3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- free_bip 1y ago
  The funny thing is you did the exact same thing in this comment as the last one! No arguments to be seen, just "I did all this stuff." Maybe we should call this sunken cost rather than muddying the waters?
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Because the question was whether I'm commenting in good faith.
    - buran77 1y ago
      It was a statement that you're muddying the waters without implying whether bad faith or just a weak argument. And it was followed by the reasoning: that on a topic where the arguments against pervasive surveillance can be considered obvious, you aren't even hinting at an argument why anyone should not be against this in your dissenting opinion. Just an appeal to authority, "I am super experienced and say it's fine". After repeated requests also from others you're still just waltzing around this, pretending you're not answering because you didn't get the question worded the right way. If you think that's what good faith looks like I've got news for you.
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >Because the question was whether I'm commenting in good faith. Perhaps others have asked that question. I have not. Rather, I'm asking a different question: Why should we believe that Flock is operating in good faith? Especially given the anti-democratic (small 'd') and likely illegal stuff they pulled in Evanston[0]. That's not a rhetorical question. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45382434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45382434
      - tptacek 1y ago
        I think my response to this would be to say that other ALPR operators are just as susceptible to extrajudicial pressure as Flock, and it would be foolish indeed to salve yourself by saying your ALPRs are OK because they're operated by Motorola instead of Flock. I really don't think the "rhetorical" thing is going to work with me. I have the impression I might be the one person on this thread who has actually done any policy with with ALPRs.
- thakoppno 1y ago
  > I actually do real political work I’m not even sure why but this sentiment rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it’s that what’s resonated most to me about democracy is the premise that it is all “for the people, of the people, by the people.” There’s something exclusive about that statement.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Yes. The people are supposed to do work. Believe me: ordinary people who strongly disagree with a lot of what's being said on this thread are doing the work, showing up and complaining about "defund the police" people being behind any limitations on ALPRs at all. I had to argue with them! You are responsible for engaging on this, because, contrary to the claim at the top of the thread, this simply is not a "red line".
    - thakoppno 1y ago
      The work of democracy does not require action. If you don’t respond to this comment, I’ll assume you agree.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        Saying things like this is why you're losing.
        thakoppno 1y ago
        I’m on your side with regards to the issue of flock. So, we’re losing.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    That's the "magic" of democracy. It makes states stable because the government is theoretically representative which adds a ton of friction to the usual "we'll just throw the kind and his court off a cliff because they don't represent us and install some lords who do" workflow.
  - 1y ago
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  I'm an ex-employee of Flock who left when I learned just how empty their words about ethics and morality of increased surveillance really were. They will happily look the other way when agencies share data that Flock knows they're not meant to be sharing. They will happily "massage" data when needed to shore up a case (particularly with their gunshot detection). Their transparency report probably lists only about 2/3 (at most) of the agencies that are actually using the system. I asked lots of questions about ethics and morality in the recruitment process, got in, and rapidly learned that it was openly mask-off, surveillance state, Minority Report-esque mission.
  - therobots927 1y ago
    Yikes. I can’t say it surprises me but my god that’s terrifying
  - senordevnyc 1y ago
    To me the most horrifying one here is “massaging” the data to help shore up a legal case. Would whistleblower protections shield you? Or have you taken this to any reputable journalists?
