7 ms·

I'm surprised Garrett Langley still has a job, he seems wildly out of touch. For instance he really believes that his Panopticon as a service is the reason cri

by jmuguy 6mo ago

I'm surprised Garrett Langley still has a job, he seems wildly out of touch. For instance he really believes that his Panopticon as a service is the reason crime is down in cities, conveniently ignoring crime rates prior to COVID.

therobots927 6mo ago
He won’t for long. The backlash is just getting started. Left or right, no one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance. His only advantage is that the cops are on his side and won’t let go of these cameras without a fight.
- mlinhares 6mo ago
  Nah, he's just missing a good PR campaign, there's a 30% of the population that will eat whatever their supreme leaders say they should, I'm sure they can sanewash these cameras as well.
  - therobots927 6mo ago
    America is pretty polarized around privacy as demonstrated by reactions to the Snowden leaks. So I think that’s a fair point.
    - hrimfaxi 6mo ago
      That was over a decade ago. I wonder if it has gotten better or worse since.
      - zulux 6mo ago
        It's gotten worse: I'm so tired of rampant crime that I'm up for a little surveillance. And I used to donate to the ACLU before they went crazy.
        estebank 6mo ago
        > And I used to donate to the ACLU before they went crazy. When was that? Because in 1977 they defended Nazi's free speech to demonstrate in a town that had jewish people as half its population so it tried to block them, and I don't recall them doing anything nearly that controversial since. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-skokie-case-how-i-came-to-represent-the-free-speech-rights-of-nazis https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-skokie-case-how-i-...
        selectodude 6mo ago
        Yeah that’s when they actually defended free speech. They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. That’s crazy.
        nxm 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        triceratops 6mo ago
        It's always been an activist organization. Even defending Nazis' free speech is activism. You just don't like their current activities.
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        Gosh, the ACLU? Activists? Say it ain't so!
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        > They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. Alternative framing: Given limited resources and lots of things to care about, they pick the specific cases that best improve the freedoms they're interested in protecting. In the case of the Second Amendment, they decided to let the NRA handle it, as that seems to be working just fine.
        6mo ago
- ses1984 6mo ago
  No one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance, except everyone who carries a “normal” cell phone, in other words not a burner.
  - therobots927 6mo ago
    Yes but you can always leave your phone behind if you want to drop off the map. Flock makes that borderline impossible.
    - deadbabe 6mo ago
      You can remove your license plate, you will get pretty far before it actually gets you pulled over.
      - Corrado 6mo ago
        Actually, that won’t work. The flock cameras don’t only rely on license plate information. They use “AI” to determine the make model and color of your car as well as any outstanding features, such as bumper stickers or roof racks.
        deadbabe 6mo ago
        It works if you just add a magnet sticker somewhere when you remove your plate.
      - sophacles 6mo ago
        Leaving a cellphone behind is legal still. Removing a license plate is breaking the law. Drawing an equivalence is foolish.
  - hrimfaxi 6mo ago
    Do people who carry normal cell phones do so with the active desire to have their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance?
- whimsicalism 6mo ago
  I'm very in favor of speed & redlight cameras and don't have a particular problem with license plate trackers. I think we partisan-ize far too many things nowadays, unfortunately.
  - snsr 6mo ago
    Maybe you're also in favor of some light reading https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/
    - whimsicalism 6mo ago
      you think speed cameras violate the 4th amendment?
      - mothballed 6mo ago
        No but license plate requirements pretty clearly violate the 4th and/or 1st amendment, IMO. And without being required to have your license plate searched (registration 'papers' forced to be displayed) at all times without even an officer presenting RAS or PC of a crime, these cameras become a lot less useful. I don't see how removing the cameras is compatible with the first amendment, but if you have the right of "speech" to record me in public chasing every place I go in a manner that is the envy of any stalker, I ought to have the right of "speech" not to "say anything" (compelled speech of showing my plate).
        nemomarx 6mo ago
        It really doesn't seem like the courts agree that you have a right to travel via car without a visible plate.
        mothballed 6mo ago
        The courts have been wrong about many things, sometimes for centuries before they've fixed it. Some things they think they've interpreted correctly now that they'll turn around and interpret some other way later. Trying to interpret viewing and recording the plate as speech but not displaying it as speech is trying to have your cake and eat it too. If the camera can stalk my car everywhere and record it under auspices of 'speech', it's only logical I can hide it as 'speech.'
- delecti 6mo ago
  > no one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance But sadly lots of people want everyone else subject to it, and some are willing to submit to it themselves to get it. It's not a foregone conclusion.
  - Corrado 6mo ago
