license plate uploaded (and it should expire fairly frequently, likely requiring a new warrant to continue canning for the plate).

    1. kennywinker · · focus · HN ↗
      That is a technical solution to a problem that has a far cheaper, and less easily abused solution: don't put up cameras at all.

      Building a system with "safeguards" in place that require constant oversight is destined for either regulatory capture of the oversight, or slow dismantling of the oversight.

      E.g. warrants -> fisa court warrants -> Xkeyscore

      1. JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
        > don't put up cameras at all

        There seems to be a real reduction in property crime in some places with cameras. I don’t think it’s realistic to take these down everywhere. (I was in the camp that they should go down everywhere. I’ve relaxed that position recently.)

        1. HPsquared · · focus · HN ↗
          I wonder if that just displaces the crime to a different area, though. Depends on how organised the perps are. Although complete coverage would probably reduce it.
        2. porkshoe · · focus · HN ↗
          You're conflating "any camera" with cameras that are attached to a centralized data aggregation system.

          Do you have any evidence that the massive centralized aggregation has had a real reduction in crime versus cameras that are locally controlled?

          or are you just spewing poorly thought out horseshit in defense of the destruction of our liberty?

          (though even this is through the borderline insane, and staunchly anti-american lens that a reduction in property crime definitively warrants the destruction of privacy and liberty)

          1. PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
            >but real Americans are not like you. Real Americans value liberty

            Liberty also means living in an area free of crime, not in constant fear of it. What exactly is the better solution to handling areas plagued by high crime rates? If cameras in those public areas now means those residents living there can walk safely in public without fear of getting robbed or mugged, then good for them, it's a positive development.

            Also, the part where you added what "real Americans" value, reads like a satire skit on SNL. I was expecting you'd add V8 big-blocks, AR-15s and grilled steaks halfway through reading it.

            1. slowin · · focus · HN ↗
              > What exactly is the better solution to handling areas plagued by high crime rates?

              Investing in the community and public services?

              1. PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
                How will that deter someone wanting to break into your house or trying to rob you?

                Do you turn around before they attack you and go "hey, good news, the city allocated some more funds to public services, no need to stab me" and the perp goes "ah shieet, thanks for the good news bro, let's hug and sing kumbaya"?

                No matter how much money you throw at public services, criminals will still exist because bad people exist regardless of public services, otherwise you wouldn't need any law enforcement to exist if that was the solution.

                And money for social services isn't infinite, you can't buy your way out of crime, if you live in a poor low income are that lacks money. What then? SHould they tolerate lawlessness and rampant crime without strong law enforcement?

                And crime and lack of funds are often self reinforcing in a negative feedback loop. Nobody will come and open jobs and businesses in your area to pay the taxes your welfare system needs, if there's high crime without law enforcement and surveillance systems to catch or deter criminals that rob businesses.

                1. kennywinker · · focus · HN ↗
                  No, instead i turn around and say “there’s a flock camera on the street and a ring doorbell, i am surveilled wherever i go! No need to stab me!”

                  We’ve tried increasing surveillance and policing, it does not prevent people from being robbed and stabbed. Could we try funding social services now? We’ve never really done that.

                  1. PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
                    >No, instead i turn around and say “there’s a flock camera on the street and a ring doorbell, i am surveilled wherever i go! No need to stab me!”

                    The presence of cameras means a higher chance the perp will get identified and caught and locked up unable to harm another person. Scale these incarcerations up over time and streets can become free of crime again. No cameras, and that person can keep doing crime over and over unless there's witnesses all the time to identify him every time, which is a lot less likely.

                    >We’ve tried increasing surveillance and policing, it does not prevent people from being robbed and stabbed

                    Yeah, because soft-on-crime judges let out repeat offenders. That's how you see people who've been arrested 14 times still committing crimes in public, instead of being locked up in jail away from civilized society where they can't hurt anyone anymore. Policing means nothing if the legal system is fucked and just practices catch-and-release.

                    >Could we try funding social services now? We’ve never really done that.

                    Parts of Europe has some of the best most funded social services in the world, and crime is only increasing. When do we admit that some people are just bad people, and we can't pay infinity taxes as an extortion racket, to prevent the bottom worst 2% of society from harming us, just because we refuse to lock them up out of misplaced empathy.

                    And the fact is that you need both the carrot and the stick, you need functioning services AND a strict law enforcement. Having a welfare state without any deterrent against crime means you'll get people gladly exploiting both systems for personal gain, just because they can.