    - polartx 1y ago
      This is exactly what has happened with the same junk science tech that “Shotspotter” uses. There are recorded incidents of police leaning on support staff to alter the location of a potential detection. And their junk science software is closed source. So when they are involved in a case, the defense has subpoena their source code and voila! Shotspotter is dropped from the prosecution’s exhibit list. You see Shotspotter can’t afford to have their code scrutinized. Have you figured out why? (Junk science)
aidenn0 1y ago
In rereading Thomas's comments on this post, I'm going to try to sum up how I've read his comments: I'm about 98% certain understands why people are against this; other comments make this more clear, but even sentence right before the one you quoted to suggests this fact ("I understand people not being comfortable with Flock."). By "I do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line" he seems to mean that, even if you ignore all authoritarians, there are plenty of smart people who believe the benefits (particularly when well regulated) outweigh the risks. There are plenty of things that are wrong that are not "an obvious red line," so merely thinking that Flock is bad is not enough to make it "an obvious red line." His argument for why people should not be against seems to be twofold: 1. If it could be made to work in such a way that isn't invasive, it could be a boon, particularly to the most disadvantaged[0]. 2. If all of the places that regulate it well kick it out, then they lose political capital that could constructively be used to encourage their neighbors to also regulate it[1]. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475617 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475478
- buran77 1y ago
  At the time of writing he has commented 16 times on this article and not a single time with a to-the-point answer when asked point blank what's his reasoning. I'd love to not have to guess his thoughts. We have a technology that keeps evolving to encompass more and more "protections" for the people, that happen to come with more and more control for authorities. Every step in that direction is a red flag. The red flag is the direction in which things are moving. Don't we have enough chapters in the history books about why that is?
  - akerl_ 1y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475552
    - buran77 1y ago
      > the cameras weren't going to do any meaningful harm in Oak Park > a lot of normal, reasonable people see these cameras as a very good thing That sums up tptacek's "argumentation". It can be used to justify just about any type of surveillance. I mean does breaking E2EE and monitoring every communication really do any meaningful harm in Oak Park? It really brings into focus how people who were raised in "good times" just can't wrap their heads around how easily the cookie can crumble into "bad times", and how people who found moderate success in their field believe they can now control everything. The kind of hubris that overrides any history lesson, or boiling frog fable. And don't even get me started on what self-proclaimed "reasonable people" believe about other topics. Contrast with the counter-arguments of what lies behind the curtain, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45476100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45476100 It was a good way to bring someone down a couple of (dozen) notches in my eyes. Not that it matters, this won't do any meaningful harm in Oak Park.

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.
free_bip 1y ago
The funny thing is you did the exact same thing in this comment as the last one! No arguments to be seen, just "I did all this stuff." Maybe we should call this sunken cost rather than muddying the waters?
- tptacek 1y ago
  Because the question was whether I'm commenting in good faith.
  - buran77 1y ago
    It was a statement that you're muddying the waters without implying whether bad faith or just a weak argument. And it was followed by the reasoning: that on a topic where the arguments against pervasive surveillance can be considered obvious, you aren't even hinting at an argument why anyone should not be against this in your dissenting opinion. Just an appeal to authority, "I am super experienced and say it's fine". After repeated requests also from others you're still just waltzing around this, pretending you're not answering because you didn't get the question worded the right way. If you think that's what good faith looks like I've got news for you.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >Because the question was whether I'm commenting in good faith. Perhaps others have asked that question. I have not. Rather, I'm asking a different question: Why should we believe that Flock is operating in good faith? Especially given the anti-democratic (small 'd') and likely illegal stuff they pulled in Evanston[0]. That's not a rhetorical question. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45382434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45382434
    - tptacek 1y ago
      I think my response to this would be to say that other ALPR operators are just as susceptible to extrajudicial pressure as Flock, and it would be foolish indeed to salve yourself by saying your ALPRs are OK because they're operated by Motorola instead of Flock. I really don't think the "rhetorical" thing is going to work with me. I have the impression I might be the one person on this thread who has actually done any policy with with ALPRs.
thakoppno 1y ago
> I actually do real political work I’m not even sure why but this sentiment rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it’s that what’s resonated most to me about democracy is the premise that it is all “for the people, of the people, by the people.” There’s something exclusive about that statement.
- tptacek 1y ago
  Yes. The people are supposed to do work. Believe me: ordinary people who strongly disagree with a lot of what's being said on this thread are doing the work, showing up and complaining about "defund the police" people being behind any limitations on ALPRs at all. I had to argue with them! You are responsible for engaging on this, because, contrary to the claim at the top of the thread, this simply is not a "red line".