    I was recently at a "town hall" meeting in my community and spoke with a older woman about Flock cameras. Initially she was not concerned about it and was generally in favor of the idea. I agreed that there could be benefits but that the downside is that they know when and where you go to church, or the grocery, or where you get your hair done, or even when you go on vacation. Her eyes lit up and I she replied that she would have to think about that a bit. I'm not saying that I changed her mind, but that bringing the consequences down to something she could understand was much better than yelling from the rooftops. Mentioning church is especially impactful with a lot of older folks.
    - jkestner 6mo ago
      In talking with many of the older people in my community about Flock, they initially defer to what our police department says it needs. A few things made them reconsider: - This is not about our police. This is about all the outside organizations that can watch us. - Focusing on Flock specifically. Once the cameras are given a name, people can start to form a better opinion fueled by the readily available bad press Flock is producing. - With the focus on Flock, the YouTube videos elsewhere in this topic do a great job of explaining how crappy their security is and how they're lying to their customers about it. Which brings it back to, this isn't about our local police — it's about the company that's an unworthy partner. Good job talking to your community. The first step is that people are aware of the cameras - for my neighbors, most did not know about them, and immediately found it creepy.
- anthonypasq 6mo ago
  i think politicians have seriously underestimated how much people don't like crime, and most people would take constant surveillance if it could actually improve feelings of safety in urban environments.
  - energy123 6mo ago
    Enforcing public safety effectively is one of the most pro-democracy things you can do. Otherwise people use democracy to elect public safety authoritarians like the wildly popular Bukele and Duterte.
    - cucumber3732842 6mo ago
      So we should 1984 the crap out of ourselves because if we don't we'll elect an authoritarian who'll 1984 the crap out of us? Reminds me of this classic: https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/11/2020-11-07-22.31.49.jpg https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/11/2020-11-07-22.31.49.j... Yeah, I'm all for public safety in theory but seems like these days that's just a dog whistle for "go hard on whatever sort of petty deviance I don't like" and so I'm unwilling to support things like that in the default case. It's all just so tiresome.
      - krastanov 6mo ago
        I read OP differently. I thought they said "we should invest in non-dystopian public safety[1] to avoid dystopian populist creating a 1984 version of public safety". [1]: I imagine this includes things like mental heath help, housing, and other related social safety nets.
  - eitally 6mo ago
    I think it's also true that many people are wildly out of touch when they think about how "safe" their local municipality is. The Bay Area is objectively safe, for example, yet I constantly run into neighbors in affluent neighborhoods who are afraid of venturing various places, letting their kids play outside or bike to school, or just generally exploring around. I was at a BayFC match last weekend, for example, and ran into the family of an acquaintance from my elementary daughter's school. They have an 8th grader and are trying to get an intra-district transfer approved for high school so she doesn't have to go to the neighborhood school where a student brought a ghost gun on campus 3 years ago (he was arrested and successfully prosecuted, and no one was hurt)... and instead go to the local school where a handful of kids arranged their bodies in a swastika pattern on the football field (and photographed it!) several months ago. My point isn't that either of these crimes is acceptable, but that people tend to be irrational and ignorant of statistical analysis. Both of these are good schools with better than average student outcomes, but families consistently bring their own prejudices into analysis and it creates mild chaos & havoc across the system overall.
thinkingtoilet 6mo ago
Does he really believe it or is it his job to say he really believes it?
- everdrive 6mo ago
  Could he tell the difference?
  - stronglikedan 6mo ago
    Anyone can tell whether they believe what they're saying. If you pay me enough to lie, I'll lie, but of course I won't believe it.
- FireBeyond 6mo ago
  As an ex-employee of Flock, if he doesn't really believe it he is an amazing actor. He talks of a very Minority Report-esque future, where there is literally zero crime, and it's because of Flock. Flock's stats are very misleading too. If there was a Flock query in the course of investigating a crime, even if it leads nowhere or isn't relevant to the arrest or conviction, still, Flock was queried, so "Flock solved a crime". It was sad. I had significant ethical questions when I joined, but all through recruitment and week one, everything was all about controls and restraints and auditing and ethics. After that, nope, a free for all. Selling our products in states that don't allow the use of certain functionality? Not our problem. We're not disabling it. That's up to you to decide whether you're using it or not.
Zigurd 6mo ago
"Garrett Langley" sounds like what they renamed the villain in Le Mis for an American audience.
doctorpangloss 6mo ago
Another POV is, they didn't invent cameras or drones, they aren't philosophers / employ any great or influential thinkers, nobody at Flock has won an election, all they really have done is sell some stuff that is easily defeated by a guy with a hammer or spray paint. I'm not sure he has another chance at a big Pay Day in his life, so in such desperate circumstances it will take something really criminal (or souring with VCs) to end this appearance in public life.

