6 ms·

> You're thinking Chinese surveillance > US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims — Garry Tan, Sept 03, 2025, YC CEO while defending Floc

> You're thinking Chinese surveillance > US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims — Garry Tan, Sept 03, 2025, YC CEO while defending Flock on X. https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955 https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955 I admire Garry but not sure why there can’t be a line that we all agree not to cross. No weapon has ever been made that was not used to harm humanity.

tptacek 1y ago
I spent several years doing a bunch of work in my local muni that drastically restricted, and eventually booted (I'm not happy about this; long story) Flock. I feel like my Flock bona fides are pretty strong. I understand people not being comfortable with Flock. I do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line. People disagree about this technology. I live in what I believe to be one of the 5 most progressive municipalities in the United States† and I can tell you from recent experience that our community is sharply divided on it. † (we're a small inner-ring suburb of Chicago; I'm "cheating" in that Chicago as a whole is not one of the most progressive cities in the country, but our 50k person muni is up there with Berkeley and represented by the oldest DSA member in Congress)
- squigz 1y ago
  Constantly surveilling your citizens without cause doesn't strike you as an obvious red line?
  - tptacek 1y ago
    No. Roughly half our community wanted to keep the cameras. And we're as blue/progressive as it gets. Whatever else it is, it isn't "a red line". That is not the same thing as me saying I think the cameras were a good tradeoff.
    - tehjoker 1y ago
      The wealthy people keep the poor down, then having this subpopulation that acts in messed up ways causes crime, which causes the wealthy to accept things like surveillance to "protect themselves" and continually cedes to more authoritarian policies. The middle class is the social base of fascism. The way out is to turn on the rich and produce a more economically equal society.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    People live in fear, and these things help police close cases quickly. I served on a jury where a young woman slipped on ice while crossing the street and was run over by a negligent driver who was fleeing what he thought was the police, because he was on probation and not supposed to drive. With private surveillance, red light cameras and some other sources, they were able to track down the vehicle and apprehend the individual within 45 minutes of the event. Prior to that, much more primitive version of that technology being available, there would no chance of that case being solved. Personally, I think this technology is dangerous, lacks effective governance, is operated without transparency, and is prone to abuse. Events of late highlight how different jurisdictional boundaries at the city, state and federal levels can be in conflict. But the technology is not going away -- imo it's time to govern it and limit the inter-jurisdictional data sharing.
  - nosianu 1y ago
    I'm deeply skeptical of surveillance and convinced it will be misused, more and more over time as all sides get used to it and the complaints become less, or less fundamental and more against something specific while not questioning the tech as such. Still, I'm torn whenever I walk to the city center (Bavarian big city that is not Munich) and see how many rental bikes and rental e-scooters can be found thrown into the river that runs through the city. Or public trash cans that were actually put deep into the earth, with concrete too, lie broken with lots of earth and the long metal pipe with concrete attached because some people spent considerable effort to destroy public infrastructure. Or somebody must have jumped hard and repeatably on a weak point of a public bench, which has very thick wood and thick steel screws, but they still managed to destroy it. I want those people to be found, I'm very angry. This is a frequent occurrence. If that means more surveillance, I would not oppose. I'm tired of seeing this happen again and again and again. The city had to start using trashcans that look more and more like little war bunkers. They can't do anything for the bikes and scooters though, making them too heavy to lift and throw into the water is obviously not possible. Police do patrol, but they can't be everywhere all the time. For illustration: Two bikes of a public bike rental service found in the river. They are not old, all of them are new, but this is how they look after a few days or weeks in the river: https://img.mittelbayerische.de/ezplatform/images/4/4/8/8/400738844-1-ger-DE/e8fb92d4885f-29-130209747.jpg https://img.mittelbayerische.de/ezplatform/images/4/4/8/8/40... Divers are called regularly to retrieve bikes, scooters, and other big items thrown into the city's river: https://images.nordbayern.de/image/contentid/policy:1.13218426:1683128716/image/e-arc-tmp-20230503_164036-7.jpg https://images.nordbayern.de/image/contentid/policy:1.132184...
    - catlikesshrimp 1y ago
