4 ms·

> Even if Flock took a stance on permitted use-cases, a motivated user could simply lie about why they're performing a search. We can never 100% know how or why

> Even if Flock took a stance on permitted use-cases, a motivated user could simply lie about why they're performing a search. We can never 100% know how or why our tools are being used. I think this is a legitimate problem. But...isn't this what warrants are for? With a warrant, the police have to say why they want to perform a search to a judge, under threat of perjury. They have a powerful incentive not to lie. So...should warrants be required for this kind of Flock data also? Couldn't Flock set a policy that these searches are performed only under warrant? Or a law be enacted saying the same? I imagine it would make Flock much less attractive to their potential customers, and searches would be performed much less often. [1] So it's not something Flock is going to do on their own. I think we'd need to create the pressure, by opposing purchases of Flock or by specifically asking our elected representatives to create such a law. [1] If I'm being generous, because of the extra friction/work/delay. If I'm being less generous, because they have no legitimate reason a judge would approve.

lesuorac 1y ago
Eh, if a cop sat at a Dunkin Donuts and wrote down every license plate they saw that wouldn't require a warrant. Why should contracting that out to a private company require a warrant? Flock isn't say Google which collects location data because it needs it for Google Maps to function. Flock is only here because the local government paid it to setup equipment. It's really an issue for the local community. Do you want your local tax dollars going to support parks or tracking individuals?
- jfim 1y ago
  They wouldn't require a warrant, but at the same time, that wouldn't be scalable to be able to record every license plate everywhere in the city. Having a barrier to accessing data can help prevent casual abuse in my opinion, so that officers can't look up say some ex girlfriend's license plate, but if they get a warrant they can look up some suspect's license plate.
- ruined 1y ago
  if a cop followed you for private reasons in a private car while off duty, they wouldn't need a warrant. why should they need a warrant if they pay a private individual to do it? why should they need a warrant if they pay a private company to do it electronically? why should they need a warrant when they pay a private company to do it electronically while on the clock as part of their official duty? why should they ever need a warrant? they could just kill her if they wanted, nobody would do anything about it.
  - vkou 1y ago
    > if a cop followed you for private reasons in a private car while off duty, they wouldn't need a warrant. No, they wouldn't need a warrant, because they'd be stalking you.
    - ruined 1y ago
      flock is stalking you
      - vkou 1y ago
        Not in my town, it told it to flock off. Seriously, though, stalking generally requires targeted behavior.
  - iamnothere 1y ago
    > they could just kill her if they wanted, nobody would do anything about it. Exactly, people act like “warrants” are going to protect you from authoritarians. It’s literally just a piece of paper! All this going on about surveillance and privacy really is futile.
    - samrus 1y ago
      If you cant teust the government then yes, the laws are all just words. The contitution is just words at this point. But if you cant trust some parts of the government (including, opposition and non executive branches) then laws can help protect the innocent a little bit
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > It's really an issue for the local community. Do you want your local tax dollars going to support parks or tracking individuals? Correct. In your analogy, the Texas cop is being paid by your community to write down your license plate. (Otherwise, he has no authority to be operating outside his state.)
- jncfhnb 1y ago
  It is an emergent effect of scale. The first principle reasoning logic of small scale examples doesn’t work as you zoom out. Being able to scope out a small scale example of why something is ok is a very poor indicator of how it operates in a massive one.
- b00ty4breakfast 1y ago
  >Eh, if a cop sat at a Dunkin Donuts and wrote down every license plate they saw that wouldn't require a warrant I would say that there is an appreciable qualitative difference between a man using his eyeballs and a piece of paper to write down license plate numbers and a technologically sophisticated network of computerized surveillance apparatus installed over a geographically large area being used to track an individual. Call me old-fashioned I guess
kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
Any law would upset the third-party data broker constitutional runaround that the government has become addicted to. It is already a breach of privacy. We just need legislators willing to serve the public and ignore the lobbyists and executive.
- godelski 1y ago
  > We just need legislators willing to serve the public and ignore the lobbyists and executive. Which requires us, the people, to replace them if they won't. It requires us, the people, to stop buying into their games of misdirection. This is no easy task, but it is critical. They know they can throw a million issues at us and then we'll just argue over what's more important instead of actually solving things. So at this point I'll suggest a nonoptimal, but simple solution: stop arguing over what's more important and just concentrate on what you think is most important. If they're going to throw a million things at us we can be a million little armies. Divide and rule only works by getting those little armies to fight each other. If instead we are on, mostly, the same side then they lose power. They have to fight on a million fronts. It's far from an optimal solution but it's far better than what we've been doing for the last half century. Because for during that time they've only grown and divided us even more. People are concerned that a small forward isn't enough. They're wrong. It isn't that by not making enough progress we're standing still, we're losing ground. We can't even take a small step forward, we need to first stop losing ground. Once we do that I think we can build momentum moving forward. But it's insane to constantly give up ground in order to maybe make small steps forward. That's certainly a losing battle
lukan 1y ago
"So...should warrants be required for this kind of Flock data also? " Yes.
Terr_ 1y ago
> So...should warrants be required for this kind of Flock data also? Based on another incident [0] I feel Flock's explanation for their actions boils down to: 1. "We are familiar with the customer the person claimed to be an agent for." 2. "We didn't know whether the person was doing something illegal with the data... And we don't want to know, and we don't try to find out." 3. "They didn't force us. They gave us money! We like money!" As you might guess, I don't find these points especially compelling or exculpating. Certainly nothing that would/should stand up against state or local laws that prohibit the data being shared this way. _____________ [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45382434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45382434
thomastjeffery 1y ago
Yes, this is what warrants are for. Flock's entire business model is a flagrant violation of the 4th amendment. What Flock does for their core business is called "stalking", which is a crime. The issue here is not that the law is inadequate to resolve this problem. The issue is that the current administration has chosen to collude with private corporations that flagrantly violate the law, thereby replacing our entire judiciary system with a protection racket. Please don't be generous. Fascists depend on our patience to insulate them from consequences.
- jtbayly 1y ago
  Flock has existed for longer than 3 years, hasn't it?
  - thomastjeffery 1y ago
    What's your point?
    - queenkjuul 1y ago
      From where I'm at, both parties enjoy their warrantless stalking data. The problem isn't limited to the current administration.
      - UncleMeat 1y ago
        It is true that the dems have not been good on the topic of mass surveillance. Obama leveraged and expanded what Bush had built, the Obama DoJ defended mass surveillance in court, and Biden didn't do anything to change this direction. The dems found this stuff to be too useful and appealing to resist and helped build the machine that now supports Trump's fascism. But it is also correct to say that Trump is a fascist and that Biden wasn't one.
- godelski 1y ago
  I'm not sure why we've decided that if one dude named Mark stalks one girl then he's a creep, but if he stalks a million girls he's a hero and role model.
samrus 1y ago
Warrants for this is actually a great idea. Thats the exact correct solution to gov/leo overreach