                    1. cindyllm · · focus · HN ↗

                      [dead]

                    2. kennywinker · · focus · HN ↗
                      > and we can't pay infinity taxes as an extortion racket, to prevent the bottom worst 2% of society from harming us, just because we refuse to lock them up out of misplaced empathy.

                      Instead let’s pay infinity taxes locking everyone up!

                      You won’t find me disagreeing there are some people who are going to commit crime no matter what - i will argue its a lot less than 2%, but whatever let’s go with 2%. What I arguing about is treating the other 98% of people like criminals in need of constant watching, rather than giving them the tools they need to succeed.

                      > The presence of cameras means a higher chance the perp will get identified and caught and locked up unable to harm another person

                      Defeated by a $0.15 surgical mask and some mud on the license plate. Meanwhile the gov corruption crime rate spikes because no whistleblower can speak to a journalist without being tracked.

                      1. PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
                        >Instead let’s pay infinity taxes locking everyone up!

                        I don't want people locked up, I want them caned like Singapore does. Much cheaper and more effective deterrent against repat offenders.

                        But if you insist on perps not being locked up, then I hope they all get released from jails ... straight into your neighborhood so you can taste your own medicine for once. You'd sing a different tune if you actually lived in a high crime area instead of a safe community, and crime was only something you read about in the media.

                        >What I arguing about is treating the other 98% of people like criminals in need of constant watching

                        All supermarkets, stores and shopping centers have surveillance cameras everywhere even if most shoppers are not criminals, because it works at deterring crime and catching criminals. Without those cameras, shoplifting would be even more rampant because many criminals are opportunistic, they're not serial criminals, they just see there's an opportunity to make an easy score since nobody is watching and there's no consequences if caught, so then why no do it? Add cameras and police and you at least eliminate all the low hanging fruit opportunists.

                        > rather than giving them the tools they need to succeed

                        That's based on the flawed blank slate theory that assumes everyone is equal in abilities and can achieve to be the next Albert Einstein if only you give them enough of your (other peoples') resources. Which couldn't be more false. Everyone who went to a public schools knows this because they saw it with their own eyes.

                        Some people are smart, some people are stupid, some are strong, some are weak, some are hard working, some are lazy, some are anxious, some are confident, some are well behaved, some are prone to violence, etc, take two people and they will achieve different results in life even if they get the exact same tools and opportunities, because people are not equal. People are mostly capped in life by their spawn-RNG and no amount of resources spending on them will change this.

                        I had a mate in highschool who would post pics of himself on Facebook with baggies of drugs, and start fights including with police officers. These people aren't going to college, they're going to jail, no matter what you do. They're too stupid even for a life of crime, let alone an employer finding them useful given the high labor costs in the west. 200+ years ago these people had a place in society because you'd give them a spear and tell them to vent their anger by charging at the enemy tribe, but in today's western economy of mostly skilled jobs and automation, there's no place for stupid people with no impulse control, so you either pay them welfare to stay at home smoke weed and play CoD to not bother anyone, or you pay for their jail time.

                        1. kennywinker · · focus · HN ↗
                          Ok bud.
                2. slowin · · focus · HN ↗
                  > How will that deter someone wanting to break into your house or trying to rob you?

                  This isn't something I worry about but, a dog? Maybe a gun? Certainly calling the police isn't going to stop a crime in action.

                  Incarcerating people has a net negative effect on society and does little to "scare" people into not committing crimes. It's also extremely costly, taking money that can actually improve society in general and lower crime rates by improving education, social services and public infrastructure.

                  1. PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
                    >Incarcerating people has a net negative effect on society

                    As long as you are willing to accept ownership and direct consequences for your ultra liberal political beliefs, and have them geofenced to you, then it's fine by me. Empty the jails, all of them, but strictly into your neighborhood where your family members and kids live, work and study. Then we can talk.

                    Because since I live in a low income area, the consequences of your policies are always dumped on my doorstep, so it's easy for you to virtue signal and want criminals out on the street, when someone else has to deal with the consequences of your choices.

                    >money that can actually improve society in general and lower crime rates by improving education, social services and public infrastructure

                    How much education does one need to know you shouldn't punch a cop to end up in jail, and how much more money in education will teach you that?

                    Look how much Californiania spent on that and look at the results. Robbing people of more taxes and throwing it on bullshit doesn't fix issues that are societal at root (low impulse control, fatherless families, etc)

            2. 1shooner · · focus · HN ↗
              >Liberty also means living in an area free of crime

              I don't think this is a consensus definition of liberty.