      Surveillance in the end is a tool, like a gun, which can be used for good or bad. I doubt any more effort will be made against vandalism for a long time that reaquires to increase surveillance. The cameras and microphones will remain, though. Edit: I live in a dictatorship. State surveillance and policing has helped with vandalism. But the drawbacks are obvious and nefarious. I would take more vandalism in a mediocre democracy any day.
      - 1y ago
- MountDoom 1y ago
  I'm surprised you say that. To flip this on its head, what would be your principled argument to accept ambient surveillance? I don't doubt that license plate readers are used primarily to solve crimes. But the fact that it is collected and can be made available to anyone essentially strips you of privacy in everyday life. Cops are people too; once the tech is available, it is sometimes abused to spy on spouses, neighbors, journalists critical of the local PD, and so on. There is also a more general argument: an ever-growing range of human activities is surveilled to root out crime, and we can probably agree that the end state of that would be dystopian: it'd be a place where your every word or even every thought is proactively monitored and flagged for wrongthink. We're ways off, but with every decade, we're getting closer. I'm not saying that Flock-listening-to-conversations is the line we can't cross, but if not this, then what?
  - pixl97 1y ago
    Salami slicing tactics. The authoritarians will take a nibble at a time until we are all consumed.
- buran77 1y ago
  > I do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line. It's an invasive surveillance technology that contributes to building the pervasive surveillance day to day reality. You're muddying the waters asking "why are you against this" without even hinting at an argument why anyone should not be against this. You can already see the progression. What was sold as "only listens to gunshots" now no longer listens only to gunshots. The deal constantly gets altered.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    No I'm not. I actually do real political work on this issue, ran the commission process that restricted our cameras and created the only restrictive ALPR police General Orders in Chicagoland, and got us to pass an ACLU CCOPS ordinance --- the first municipality in Illinois to have one. Whatever else I am, I'm not "muddying the waters". I'm commenting in good faith from actual experience. You're going to find my bona fides here are pretty strong.
    - sapphicsnail 1y ago
      You could comment about why the things listed in the article aren't a red line.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        I've already done that.
        Brian_K_White 1y ago
        Please quote where. I don't see it. I will go further and assert no you didn't.
    - buran77 1y ago
      > I actually do real political work on this issue And Catholic priests preach. Some things aren't mutually exclusive and a lot of people are capable of holding conflicting ideas in their head. > I'm commenting in good faith from actual experience. All good but you didn't say anything. You muddy the water by saying repeatedly how progressive and experienced you are without providing the obvious reasoning that multiple commenters here are missing: why not be against it? This industry in general (and Flock in particular as per the article) have already been shown to continuously escalate things and change the deal to their benefit again and again. Any step they take forward always proved to be an irrecoverable step backward for civil liberties. You cracked open the door and are looking at someone on the other side opening it wider and wider, and bringing their friends in, and still believe you can close that door whenever you want. Any history book will tell you that's hubris, not qualifications. What are your bona fides on turkeys voting for Christmas? If you can put together an argument why this isn't a red line given this evidence of escalation, I'll tell you all about my bona fides.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line ALPRs are not an obvious red line. Federal police ignoring court orders with microphones on street corners is.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    The premise of these cameras is that the operating LEOs control sharing. If you assume the federal government is going to ignore those controls extralegally, then ALPRs themselves aren't acceptable. The red line you're proposing here isn't coherent. Again I want to be clear that there's a difference between "bad idea" or "bad public policy tradeoff" and "red line". I believe it's pretty clear that when something is a live controversy with no clear winner in a municipality like Oak Park, whatever else it is, it isn't a "red line".
    - stonogo 1y ago
      And the problem with that premise is the company clearly does not honor the local controls. Ask Evanston about it. I don't understand why you're defending Flock so hard when you can get the same product from e.g. Axon without all the we're-smarter-than-you bullshit from the vendor. Not all ALPRs come with Flock baggage, but you seem to treat them interchangeably.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        This isn't responsive to the point 'JumpCrisscross was making.
        stonogo 1y ago
