6 ms·

Even more concerning is that Ring is partnering with Flock [1], which has been the subject of quite a bit of controversy recently [2][3][4], with the CEO lashin

Even more concerning is that Ring is partnering with Flock [1], which has been the subject of quite a bit of controversy recently [2][3][4], with the CEO lashing out at critics with inflammatory language [5][6]. [1] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-and-ring-partner-to-help-neighborhoods-work-together-for-safer-communities https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-and-ring-partn... [2] https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup [3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/10/ice-school-cameras-police-license-plates https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/10/ice-school-c... [4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/effs-investigations-expose-flock-safetys-surveillance-abuses-2025-review https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/effs-investigations-ex... [5] https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-ceo-goes-ballistic https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-ceo-goes-... [6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46903556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46903556

toephu2 8mo ago
[flagged]
- whatthe12899 8mo ago
  > the reduction in crime is not solely due to Flock, but is has definitely helped. what's the theory? murderers see flock cams and decide not to murder? most of the general public doesn't even know what these cameras are (or that they even exist).
  - toephu2 8mo ago
    People tend to behave if they know they are being watched. Yeah it's not going to stop crime 100%, but I bet you it will (and it has) help reduce crime by double digit percentages. Look at places where there are CCTV cameras all over, there is very little crime there compared to the United States. I won't use China as an example because then you are going to attack me for saying it's an authoritarian state. In that case I will use democratic examples: Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore.
    - magicalist 8mo ago
      > People tend to behave if they know they are being watched At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus...
    - text0404 8mo ago
      > People tend to behave if they know they are being watched People tend to behave in the ways that the people who own the surveillance apparatus want them to behave. This assumes that the people who own and operate the apparatus (oftentimes private corporations) can be trusted to monitor and act in the best interests of society. Unfortunately, the people who own and operate these have shown that they are largely untrustworthy and motivated by profit and power. Regardless, most people would not sacrifice personal agency and democracy for supposed safety. "Behave" just means "obey" or "comply" when used in the context of "people tend to behave if they are being watched"; consent is notably absent.
    - frm88 8mo ago
      People tend to behave if they know they are being watched. As in: no mass protests, no anti-ICE measures but most importantly: no more pesky journalists filming and photographing everything. If we then disable the upload of amateur videos of social unrest to TikTok, we're halfway there, just a little more intimidation of civil rights advocate's via observing their every move via the cars and people will behave even better. /s
  - toephu2 8mo ago
    Lets take the current example of the famous kidnapping of the TV anchor's mother in AZ for example. If Arizona was blanketed in CCTVs, do you think this kidnapping would have happened? And if it still did happen, I'm 100% sure the suspects would have been caught by now (11th+ day since the disappearance now).
    - AngryData 8mo ago
      only if the cameras exist but the perpetrators don't know that they exist. If they know they are being watched on camera it doesn't take a genius to realize you just need to switch cars out of sight. And that is assuming they didn't do that already anyways.
    - estimator7292 8mo ago
      States with the death penalty still have murders. I think you fundamentally misunderstand crime and deterrence.
      - toephu2 8mo ago
        When did I say death penalty means no murders? I didn't. Does a strict rule of law and enforcement of said law lead to no murders? No. Does it reduce the amount of murders that occur? Yes (see Singapore).
        chrisandchris 8mo ago
        By that logic, and looking at the data [1] you should come to the conclusion that one should remove the death penalty, because Europe has less homicides compared to the US and does not have a death penalty. So there are actually less murders without death penalty. Obviously, that conclusion is flawed, because the data also shows otherwise in some countries I guess - and just using the death penalty as data point is useless. There are way more factors in play that lead to murder. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
- dyauspitr 8mo ago
  That has always been the question. Are you willing to be constantly surveilled for marginally more security?
  - thewebguyd 8mo ago
    Me, absolutely not. Unfortunately, my opinion seems to be increasingly in the minority and more and more people will happily be surveilled for even just an illusory promise of safety. The harsh truth is that safety/security can never be guaranteed. No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime. Surveillance might help catching the criminal to face justice afterwards, but it will never 100% prevent. Because of that, and because of the potential for abuse, it is better to not be under constant surveillance than it is to give up your rights and privacy for no guarantees.
    - toephu2 8mo ago
      There is no expectation of privacy in the public setting though. Anyone can record you in public without your permission. > No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime. No, but if it reduces crime by 99% would you be in favor of it? (See South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore.. examples of democratic countries with CCTVs all over the public space.. and before you say well those are racially homogenous countries.. I say look at Singapore. Singapore is very diverse racially, and yet they have very low rates of crime. This is because they have strict laws against crime and these laws are actually enforced)
      - yibg 8mo ago
        South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all had significantly lower crime rates before CCTVs were all over the public space. EDIT: also, most crime happens at home, so if you really want a large reduction put cameras in everyone's home too.
      - dyauspitr 8mo ago
        Singapore is very diverse racially… with groups that aren’t generally known to be very criminal. It’s mostly a mix of Chinese, Malays and Indians. I doubt the CCTVs have much to do with it.
- wat10000 8mo ago
  Of course they do some good. You could improve things even further by implementing a system like Judge Dredd, and we'd save a ton of money as well. This is the problem with limits on law enforcement. There are tradeoffs, and people really don't like tradeoffs. Many people prefer to just assume that law enforcement will use their powers for good, rather than have to think about whether any given change will do more harm than good due to enabling bad law enforcement.