              Merriam Webster via Wikipedia: "Liberty is the state of being free within society from restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

            3. mmooss · · focus · HN ↗
              > Liberty also means living in an area free of crime

              That is not in the definition of liberty. It's unfortunately common double-speak used by the enemies of liberty in order to justify reducing it. So is saying, 'I should be free of things that offend or alarm me, such as (group of people who are different)'. Liberty is not 'free of' things; it's self-determination, freedom to think and say and do as you choose.

              Freedom and safety are often offset, as a trade-off. The over-used quote, 'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety' portrays them as a trade-off.

          2. socializer · · focus · HN ↗
            > You're conflating "any camera" with cameras that are attached to a centralized data aggregation system.

            It's an increasingly meaningless distinction: most consumer cameras now upload to the cloud and people like it. View from anywhere, AI magic, connect to cloud-based home automation, etc.

            1. qmr · · focus · HN ↗
              I've spent a lot of time pondering a startup built around local storage security cameras with OPTIONAL encrypted offsite storage.

              I wonder if there is a market for this.

              All my shit is local with local AI.

        3. popalchemist · · focus · HN ↗

          [dead]

        4. Dig1t · · focus · HN ↗
          >We're going to have supervision. Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there's a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on.

          -Larry Ellison

          This has been the plan of the oligarchs for a while.

          Property crime skyrocketed during COVID largely because of intentional decisions around policing. We can easily police property crime without ubiquitous surveillance.

          Most Americans know that a small reduction in property crime is not worth trading for constant surveillance by private corporations and the entire government.

          1. fugalfervor · · focus · HN ↗
            > Property crime skyrocketed during COVID largely because of intentional decisions around policing

            How are you sure it wasn't due to a spike in unemployment when a lot of people had to stay home from work?

        5. kennywinker · · focus · HN ↗
          We found that by putting all humans in cages with no ability to contact eachother or interact with the outside world crime fell to almost zero.
          1. warkdarrior · · focus · HN ↗
            Not a bad idea. Just launched a company around that concept, with a full range of cage options. I bet ICE will subcontract to us.
            1. SauciestGNU · · focus · HN ↗
              Geo Group and CoreCivic seem to already have a decent moat in that sector. How will you differentiate your offerings?
              1. hn_go_brrrrr · · focus · HN ↗
                By putting them in cages. Pretty difficult to offer a competing product if you're in a cage.
            2. marcosdumay · · focus · HN ↗
              Does the tower where Gandalf is kept in Lord of the Rings have a name? Is the .com still available?
              1. kennywinker · · focus · HN ↗
                Orthanc, but maybe we just go with “frodo but evil” <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theonion.com&#x2F;creatively-tapped-out-peter-thiel-launches-startup-called-frodo-but-evil&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theonion.com&#x2F;creatively-tapped-out-peter-thiel-launc...
          2. AlienRobot · · focus · HN ↗
            Another great innovation was implanting chips in people&#x27;s brains that send everything they see, hear, say, and think to the nearest police station. That sure helped reduce crime at the low, low cost of an obsolete concept called privacy.
        6. qmr · · focus · HN ↗
          Cameras are great. Especially with diverse ownership.

          Police can walk about, ask or order (warrant) for footage.

          A network of AI powered cameras linked to the hive mind controlled by real life super mega evil corp inc run by real life super villains... not so great.

          Also the 4th amendment is a thing. Mosaic theory is a thing.

          Enough of these flocking cameras.

          1. SauciestGNU · · focus · HN ↗
            I don&#x27;t think that police should be allowed to ask camera owners to voluntarily hand over footage, even if they would be willing to. That just allows them to privatize the mechanism of surveillance, similar to using data brokers to get around warrant requirements. Instead, I think that even where camera owners would willingly hand over footage, the state should still be required to obtain a warrant for said footage in order to preserve legal safeguards around evidence collection.
            1. bradknowles · · focus · HN ↗
              I’m okay with them asking private citizens. I own my own cameras, and that video lives on my own NVRs, and all of that is 100% on my own property. And I get to choose if I want to share that with them, presumably to help solve a crime that has affected one of my neighbors. But they need to come ask me and talk to me in person.

              I’m not okay with them using the third-party doctrine and going to a company like Amazon and having them do a dragnet for them.

              And I’m really not okay with having a company like Flock make all that information publicly available to any bozo with a friend at a law enforcement organization who wants to make a little money on the side.

              1. kennywinker · · focus · HN ↗
                &gt; And I get to choose if I want to share that with them

                Are you sure about that?

                Not sure where you are what laws specifically apply, but I believe you could be compelled to hand over footage, and jailed for obstruction or destruction of evidence if you didn’t.

                Just a thought - you may have less control than you think.