        Yes, that's how conversations work.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > I believe it's pretty clear that when something is a live controversy with no clear winner in a municipality like Oak Park, whatever else it is, it isn't a "red line". Shouldn't it be the opposite? A thing is tested when it's put under stress. It's a red line because it's not to be crossed even when the temptation to do it increases.
- locopati 1y ago
  i guess you're not part of a group that the current administration has decided is anti-American just because we exist? this administration is already making proclamations that are not laws (Executive Orders and National Security Directives), which clearly violate 1st Amendment rights to free speech, and yet are being interpreted by states to go after specific groups (may i introduce you to Texas and Florida). police already exist as an uncontrollable force within most cities who apply the law as they see fit. do you think a combination of those two things isn't going to result in a tool like this being abused? if you do think it will be abused and that isn't a red line, that says something about you. if you don't think it will be abused despite the evidence that police abuse surveillance and the current administration has no respect for due process and that isn't a red line, that also says something about you. circling back, i hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of the technology you want others to be on the receiving end of.
  - senordevnyc 1y ago
    Are those groups opposed to any tool or technology that could be used for government overreach or oppression? Is that really the only thing we can do?
    - locopati 1y ago
      i can't speak for groups, only myself. if we had ever seen police restraint via civilian oversight boards or had ever seen a pattern of behavior that would let us trust police, that would be one thing. but we haven't and they resist oversight. combine that with a federal government that increasingly says police can do whatever they want and the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments don't apply equally anymore. so, no, i don't think police should have access to incredible levels of surveillance or military-grade hardware.
  - HaZeust 1y ago
    >"i hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of the technology you want others to be on the receiving end of." Absolutely solid line, and about sums it up. Batting for practices or technologies like this is publicizing your myopia and lack of imagination for seeing it being used against you or your friends/family/property in due time.
- shakna 1y ago
  > Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. > https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun... My birth, as someone who is bi, is now declared to be tantamount to terrorism in the USA. My belief that race shouldn't matter, is now extremism. The red line, is systems like this, enable those who would happily hunt me down and gut me like a fish. There are preachers in the government, who frequently say that I am not a person. The government is attempting to move to an extrajudicial procedure where it concerns people the government oppose. We shouldn't gladly be making it easier for a better Dehomag to be put together - that is the red line.
hchdifnfbgbf 1y ago
[flagged]
Cornbilly 1y ago
[flagged]
buran77 1y ago
> I admire Garry Isn't it getting harder to say this, hearing this kind of rhetoric? "My bombs only kill the bad guys" is either hopelessly ignorant, or willfully malicious.
- therobots927 1y ago
  Way too many people in this industry value professional achievement over ethical considerations. And in doing so provide cover for obvious bad actors.
- estearum 1y ago
  This knocked Garry down a solid 4 levels of respect in my own book. What an embarrassing level of thought to publish under one's name on such an important question.
Spooky23 1y ago
I don't know and DNGAF about Garry, but that argument is specious and reflects the conflict his business fundamentally creates for him. The smart move would be to be silent, not sure what you "admire".
- kklisura 1y ago
  A CEO of YC - the site you're currently on...
  - free_bip 1y ago
    How exactly is that relevant? I doubt most people who use Amazon admire Andy Jassy.
  - therobots927 1y ago
    I give it 1-2 years max before he hands over the personal login emails / IP of every user on this site to the thought police. There’s nothing admirable about mercenary capitalists.
  - nehal3m 1y ago
    That does not make them immune from criticism.
  - ncallaway 1y ago
    And? Do you want me to memorize the management and organizational structure of every website that I use? I am perfectly capable of using this site and not giving a flying shit about the CEO of YCombinator
  - BoiledCabbage 1y ago
    It boggles my mind how some people can seem to only think in terms of "teams". And can't think critically about their supposed team. "I'm on their site so I'm on their team... Of course I back everything they do, I'm on their team." Similarly (and slightly related) when a big part of your motivation is to see the "other" side upset you've lost the plot.
  - 1y ago
scoofy 1y ago
