4 ms·

Pump the brakes on your police’s use of Flock (YC17)’s mass surveillance

93 points by mhb 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago
Good for the ACLU. Not so good that they are so desperate for donations that it's beginning to turn me off. Full screen modal on page load? Really?
AdamN 3y ago
Times like these that I appreciate living in Germany with Datenschutz! It's rather surprising to me that at least some of the US states aren't more data protection–oriented on this stuff.
- aqme28 3y ago
  I completely agree, but a lot of people in the US reflexively take a very negative stance on tech regulations. Look at discussion even here on HN about tech regulations like GDPR and proposed AI rules.
- mLuby 3y ago
  It's because the US only has two parties, and both parties have priorities that override privacy concerns: pro-police and anti-regulation on the one hand; pro-tech and pro-federal govt on the other.
uoaei 3y ago
The company in question: https://www.flocksafety.com/ https://www.flocksafety.com/
galoisscobi 3y ago
Flock safety might be the most ethically questionable Y Combinator start up.
2023throwawayy 3y ago
> Since 2017, our technology has played a critical role in making communities safer. >70% reported reduction in crime I’m sorry, but this has to be pure fabrication. There is just no way it’s even remotely plausible that this privacy invading startup affected crime to such a degree.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  I would be willing to bet that the statistic is actually: In 70% of communities with flock installed, there has, at some point, been a lower crime rate than at the time of installation. Either way, it's either BS, or pure non-causitive correlation. Their technology is something that can only help solve crimes, not prevent it.
  - hattmall 3y ago
    Solving crimes is huge part of prevention though. Most crime is done by all very small set of criminals. The sooner you can catch some of those people the more crime is prevented.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      Gon need some citations there boss. Most studies I've seen of this show no or only a very weak link between enforcement and crime rates. There are a ton of confounding variables & broader trends and it's very difficult to make confident assertions about it. It is mostly only the police and police affiliates who release "studies" that strongly correlate these. What you're saying makes intuitive sense but it turns out people are not for the most part destined for criminality or not. It's a social phenomenon that responds to social pressures and incentives. If you arrest all the criminals in an area, the pressures that created them will create a new batch of criminals, in fact are already creating them.
      - 3y ago
BWStearns 3y ago
4th-Amendment-Violations-as-a-Service doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. I guess the money is probably good though.
TehCorwiz 3y ago
Why is it illegal for a the police to use dragnet surveillance but it's ok for a private company to provide dragnet surveillance and then for the police to just buy it? Isn't the just obscuring the origin of the data for the same effect? If you obscure your finances through the same kind of redirection we often consider that fraud. Why is this not fraud?
- morkalork 3y ago
  Surveillance laundering.
- wcarron 3y ago
  Because the government doesn't care whatsoever about the 4th amendment except when it applies to gov't representatives and their puppeteers.
CoastalCoder 3y ago
If Flock is providing a service to the police, does blocking / destroying their cameras count (legally) as obstructing the police? More generally, I'm curious if this paradox exists: - Flock get the legal benefits of helping the police, but - The police get the legal benefits of Flock not being part of the police.
- TheJoeMan 3y ago
  I’m imagining taping a laser pointer to shine into the camera. Can’t count as obstruction of justice?
LocalH 3y ago
The surveillance state is nearly upon us. I, for one, don't welcome our new overlords.
bleep_bloop 3y ago
This is just the CCP system, but privatised (worse). Law enforcement won't be happy until every last one of us is under 24h surveillance at all times.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
If you're interested in submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to determine if your local jurisdiction is contracting with Flock Safety, examples of previous requests can be found at https://www.muckrock.com/search/?q=flock+safety https://www.muckrock.com/search/?q=flock+safety | https://www.muckrock.com/search/?page=1&per_page=100&q=flock https://www.muckrock.com/search/?page=1&per_page=100&q=flock If you craft a superior template for making such a request, please reply to this comment with it so others may scale it up. Muckrock also supports crowdfunding campaigns for performing these requests at scale. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/nov/02/crowdfund-guide/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/nov/02/crowdfund...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

93 points by mhb 3y ago

Good for the ACLU. Not so good that they are so desperate for donations that it's beginning to turn me off. Full screen modal on page load? Really?