                1. jacobolus · · focus · HN ↗
                  &gt; you could be compelled to hand over footage

                  If they need to get a court order signed by a judge to recover material that is directly relevant to a legally justified criminal investigation, then there&#x27;s significantly less scope for abuse than what cops are doing with the flock mass surveillance system, where some have literally written &quot;LMAO&quot; in the form field describing the reason for their search, and where they&#x27;ve been using the searches to stalk citizens who are not suspected of any crime.

                  1. kennywinker · · focus · HN ↗
                    Oh absolutely. Non-cloud cameras are far less prone to abuse. But to say you control the footage isn’t entirely true. For instance, if the government wanted to build a case against you for something you’ve done they didn&#x27;t like…
              2. SauciestGNU · · focus · HN ↗
                This is the current status quo and has been generally reasonable in the past, but with dragnet surveillance becoming the norm I would vastly prefer that a judge review and authorize any police interest in my footage. I don&#x27;t think we can trust that the state is being forthright about their reasons for wanting the footage or that the investigation for which the footage requested is legitimate, and the state has extreme latitude to lie to people in order to further its interests.
                1. voakbasda · · focus · HN ↗
                  The problem is that you cannot trust the judges either. Most are former prosecutors, so they have a natural predisposition to believe all of the lies coming out of the mouths of the police. At the point, I view the government as a bonafide terrorist organization.
              3. conception · · focus · HN ↗
                There’s definitely no way a group of police officers could… encourage you to hand over your video over a period of time.
              4. psjs · · focus · HN ↗
                Do your camera’s film anything outside your property?
            2. sershe · · focus · HN ↗
              Why not? If I see a crime being committed, should I be allowed to report it to police without a warrant? There&#x27;s no difference with my private camera, it&#x27;s even better cause the barrier for false&#x2F;mistaken reporting is higher.
              1. ndsipa_pomu · · focus · HN ↗
                You shouldn&#x27;t need a warrant to report a crime being committed, but you should need a warrant if you&#x27;re specifically looking through a neighbour&#x27;s window waiting for them to commit a crime.
                1. sershe · · focus · HN ↗
                  What if I&#x27;m sitting on my porch and waiting for the crime to be committed?

                  Private doorbell cameras (and most flock cameras for that matter) point at mostly, or entirely, public space. Or in case of the former also my own property.

                  Frankly if I sit on my porch and see thru the window across that my neighbor is beating his wife, should I need a warrant to report it? That sounds ludicrous to me.

                  1. qmr · · focus · HN ↗
                    Exigent circumstances.
          2. sippingabonedry · · focus · HN ↗

            [dead]

            1. cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
              There are a lot of evil authoritarians who are pissed that Flock is gonna rack up some bad precedents before they&#x27;ve had a chance to implement some 1984 type system where some guy winds up losing his house because he drove drunk for 100ft to get his car where it wouldn&#x27;t be towed for street cleaning or threw a broken TV in a ditch or some other crime that&#x27;s really not all that bad in the grand scheme of things but deeply offends people of a certain social class and ideological bent.

              And there&#x27;s another whole bunch of petty authoritarians who have grand plans to fine the shit out of everyone they see leaving Home Depot with a water heater and no open building permit. They&#x27;re also just as pissed off this might get reigned in before they&#x27;ve got their chance to put the population under their jackboot.

              1. JuniperMesos · · focus · HN ↗
                Throwing a broken TV in a ditch is actually pretty bad, because it results in ditches that are full of broken TVs and other trash people throw in there once the precedent that the ditch is a de-facto trash dump is established. Driving drunk for 100 feet is also taking a risk with your car and someone else&#x27;s life or property. I don&#x27;t think that laws against driving drunk are bad, I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s bad to harshly enforce them on people in order to make people scared of doing it, and it doesn&#x27;t bother me that there&#x27;s no exception for doing something that is only a little bit of driving.
            2. ToucanLoucan · · focus · HN ↗
              I for one do not currently nor will ever work for a company that is actively undermining the rule of law. I of course can&#x27;t speak for everyone but I assure you, I am not one iota jealous.
            3. JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
              &gt; jealousy of their success by people who wish they thought of it first

              This is so silly. There is a well-worn arc of privacy advocacy on this forum. That’s the parsimonious explanation.

              1. sippingabonedry · · focus · HN ↗
                That arc always ends in a pot of gold.
            4. qmr · · focus · HN ↗
              I&#x27;m ranting on and on about the 4th amendment and right to privacy and your conclusion is I wish I didn&#x27;t contribute to the surveillance state first?