The logic here works both ways. The number of wars prevented by mutually assured destruction, and the number of lives saved is beyond nontrivial, and likely outnumbers the lives lost. I don't want to get into an argument about the dangers involved, I agree with Taleb about the fat tails of violence, and how standard statistics breaks down when there is infinite variance. My point is just that Tan's point is reasonable, even if there is risk. You need only look at the CCTV usage in the UK to see how you can have a reasonable society with strong surveillance.
- aunty_helen 1y ago
  The UK has departed from being a reasonable society with strong surveillance. This happened about the same time the police started showing up at 2am for Facebook posts from old ladies.
- foldr 1y ago
  >You need only look at the CCTV usage in the UK to see how you can have a reasonable society with strong surveillance. It's not really 'surveillance' as the vast majority of those cameras are privately owned and on private property. The numbers that get thrown around are basically just guesses, given that there are no central records of privately owned CCTV cameras.
- jon-wood 1y ago
  Part of why CCTV in the UK is ubiquitous and yet hasn’t so far resulted in what many people describe as a surveillance state is that the cameras are all operated by different people. To hoover up data an agency needs to go ask the owner of every shop along a road for the video, while hoping they’ve not recorded over the tape yet. That falls apart (and is falling apart) when the cameras are all operated by the same company. Now an agency can just go to that company and request video for an entire town in one go. There’s probably a self-service portal for this because the operator isn’t even based in that town, so has no skin in the game, no need to work out whether they agree this is something the video is needed for.
- Gud 1y ago
  It’s dirty, extreme class divide , people don’t give a shit, you see young people homeless begging everywhere. The UK is a dystopian society, an example on what not to do. I am not from the UK, I just get forced to work there. I’ve been here for 2 out of the last 7 years. Good music though
Starlevel004 1y ago
> I admire Garry Why?
strangattractor 1y ago
"Flock safety currently solves ... %10 of the crime Nation Wide" Pretty bold statement without citing data to back that up. I have already received a speeding warning letter from one of these things. Does that count as a crime Flock solved? I tire of all this binary thinking. It is true that surveillance helps victims. It is also true that the same surveillance can endanger civil liberties. We should have some say in how much we will allow our liberties to be endangered. Sounds like someone watched too much Person of Interest https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1839578/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1839578/
- tptacek 1y ago
  Flock cameras don't issue citations at all and don't appear to include speed radar.
  - strangattractor 1y ago
    Don't need radar to calculate speed with multiple photographs. And yes technically the city issued the warning.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Can you document this further? State/locality? In Illinois, that wouldn't be legal.
      - strangattractor 1y ago
        Ok Before I am accused of misrepresenting things and in the interest of clarity. 1. I am in San Francisco. 2. Upon further research Flock does not appear to be used by SFPD for ticketing. They have another camera system for that. That does not mean that Flock could not be used for speeding tickets or a host of other things like running red lights, littering etc. Microprocessors and CMOS cameras can do amazing things. Regardless of what company is doing the surveillance the debate remains the same. 1. Pervasive surveillance has the potential to be used inappropriately by authorities. Discussion is needed. 2. The data collected by a company such as Flock but not necessarily Flock could be used inappropriately or sold for other purposes. Benn Jordan has a good video on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ&t=21s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ&t=21s 3. The claim that Flock is responsible for %10 of solved cases seems dubious but without data it is difficult to know or believe. Given that Flock is in YC's portfolio makes it even more suspect. Flock or a company like Flock may try and become pervasive and indispensable before a public discussion places any limits on their behavior.
nemothekid 1y ago
Irrespective of how you feel about this, its very strange to throw China under the bus here. If Chinese surveillance is so dystopian, don't you think China uses the same exact rhetoric for protecting their police state? After all China went from a bunch of farms to the second largest economy in 30 years. Either you think mass surveillance is wrong or not.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  He's not an oligarch in China, though, so of course theirs is bad.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
What's to prevent US-based surveillance from becoming Chinese surveillance? Also, what reason do you think China gives for its surveillance? It's the same: "protecting victims", "protecting citizens", "public safety".
saubeidl 1y ago
Why do you admire him? Him and his ilk are responsible for the dystopia we're barreling towards.