lesuorac 1y ago

Eh, if a cop sat at a Dunkin Donuts and wrote down every license plate they saw that wouldn't require a warrant. Why should contracting that out to a private company require a warrant? Flock isn't say Google which collects location data because it needs it for Google Maps to function. Flock is only here because the local government paid it to setup equipment. It's really an issue for the local community. Do you want your local tax dollars going to support parks or tracking individuals?

jfim 1y ago
They wouldn't require a warrant, but at the same time, that wouldn't be scalable to be able to record every license plate everywhere in the city. Having a barrier to accessing data can help prevent casual abuse in my opinion, so that officers can't look up say some ex girlfriend's license plate, but if they get a warrant they can look up some suspect's license plate.
ruined 1y ago
if a cop followed you for private reasons in a private car while off duty, they wouldn't need a warrant. why should they need a warrant if they pay a private individual to do it? why should they need a warrant if they pay a private company to do it electronically? why should they need a warrant when they pay a private company to do it electronically while on the clock as part of their official duty? why should they ever need a warrant? they could just kill her if they wanted, nobody would do anything about it.
- vkou 1y ago
  > if a cop followed you for private reasons in a private car while off duty, they wouldn't need a warrant. No, they wouldn't need a warrant, because they'd be stalking you.
  - ruined 1y ago
    flock is stalking you
    - vkou 1y ago
      Not in my town, it told it to flock off. Seriously, though, stalking generally requires targeted behavior.
- iamnothere 1y ago
  > they could just kill her if they wanted, nobody would do anything about it. Exactly, people act like “warrants” are going to protect you from authoritarians. It’s literally just a piece of paper! All this going on about surveillance and privacy really is futile.
  - samrus 1y ago
    If you cant teust the government then yes, the laws are all just words. The contitution is just words at this point. But if you cant trust some parts of the government (including, opposition and non executive branches) then laws can help protect the innocent a little bit
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> It's really an issue for the local community. Do you want your local tax dollars going to support parks or tracking individuals? Correct. In your analogy, the Texas cop is being paid by your community to write down your license plate. (Otherwise, he has no authority to be operating outside his state.)
jncfhnb 1y ago
It is an emergent effect of scale. The first principle reasoning logic of small scale examples doesn’t work as you zoom out. Being able to scope out a small scale example of why something is ok is a very poor indicator of how it operates in a massive one.
b00ty4breakfast 1y ago
>Eh, if a cop sat at a Dunkin Donuts and wrote down every license plate they saw that wouldn't require a warrant I would say that there is an appreciable qualitative difference between a man using his eyeballs and a piece of paper to write down license plate numbers and a technologically sophisticated network of computerized surveillance apparatus installed over a geographically large area being used to track an individual. Call me old-fashioned I guess

