3 ms·
"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
by 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 agoFlock cameras don't issue citations at all and don't appear to include speed radar.
- strangattractor 1y agoDon't need radar to calculate speed with multiple photographs. And yes technically the city issued the warning.
- tptacek 1y agoCan you document this further? State/locality? In Illinois, that wouldn't be legal.
- strangattractor 1y agoOk 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.
- tptacek 1y agoI have no idea where the "10% of solved cases" thing comes from, but I posted across thread: I looked at effectiveness very carefully in my own muni, and my conclusion was that the cameras were of basically no help. It feels cynical to make this observation, but if I had to bet --- from the way our own PD, which I respect a lot, tried to formulate an argument for keeping the cameras --- they're counting every crime where an involved car blipped an ALPR. That's not at all the same thing as solving a crime. Someone who knows more about how Flock generates that stat could say more.
- zyx321 1y agoSpeed radar is unlikely but average speed is possible. If you were in one place at 13:00 and 5 miles down the road at 13:10 you must have gone at least 30mph at least once.
- SoftTalker 1y agoSo... don't speed?
- zyx321 1y ago[flagged]
- monkpit 1y agoThis has to be bait, but feel free to make a more substantiated argument… for example, how does privilege play into what you’ve said here?
- SoftTalker 1y agoI was responding to the point above. If getting a fine for speeding is one's concern about the cameras, then don't speed.
- pixxel 1y ago[dead]
- FireBeyond 1y agoIf I recall correctly, "If LE looked at Flock in the process of investigating a crime that resulted in an arrest, it counts" (regardless of whether that look had any meaningful impact or any findings at all in the crime, just "in trying to solve this crime, did you run a search on Flock at all").