tptacek 1y ago

I spent several years doing a bunch of work in my local muni that drastically restricted, and eventually booted (I'm not happy about this; long story) Flock. I feel like my Flock bona fides are pretty strong. I understand people not being comfortable with Flock. I do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line. People disagree about this technology. I live in what I believe to be one of the 5 most progressive municipalities in the United States† and I can tell you from recent experience that our community is sharply divided on it. † (we're a small inner-ring suburb of Chicago; I'm "cheating" in that Chicago as a whole is not one of the most progressive cities in the country, but our 50k person muni is up there with Berkeley and represented by the oldest DSA member in Congress)

squigz 1y ago
Constantly surveilling your citizens without cause doesn't strike you as an obvious red line?
- tptacek 1y ago
  No. Roughly half our community wanted to keep the cameras. And we're as blue/progressive as it gets. Whatever else it is, it isn't "a red line". That is not the same thing as me saying I think the cameras were a good tradeoff.
  - tehjoker 1y ago
    The wealthy people keep the poor down, then having this subpopulation that acts in messed up ways causes crime, which causes the wealthy to accept things like surveillance to "protect themselves" and continually cedes to more authoritarian policies. The middle class is the social base of fascism. The way out is to turn on the rich and produce a more economically equal society.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  People live in fear, and these things help police close cases quickly. I served on a jury where a young woman slipped on ice while crossing the street and was run over by a negligent driver who was fleeing what he thought was the police, because he was on probation and not supposed to drive. With private surveillance, red light cameras and some other sources, they were able to track down the vehicle and apprehend the individual within 45 minutes of the event. Prior to that, much more primitive version of that technology being available, there would no chance of that case being solved. Personally, I think this technology is dangerous, lacks effective governance, is operated without transparency, and is prone to abuse. Events of late highlight how different jurisdictional boundaries at the city, state and federal levels can be in conflict. But the technology is not going away -- imo it's time to govern it and limit the inter-jurisdictional data sharing.
- nosianu 1y ago
  I'm deeply skeptical of surveillance and convinced it will be misused, more and more over time as all sides get used to it and the complaints become less, or less fundamental and more against something specific while not questioning the tech as such. Still, I'm torn whenever I walk to the city center (Bavarian big city that is not Munich) and see how many rental bikes and rental e-scooters can be found thrown into the river that runs through the city. Or public trash cans that were actually put deep into the earth, with concrete too, lie broken with lots of earth and the long metal pipe with concrete attached because some people spent considerable effort to destroy public infrastructure. Or somebody must have jumped hard and repeatably on a weak point of a public bench, which has very thick wood and thick steel screws, but they still managed to destroy it. I want those people to be found, I'm very angry. This is a frequent occurrence. If that means more surveillance, I would not oppose. I'm tired of seeing this happen again and again and again. The city had to start using trashcans that look more and more like little war bunkers. They can't do anything for the bikes and scooters though, making them too heavy to lift and throw into the water is obviously not possible. Police do patrol, but they can't be everywhere all the time. For illustration: Two bikes of a public bike rental service found in the river. They are not old, all of them are new, but this is how they look after a few days or weeks in the river: https://img.mittelbayerische.de/ezplatform/images/4/4/8/8/400738844-1-ger-DE/e8fb92d4885f-29-130209747.jpg https://img.mittelbayerische.de/ezplatform/images/4/4/8/8/40... Divers are called regularly to retrieve bikes, scooters, and other big items thrown into the city's river: https://images.nordbayern.de/image/contentid/policy:1.13218426:1683128716/image/e-arc-tmp-20230503_164036-7.jpg https://images.nordbayern.de/image/contentid/policy:1.132184...
  - catlikesshrimp 1y ago
    Surveillance in the end is a tool, like a gun, which can be used for good or bad. I doubt any more effort will be made against vandalism for a long time that reaquires to increase surveillance. The cameras and microphones will remain, though. Edit: I live in a dictatorship. State surveillance and policing has helped with vandalism. But the drawbacks are obvious and nefarious. I would take more vandalism in a mediocre democracy any day.
    - 1y ago
MountDoom 1y ago
I'm surprised you say that. To flip this on its head, what would be your principled argument to accept ambient surveillance? I don't doubt that license plate readers are used primarily to solve crimes. But the fact that it is collected and can be made available to anyone essentially strips you of privacy in everyday life. Cops are people too; once the tech is available, it is sometimes abused to spy on spouses, neighbors, journalists critical of the local PD, and so on. There is also a more general argument: an ever-growing range of human activities is surveilled to root out crime, and we can probably agree that the end state of that would be dystopian: it'd be a place where your every word or even every thought is proactively monitored and flagged for wrongthink. We're ways off, but with every decade, we're getting closer. I'm not saying that Flock-listening-to-conversations is the line we can't cross, but if not this, then what?
- pixl97 1y ago
  Salami slicing tactics. The authoritarians will take a nibble at a time until we are all consumed.
buran77 1y ago
> I do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line. It's an invasive surveillance technology that contributes to building the pervasive surveillance day to day reality. You're muddying the waters asking "why are you against this" without even hinting at an argument why anyone should not be against this. You can already see the progression. What was sold as "only listens to gunshots" now no longer listens only to gunshots. The deal constantly gets altered.