kevin_thibedeau 1y ago

Any law would upset the third-party data broker constitutional runaround that the government has become addicted to. It is already a breach of privacy. We just need legislators willing to serve the public and ignore the lobbyists and executive.

godelski 1y ago
> We just need legislators willing to serve the public and ignore the lobbyists and executive. Which requires us, the people, to replace them if they won't. It requires us, the people, to stop buying into their games of misdirection. This is no easy task, but it is critical. They know they can throw a million issues at us and then we'll just argue over what's more important instead of actually solving things. So at this point I'll suggest a nonoptimal, but simple solution: stop arguing over what's more important and just concentrate on what you think is most important. If they're going to throw a million things at us we can be a million little armies. Divide and rule only works by getting those little armies to fight each other. If instead we are on, mostly, the same side then they lose power. They have to fight on a million fronts. It's far from an optimal solution but it's far better than what we've been doing for the last half century. Because for during that time they've only grown and divided us even more. People are concerned that a small forward isn't enough. They're wrong. It isn't that by not making enough progress we're standing still, we're losing ground. We can't even take a small step forward, we need to first stop losing ground. Once we do that I think we can build momentum moving forward. But it's insane to constantly give up ground in order to maybe make small steps forward. That's certainly a losing battle

lukan 1y ago

"So...should warrants be required for this kind of Flock data also? " Yes.

Terr_ 1y ago

> So...should warrants be required for this kind of Flock data also? Based on another incident [0] I feel Flock's explanation for their actions boils down to: 1. "We are familiar with the customer the person claimed to be an agent for." 2. "We didn't know whether the person was doing something illegal with the data... And we don't want to know, and we don't try to find out." 3. "They didn't force us. They gave us money! We like money!" As you might guess, I don't find these points especially compelling or exculpating. Certainly nothing that would/should stand up against state or local laws that prohibit the data being shared this way. _____________ [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45382434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45382434

thomastjeffery 1y ago

Yes, this is what warrants are for. Flock's entire business model is a flagrant violation of the 4th amendment. What Flock does for their core business is called "stalking", which is a crime. The issue here is not that the law is inadequate to resolve this problem. The issue is that the current administration has chosen to collude with private corporations that flagrantly violate the law, thereby replacing our entire judiciary system with a protection racket. Please don't be generous. Fascists depend on our patience to insulate them from consequences.

jtbayly 1y ago
Flock has existed for longer than 3 years, hasn't it?
- thomastjeffery 1y ago
  What's your point?
  - queenkjuul 1y ago
    From where I'm at, both parties enjoy their warrantless stalking data. The problem isn't limited to the current administration.
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      It is true that the dems have not been good on the topic of mass surveillance. Obama leveraged and expanded what Bush had built, the Obama DoJ defended mass surveillance in court, and Biden didn't do anything to change this direction. The dems found this stuff to be too useful and appealing to resist and helped build the machine that now supports Trump's fascism. But it is also correct to say that Trump is a fascist and that Biden wasn't one.
godelski 1y ago
I'm not sure why we've decided that if one dude named Mark stalks one girl then he's a creep, but if he stalks a million girls he's a hero and role model.

samrus 1y ago

Warrants for this is actually a great idea. Thats the exact correct solution to gov/leo overreach