Federal judge calls Flock 'indiscriminate mass surveillance'
Thread
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
Federal judge calls Flock 'indiscriminate mass surveillance'
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
JKCalhoun · · focus · HN ↗
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).
kennywinker · · focus · HN ↗
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
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
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.)
porkshoe · · focus · HN ↗
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)
PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
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.
slowin · · focus · HN ↗
Investing in the community and public services?
PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
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.
slowin · · focus · HN ↗
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.
PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
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)