- tptacek 1y ago
  No I'm not. I actually do real political work on this issue, ran the commission process that restricted our cameras and created the only restrictive ALPR police General Orders in Chicagoland, and got us to pass an ACLU CCOPS ordinance --- the first municipality in Illinois to have one. Whatever else I am, I'm not "muddying the waters". I'm commenting in good faith from actual experience. You're going to find my bona fides here are pretty strong.
  - sapphicsnail 1y ago
    You could comment about why the things listed in the article aren't a red line.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      I've already done that.
      - Brian_K_White 1y ago
        Please quote where. I don't see it. I will go further and assert no you didn't.
  - buran77 1y ago
    > I actually do real political work on this issue And Catholic priests preach. Some things aren't mutually exclusive and a lot of people are capable of holding conflicting ideas in their head. > I'm commenting in good faith from actual experience. All good but you didn't say anything. You muddy the water by saying repeatedly how progressive and experienced you are without providing the obvious reasoning that multiple commenters here are missing: why not be against it? This industry in general (and Flock in particular as per the article) have already been shown to continuously escalate things and change the deal to their benefit again and again. Any step they take forward always proved to be an irrecoverable step backward for civil liberties. You cracked open the door and are looking at someone on the other side opening it wider and wider, and bringing their friends in, and still believe you can close that door whenever you want. Any history book will tell you that's hubris, not qualifications. What are your bona fides on turkeys voting for Christmas? If you can put together an argument why this isn't a red line given this evidence of escalation, I'll tell you all about my bona fides.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line ALPRs are not an obvious red line. Federal police ignoring court orders with microphones on street corners is.
- tptacek 1y ago
  The premise of these cameras is that the operating LEOs control sharing. If you assume the federal government is going to ignore those controls extralegally, then ALPRs themselves aren't acceptable. The red line you're proposing here isn't coherent. Again I want to be clear that there's a difference between "bad idea" or "bad public policy tradeoff" and "red line". I believe it's pretty clear that when something is a live controversy with no clear winner in a municipality like Oak Park, whatever else it is, it isn't a "red line".
  - stonogo 1y ago
    And the problem with that premise is the company clearly does not honor the local controls. Ask Evanston about it. I don't understand why you're defending Flock so hard when you can get the same product from e.g. Axon without all the we're-smarter-than-you bullshit from the vendor. Not all ALPRs come with Flock baggage, but you seem to treat them interchangeably.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      This isn't responsive to the point 'JumpCrisscross was making.
      - stonogo 1y ago
        Yes, that's how conversations work.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > I believe it's pretty clear that when something is a live controversy with no clear winner in a municipality like Oak Park, whatever else it is, it isn't a "red line". Shouldn't it be the opposite? A thing is tested when it's put under stress. It's a red line because it's not to be crossed even when the temptation to do it increases.
locopati 1y ago
i guess you're not part of a group that the current administration has decided is anti-American just because we exist? this administration is already making proclamations that are not laws (Executive Orders and National Security Directives), which clearly violate 1st Amendment rights to free speech, and yet are being interpreted by states to go after specific groups (may i introduce you to Texas and Florida). police already exist as an uncontrollable force within most cities who apply the law as they see fit. do you think a combination of those two things isn't going to result in a tool like this being abused? if you do think it will be abused and that isn't a red line, that says something about you. if you don't think it will be abused despite the evidence that police abuse surveillance and the current administration has no respect for due process and that isn't a red line, that also says something about you. circling back, i hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of the technology you want others to be on the receiving end of.
- senordevnyc 1y ago
  Are those groups opposed to any tool or technology that could be used for government overreach or oppression? Is that really the only thing we can do?
  - locopati 1y ago
    i can't speak for groups, only myself. if we had ever seen police restraint via civilian oversight boards or had ever seen a pattern of behavior that would let us trust police, that would be one thing. but we haven't and they resist oversight. combine that with a federal government that increasingly says police can do whatever they want and the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments don't apply equally anymore. so, no, i don't think police should have access to incredible levels of surveillance or military-grade hardware.
- HaZeust 1y ago
  >"i hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of the technology you want others to be on the receiving end of." Absolutely solid line, and about sums it up. Batting for practices or technologies like this is publicizing your myopia and lack of imagination for seeing it being used against you or your friends/family/property in due time.
shakna 1y ago
> Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. > https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun... My birth, as someone who is bi, is now declared to be tantamount to terrorism in the USA. My belief that race shouldn't matter, is now extremism. The red line, is systems like this, enable those who would happily hunt me down and gut me like a fish. There are preachers in the government, who frequently say that I am not a person. The government is attempting to move to an extrajudicial procedure where it concerns people the government oppose. We shouldn't gladly be making it easier for a better Dehomag to be put together - that is the red line.