  - thakoppno 1y ago
    The work of democracy does not require action. If you don’t respond to this comment, I’ll assume you agree.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Saying things like this is why you're losing.
      - thakoppno 1y ago
        I’m on your side with regards to the issue of flock. So, we’re losing.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  That's the "magic" of democracy. It makes states stable because the government is theoretically representative which adds a ton of friction to the usual "we'll just throw the kind and his court off a cliff because they don't represent us and install some lords who do" workflow.
- 1y ago
FireBeyond 1y ago
I'm an ex-employee of Flock who left when I learned just how empty their words about ethics and morality of increased surveillance really were. They will happily look the other way when agencies share data that Flock knows they're not meant to be sharing. They will happily "massage" data when needed to shore up a case (particularly with their gunshot detection). Their transparency report probably lists only about 2/3 (at most) of the agencies that are actually using the system. I asked lots of questions about ethics and morality in the recruitment process, got in, and rapidly learned that it was openly mask-off, surveillance state, Minority Report-esque mission.
- therobots927 1y ago
  Yikes. I can’t say it surprises me but my god that’s terrifying
- senordevnyc 1y ago
  To me the most horrifying one here is “massaging” the data to help shore up a legal case. Would whistleblower protections shield you? Or have you taken this to any reputable journalists?
  - polartx 1y ago
    This is exactly what has happened with the same junk science tech that “Shotspotter” uses. There are recorded incidents of police leaning on support staff to alter the location of a potential detection. And their junk science software is closed source. So when they are involved in a case, the defense has subpoena their source code and voila! Shotspotter is dropped from the prosecution’s exhibit list. You see Shotspotter can’t afford to have their code scrutinized. Have you figured out why? (Junk science)

aidenn0 1y ago

In rereading Thomas's comments on this post, I'm going to try to sum up how I've read his comments: I'm about 98% certain understands why people are against this; other comments make this more clear, but even sentence right before the one you quoted to suggests this fact ("I understand people not being comfortable with Flock."). By "I do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line" he seems to mean that, even if you ignore all authoritarians, there are plenty of smart people who believe the benefits (particularly when well regulated) outweigh the risks. There are plenty of things that are wrong that are not "an obvious red line," so merely thinking that Flock is bad is not enough to make it "an obvious red line." His argument for why people should not be against seems to be twofold: 1. If it could be made to work in such a way that isn't invasive, it could be a boon, particularly to the most disadvantaged[0]. 2. If all of the places that regulate it well kick it out, then they lose political capital that could constructively be used to encourage their neighbors to also regulate it[1]. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475617 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475478

buran77 1y ago
At the time of writing he has commented 16 times on this article and not a single time with a to-the-point answer when asked point blank what's his reasoning. I'd love to not have to guess his thoughts. We have a technology that keeps evolving to encompass more and more "protections" for the people, that happen to come with more and more control for authorities. Every step in that direction is a red flag. The red flag is the direction in which things are moving. Don't we have enough chapters in the history books about why that is?
- akerl_ 1y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475552
  - buran77 1y ago
    > the cameras weren't going to do any meaningful harm in Oak Park > a lot of normal, reasonable people see these cameras as a very good thing That sums up tptacek's "argumentation". It can be used to justify just about any type of surveillance. I mean does breaking E2EE and monitoring every communication really do any meaningful harm in Oak Park? It really brings into focus how people who were raised in "good times" just can't wrap their heads around how easily the cookie can crumble into "bad times", and how people who found moderate success in their field believe they can now control everything. The kind of hubris that overrides any history lesson, or boiling frog fable. And don't even get me started on what self-proclaimed "reasonable people" believe about other topics. Contrast with the counter-arguments of what lies behind the curtain, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45476100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45476100 It was a good way to bring someone down a couple of (dozen) notches in my eyes. Not that it matters, this won't do any meaningful harm in Oak Park.