              Really!

        7. goolz · · focus · HN ↗
          Key word: some. Look at London. We should not be giving up our liberties to corporations that would sell their soul for profit just so we can prevent property crime.
        8. qurren · · focus · HN ↗
          I can&#x27;t speak for everyone, but I&#x27;ve lived in countries where there are cameras everywhere, e.g. Singapore, China, where crime is almost zero compared to the US, and it is incredibly safe to be anywhere at almost any hour. Actual criminals are usually caught and apprehended very quickly. That part feels nice, that it is vanishingly unlikely to get mugged just for going out to get food at 2am.

          What can make them suck is authorities abusing them to do enforce arbitrary, unpredictable ideals that are not part of the law, incompetent authorities targeting non-criminals and peaceful protesters, or traumatizing the wrong person because of an incorrect AI face match.

          1. kennywinker · · focus · HN ↗
            &gt; What can make them suck is authorities abusing them to do enforce arbitrary, unpredictable ideals that are not part of the law,

            That’s crime. Doesn’t make it into the stats tho

            1. cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
              No, it&#x27;s not a crime. In the US civil&#x2F;administrative enforcement authorities are given insane authority under the law and &quot;haha, spend $10k on lawyering to exhaust our kangaroo court and then spend another 20 to sue us in big boy court&quot; is your recourse. Your 4th through 8th amendment rights basically don&#x27;t exist if the subject is one of fines and fees and bureaucrats and not one of gun toting, door kicking cops trying to put you in a cage. And this is the US. I can only imagine what it&#x27;s like in China.

              Read your municipal code (they&#x27;re fairly homogenous these days because of the feds and their stupid grants) if you don&#x27;t believe me.

              1. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

                [deleted]

              2. hazbot · · focus · HN ↗
                I think it&#x27;s fair to say the the parent comment&#x27;s usage of &#x27;crime&#x27; was likely in the informal sense, not in the legal technical sense.
          2. hnburnsy · · focus · HN ↗
            Is that because of the cameras or the punitive penalties or maybe both?
            1. tmnvix · · focus · HN ↗
              Or maybe some other cultural reason?
          3. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

          4. JKCalhoun · · focus · HN ↗
            Japan too—almost no crime. Cameras are not a thing there though. I suspect it&#x27;s more cultural then technological.
        9. nik282000 · · focus · HN ↗
          &gt; There seems to be a real reduction in property crime in some places with cameras. I don’t think it’s realistic to take these down everywhere.

          And the guy at the Honda dealer says I should buy a CRV.

        10. Cider9986 · · focus · HN ↗
          A warrant is better than no warrant, but:

          A warrant requirement is not a reasonable bandaid to consider allowing mass surveillance. There should be no mass surveillance, only targeted surveillance.

          A warrant requirement makes sense for something like the locations of customers on cellular networks, because, although it should be improved, it&#x27;s been built into the tech.

          When you make the optional choice to create mass surveillance, safeguards do not make it acceptable.

          Plenty of places have very low crime without mass surveillance.

        11. mmooss · · focus · HN ↗
          While I would take down the cameras, I don&#x27;t think the public will be sold on it. They do see security benefits. And wait until some legitimately horrible crime happens and someone says, &#x27;if we had the cameras, we would have caught the criminal&#x27;.

          Also, there are too many other cameras for a Flock ban to be consequential: privately owned cameras, law enforcement and other drones, etc.

          The solution is good data hygiene (minimization, encryption, etc.) and a warrant requirement. Also, any cameras recording public space should be required to obscure, at the point of capture (before storage or transmission) all identifiable information - people (full body), cars, their dogs, etc.

          1. JKCalhoun · · focus · HN ↗
            &quot;They do see security benefits.&quot;

            Or feel them.

            I would be convinced if, nightly, we saw on the news how video from a Flock camera was critical in apprehending the criminals involved in a car-jacking. Or anything.

            But I&#x27;ve not seen that at all.

            1. mmooss · · focus · HN ↗
              &gt; I would be convinced if, nightly, we saw on the news how video from a Flock camera was critical in apprehending the criminals involved in a car-jacking. Or anything.

              Interesting! What I read is that police are losing the skill of solving crimes without cameras and other digital information. Cameras identify suspects; tracking cars through a city - to or from the crime - is often how law enforcement finds them. (Any cameras, not just Flock.)

              Regardless of our varied experiences, I&#x27;m sure we agree that perception and not reality will guide public opinion. I think camera advoctes - including law enforcement - have easy emotional buttons to press. The disparagement of human rights generally greatly weakens the strongest argument against them.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.