hchdifnfbgbf 1y ago

[flagged]

Cornbilly 1y ago

[flagged]

buran77 1y ago

> I admire Garry Isn't it getting harder to say this, hearing this kind of rhetoric? "My bombs only kill the bad guys" is either hopelessly ignorant, or willfully malicious.

therobots927 1y ago
Way too many people in this industry value professional achievement over ethical considerations. And in doing so provide cover for obvious bad actors.
estearum 1y ago
This knocked Garry down a solid 4 levels of respect in my own book. What an embarrassing level of thought to publish under one's name on such an important question.

Spooky23 1y ago

I don't know and DNGAF about Garry, but that argument is specious and reflects the conflict his business fundamentally creates for him. The smart move would be to be silent, not sure what you "admire".

kklisura 1y ago
A CEO of YC - the site you're currently on...
- free_bip 1y ago
  How exactly is that relevant? I doubt most people who use Amazon admire Andy Jassy.
- therobots927 1y ago
  I give it 1-2 years max before he hands over the personal login emails / IP of every user on this site to the thought police. There’s nothing admirable about mercenary capitalists.
- nehal3m 1y ago
  That does not make them immune from criticism.
- ncallaway 1y ago
  And? Do you want me to memorize the management and organizational structure of every website that I use? I am perfectly capable of using this site and not giving a flying shit about the CEO of YCombinator
- BoiledCabbage 1y ago
  It boggles my mind how some people can seem to only think in terms of "teams". And can't think critically about their supposed team. "I'm on their site so I'm on their team... Of course I back everything they do, I'm on their team." Similarly (and slightly related) when a big part of your motivation is to see the "other" side upset you've lost the plot.
- 1y ago

scoofy 1y ago

The logic here works both ways. The number of wars prevented by mutually assured destruction, and the number of lives saved is beyond nontrivial, and likely outnumbers the lives lost. I don't want to get into an argument about the dangers involved, I agree with Taleb about the fat tails of violence, and how standard statistics breaks down when there is infinite variance. My point is just that Tan's point is reasonable, even if there is risk. You need only look at the CCTV usage in the UK to see how you can have a reasonable society with strong surveillance.

