Thread

1. hypfer · 1791066044 · focus · HN ↗

   > The deputy then used the woman’s travel history in Flock as part of the justification for searching her car, where he allegedly discovered 91 pounds of meth.

   That sentence does make this less of a win tbh, given that with it, it's just an actual example of the technology doing the job it is supposed to do.

   Like this, it's almost a trojan horse of something pretending to be PR for A, but actually being effective PR for B.

   1. ACCount39 · 1791068842 · focus · HN ↗

      A major issue with surveillance tech like this is that it actually works.

      It does what it's advertised to do: it lets the police track and catch criminals easier.

      This is especially meaningful in cases of crimes where either the information availability or the effort of tracking the criminal down often make enforcement prohibitive.

      If Flock had better PR people, they'd have no shortage of shoplifters, joyriders, car window smashers, porch poachers, carjackers and drug mules that were caught using their tech to parade around.

      It's just that this benefit comes at the cost of privacy being diminished for everyone.

      1. sneak · 1791071205 · focus · HN ↗

         It also lets the police stalk and harass people much easier, without consequences because laws don’t apply to any police in practice.

         1. ACCount39 · 1791072017 · focus · HN ↗

            The police is on the receiving end of surveillance too: body cams are increasingly expected and increasingly mandated. It's harder to get away with "stalking and harassing people" when you have a camera strapped to you, and any sufficiently pointed inquiry would result in footage getting looked at.

            1. newspaper1 · 1791072816 · focus · HN ↗

               More often than not the police just turn those off or they "malfunction". Even the prison cameras "malfunctioned" when Jeffery Epstein "killed himself".

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.