toephu2 8mo ago

[flagged]

whatthe12899 8mo ago
> the reduction in crime is not solely due to Flock, but is has definitely helped. what's the theory? murderers see flock cams and decide not to murder? most of the general public doesn't even know what these cameras are (or that they even exist).
- toephu2 8mo ago
  People tend to behave if they know they are being watched. Yeah it's not going to stop crime 100%, but I bet you it will (and it has) help reduce crime by double digit percentages. Look at places where there are CCTV cameras all over, there is very little crime there compared to the United States. I won't use China as an example because then you are going to attack me for saying it's an authoritarian state. In that case I will use democratic examples: Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore.
  - magicalist 8mo ago
    > People tend to behave if they know they are being watched At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus...
  - text0404 8mo ago
    > People tend to behave if they know they are being watched People tend to behave in the ways that the people who own the surveillance apparatus want them to behave. This assumes that the people who own and operate the apparatus (oftentimes private corporations) can be trusted to monitor and act in the best interests of society. Unfortunately, the people who own and operate these have shown that they are largely untrustworthy and motivated by profit and power. Regardless, most people would not sacrifice personal agency and democracy for supposed safety. "Behave" just means "obey" or "comply" when used in the context of "people tend to behave if they are being watched"; consent is notably absent.
  - frm88 8mo ago
    People tend to behave if they know they are being watched. As in: no mass protests, no anti-ICE measures but most importantly: no more pesky journalists filming and photographing everything. If we then disable the upload of amateur videos of social unrest to TikTok, we're halfway there, just a little more intimidation of civil rights advocate's via observing their every move via the cars and people will behave even better. /s
- toephu2 8mo ago
  Lets take the current example of the famous kidnapping of the TV anchor's mother in AZ for example. If Arizona was blanketed in CCTVs, do you think this kidnapping would have happened? And if it still did happen, I'm 100% sure the suspects would have been caught by now (11th+ day since the disappearance now).
  - AngryData 8mo ago
    only if the cameras exist but the perpetrators don't know that they exist. If they know they are being watched on camera it doesn't take a genius to realize you just need to switch cars out of sight. And that is assuming they didn't do that already anyways.
  - estimator7292 8mo ago
    States with the death penalty still have murders. I think you fundamentally misunderstand crime and deterrence.
    - toephu2 8mo ago
      When did I say death penalty means no murders? I didn't. Does a strict rule of law and enforcement of said law lead to no murders? No. Does it reduce the amount of murders that occur? Yes (see Singapore).
      - chrisandchris 8mo ago
        By that logic, and looking at the data [1] you should come to the conclusion that one should remove the death penalty, because Europe has less homicides compared to the US and does not have a death penalty. So there are actually less murders without death penalty. Obviously, that conclusion is flawed, because the data also shows otherwise in some countries I guess - and just using the death penalty as data point is useless. There are way more factors in play that lead to murder. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
dyauspitr 8mo ago
That has always been the question. Are you willing to be constantly surveilled for marginally more security?
- thewebguyd 8mo ago
  Me, absolutely not. Unfortunately, my opinion seems to be increasingly in the minority and more and more people will happily be surveilled for even just an illusory promise of safety. The harsh truth is that safety/security can never be guaranteed. No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime. Surveillance might help catching the criminal to face justice afterwards, but it will never 100% prevent. Because of that, and because of the potential for abuse, it is better to not be under constant surveillance than it is to give up your rights and privacy for no guarantees.
  - toephu2 8mo ago
    There is no expectation of privacy in the public setting though. Anyone can record you in public without your permission. > No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime. No, but if it reduces crime by 99% would you be in favor of it? (See South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore.. examples of democratic countries with CCTVs all over the public space.. and before you say well those are racially homogenous countries.. I say look at Singapore. Singapore is very diverse racially, and yet they have very low rates of crime. This is because they have strict laws against crime and these laws are actually enforced)
    - yibg 8mo ago
      South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all had significantly lower crime rates before CCTVs were all over the public space. EDIT: also, most crime happens at home, so if you really want a large reduction put cameras in everyone's home too.
    - dyauspitr 8mo ago
      Singapore is very diverse racially… with groups that aren’t generally known to be very criminal. It’s mostly a mix of Chinese, Malays and Indians. I doubt the CCTVs have much to do with it.
wat10000 8mo ago
Of course they do some good. You could improve things even further by implementing a system like Judge Dredd, and we'd save a ton of money as well. This is the problem with limits on law enforcement. There are tradeoffs, and people really don't like tradeoffs. Many people prefer to just assume that law enforcement will use their powers for good, rather than have to think about whether any given change will do more harm than good due to enabling bad law enforcement.