AdamN 3y ago

Times like these that I appreciate living in Germany with Datenschutz! It's rather surprising to me that at least some of the US states aren't more data protection–oriented on this stuff.

aqme28 3y ago
I completely agree, but a lot of people in the US reflexively take a very negative stance on tech regulations. Look at discussion even here on HN about tech regulations like GDPR and proposed AI rules.
mLuby 3y ago
It's because the US only has two parties, and both parties have priorities that override privacy concerns: pro-police and anti-regulation on the one hand; pro-tech and pro-federal govt on the other.

uoaei 3y ago

The company in question: https://www.flocksafety.com/ https://www.flocksafety.com/

galoisscobi 3y ago

Flock safety might be the most ethically questionable Y Combinator start up.

2023throwawayy 3y ago

> Since 2017, our technology has played a critical role in making communities safer. >70% reported reduction in crime I’m sorry, but this has to be pure fabrication. There is just no way it’s even remotely plausible that this privacy invading startup affected crime to such a degree.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dghlsakjg 3y ago
I would be willing to bet that the statistic is actually: In 70% of communities with flock installed, there has, at some point, been a lower crime rate than at the time of installation. Either way, it's either BS, or pure non-causitive correlation. Their technology is something that can only help solve crimes, not prevent it.
- hattmall 3y ago
  Solving crimes is huge part of prevention though. Most crime is done by all very small set of criminals. The sooner you can catch some of those people the more crime is prevented.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    Gon need some citations there boss. Most studies I've seen of this show no or only a very weak link between enforcement and crime rates. There are a ton of confounding variables & broader trends and it's very difficult to make confident assertions about it. It is mostly only the police and police affiliates who release "studies" that strongly correlate these. What you're saying makes intuitive sense but it turns out people are not for the most part destined for criminality or not. It's a social phenomenon that responds to social pressures and incentives. If you arrest all the criminals in an area, the pressures that created them will create a new batch of criminals, in fact are already creating them.
    - 3y ago

BWStearns 3y ago

4th-Amendment-Violations-as-a-Service doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. I guess the money is probably good though.

TehCorwiz 3y ago

Why is it illegal for a the police to use dragnet surveillance but it's ok for a private company to provide dragnet surveillance and then for the police to just buy it? Isn't the just obscuring the origin of the data for the same effect? If you obscure your finances through the same kind of redirection we often consider that fraud. Why is this not fraud?

morkalork 3y ago
Surveillance laundering.
wcarron 3y ago
Because the government doesn't care whatsoever about the 4th amendment except when it applies to gov't representatives and their puppeteers.

CoastalCoder 3y ago

If Flock is providing a service to the police, does blocking / destroying their cameras count (legally) as obstructing the police? More generally, I'm curious if this paradox exists: - Flock get the legal benefits of helping the police, but - The police get the legal benefits of Flock not being part of the police.

TheJoeMan 3y ago
I’m imagining taping a laser pointer to shine into the camera. Can’t count as obstruction of justice?

LocalH 3y ago

The surveillance state is nearly upon us. I, for one, don't welcome our new overlords.

bleep_bloop 3y ago

This is just the CCP system, but privatised (worse). Law enforcement won't be happy until every last one of us is under 24h surveillance at all times.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

If you're interested in submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to determine if your local jurisdiction is contracting with Flock Safety, examples of previous requests can be found at https://www.muckrock.com/search/?q=flock+safety https://www.muckrock.com/search/?q=flock+safety | https://www.muckrock.com/search/?page=1&per_page=100&q=flock https://www.muckrock.com/search/?page=1&per_page=100&q=flock If you craft a superior template for making such a request, please reply to this comment with it so others may scale it up. Muckrock also supports crowdfunding campaigns for performing these requests at scale. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/nov/02/crowdfund-guide/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/nov/02/crowdfund...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]