aunty_helen 1y ago
The UK has departed from being a reasonable society with strong surveillance. This happened about the same time the police started showing up at 2am for Facebook posts from old ladies.
foldr 1y ago
>You need only look at the CCTV usage in the UK to see how you can have a reasonable society with strong surveillance. It's not really 'surveillance' as the vast majority of those cameras are privately owned and on private property. The numbers that get thrown around are basically just guesses, given that there are no central records of privately owned CCTV cameras.
jon-wood 1y ago
Part of why CCTV in the UK is ubiquitous and yet hasn’t so far resulted in what many people describe as a surveillance state is that the cameras are all operated by different people. To hoover up data an agency needs to go ask the owner of every shop along a road for the video, while hoping they’ve not recorded over the tape yet. That falls apart (and is falling apart) when the cameras are all operated by the same company. Now an agency can just go to that company and request video for an entire town in one go. There’s probably a self-service portal for this because the operator isn’t even based in that town, so has no skin in the game, no need to work out whether they agree this is something the video is needed for.
Gud 1y ago
It’s dirty, extreme class divide , people don’t give a shit, you see young people homeless begging everywhere. The UK is a dystopian society, an example on what not to do. I am not from the UK, I just get forced to work there. I’ve been here for 2 out of the last 7 years. Good music though

Starlevel004 1y ago

> I admire Garry Why?

strangattractor 1y ago

"Flock safety currently solves ... %10 of the crime Nation Wide" Pretty bold statement without citing data to back that up. I have already received a speeding warning letter from one of these things. Does that count as a crime Flock solved? I tire of all this binary thinking. It is true that surveillance helps victims. It is also true that the same surveillance can endanger civil liberties. We should have some say in how much we will allow our liberties to be endangered. Sounds like someone watched too much Person of Interest https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1839578/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1839578/

tptacek 1y ago
Flock cameras don't issue citations at all and don't appear to include speed radar.
- strangattractor 1y ago
  Don't need radar to calculate speed with multiple photographs. And yes technically the city issued the warning.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Can you document this further? State/locality? In Illinois, that wouldn't be legal.
    - strangattractor 1y ago
      Ok Before I am accused of misrepresenting things and in the interest of clarity. 1. I am in San Francisco. 2. Upon further research Flock does not appear to be used by SFPD for ticketing. They have another camera system for that. That does not mean that Flock could not be used for speeding tickets or a host of other things like running red lights, littering etc. Microprocessors and CMOS cameras can do amazing things. Regardless of what company is doing the surveillance the debate remains the same. 1. Pervasive surveillance has the potential to be used inappropriately by authorities. Discussion is needed. 2. The data collected by a company such as Flock but not necessarily Flock could be used inappropriately or sold for other purposes. Benn Jordan has a good video on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ&t=21s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ&t=21s 3. The claim that Flock is responsible for %10 of solved cases seems dubious but without data it is difficult to know or believe. Given that Flock is in YC's portfolio makes it even more suspect. Flock or a company like Flock may try and become pervasive and indispensable before a public discussion places any limits on their behavior.

nemothekid 1y ago

Irrespective of how you feel about this, its very strange to throw China under the bus here. If Chinese surveillance is so dystopian, don't you think China uses the same exact rhetoric for protecting their police state? After all China went from a bunch of farms to the second largest economy in 30 years. Either you think mass surveillance is wrong or not.

saubeidl 1y ago
He's not an oligarch in China, though, so of course theirs is bad.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

What's to prevent US-based surveillance from becoming Chinese surveillance? Also, what reason do you think China gives for its surveillance? It's the same: "protecting victims", "protecting citizens", "public safety".

saubeidl 1y ago

Why do you admire him? Him and his ilk are responsible for the dystopia we're barreling towards.