by jmuguy 6mo ago

therobots927 6mo ago

He won’t for long. The backlash is just getting started. Left or right, no one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance. His only advantage is that the cops are on his side and won’t let go of these cameras without a fight.

mlinhares 6mo ago
Nah, he's just missing a good PR campaign, there's a 30% of the population that will eat whatever their supreme leaders say they should, I'm sure they can sanewash these cameras as well.
- therobots927 6mo ago
  America is pretty polarized around privacy as demonstrated by reactions to the Snowden leaks. So I think that’s a fair point.
  - hrimfaxi 6mo ago
    That was over a decade ago. I wonder if it has gotten better or worse since.
    - zulux 6mo ago
      It's gotten worse: I'm so tired of rampant crime that I'm up for a little surveillance. And I used to donate to the ACLU before they went crazy.
      - estebank 6mo ago
        > And I used to donate to the ACLU before they went crazy. When was that? Because in 1977 they defended Nazi's free speech to demonstrate in a town that had jewish people as half its population so it tried to block them, and I don't recall them doing anything nearly that controversial since. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-skokie-case-how-i-came-to-represent-the-free-speech-rights-of-nazis https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-skokie-case-how-i-...
        selectodude 6mo ago
        Yeah that’s when they actually defended free speech. They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. That’s crazy.
        nxm 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        triceratops 6mo ago
        It's always been an activist organization. Even defending Nazis' free speech is activism. You just don't like their current activities.
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        Gosh, the ACLU? Activists? Say it ain't so!
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        > They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. Alternative framing: Given limited resources and lots of things to care about, they pick the specific cases that best improve the freedoms they're interested in protecting. In the case of the Second Amendment, they decided to let the NRA handle it, as that seems to be working just fine.
        6mo ago
ses1984 6mo ago
No one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance, except everyone who carries a “normal” cell phone, in other words not a burner.
- therobots927 6mo ago
  Yes but you can always leave your phone behind if you want to drop off the map. Flock makes that borderline impossible.
  - deadbabe 6mo ago
    You can remove your license plate, you will get pretty far before it actually gets you pulled over.
    - Corrado 6mo ago
      Actually, that won’t work. The flock cameras don’t only rely on license plate information. They use “AI” to determine the make model and color of your car as well as any outstanding features, such as bumper stickers or roof racks.
      - deadbabe 6mo ago
        It works if you just add a magnet sticker somewhere when you remove your plate.
    - sophacles 6mo ago
      Leaving a cellphone behind is legal still. Removing a license plate is breaking the law. Drawing an equivalence is foolish.
- hrimfaxi 6mo ago
  Do people who carry normal cell phones do so with the active desire to have their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance?
whimsicalism 6mo ago
I'm very in favor of speed & redlight cameras and don't have a particular problem with license plate trackers. I think we partisan-ize far too many things nowadays, unfortunately.
- snsr 6mo ago
  Maybe you're also in favor of some light reading https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/
  - whimsicalism 6mo ago
    you think speed cameras violate the 4th amendment?
    - mothballed 6mo ago
      No but license plate requirements pretty clearly violate the 4th and/or 1st amendment, IMO. And without being required to have your license plate searched (registration 'papers' forced to be displayed) at all times without even an officer presenting RAS or PC of a crime, these cameras become a lot less useful. I don't see how removing the cameras is compatible with the first amendment, but if you have the right of "speech" to record me in public chasing every place I go in a manner that is the envy of any stalker, I ought to have the right of "speech" not to "say anything" (compelled speech of showing my plate).
      - nemomarx 6mo ago
        It really doesn't seem like the courts agree that you have a right to travel via car without a visible plate.
        mothballed 6mo ago
        The courts have been wrong about many things, sometimes for centuries before they've fixed it. Some things they think they've interpreted correctly now that they'll turn around and interpret some other way later. Trying to interpret viewing and recording the plate as speech but not displaying it as speech is trying to have your cake and eat it too. If the camera can stalk my car everywhere and record it under auspices of 'speech', it's only logical I can hide it as 'speech.'
delecti 6mo ago
> no one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance But sadly lots of people want everyone else subject to it, and some are willing to submit to it themselves to get it. It's not a foregone conclusion.
- Corrado 6mo ago
  I was recently at a "town hall" meeting in my community and spoke with a older woman about Flock cameras. Initially she was not concerned about it and was generally in favor of the idea. I agreed that there could be benefits but that the downside is that they know when and where you go to church, or the grocery, or where you get your hair done, or even when you go on vacation. Her eyes lit up and I she replied that she would have to think about that a bit. I'm not saying that I changed her mind, but that bringing the consequences down to something she could understand was much better than yelling from the rooftops. Mentioning church is especially impactful with a lot of older folks.
  - jkestner 6mo ago
    In talking with many of the older people in my community about Flock, they initially defer to what our police department says it needs. A few things made them reconsider: - This is not about our police. This is about all the outside organizations that can watch us. - Focusing on Flock specifically. Once the cameras are given a name, people can start to form a better opinion fueled by the readily available bad press Flock is producing. - With the focus on Flock, the YouTube videos elsewhere in this topic do a great job of explaining how crappy their security is and how they're lying to their customers about it. Which brings it back to, this isn't about our local police — it's about the company that's an unworthy partner. Good job talking to your community. The first step is that people are aware of the cameras - for my neighbors, most did not know about them, and immediately found it creepy.
anthonypasq 6mo ago
i think politicians have seriously underestimated how much people don't like crime, and most people would take constant surveillance if it could actually improve feelings of safety in urban environments.
- energy123 6mo ago
  Enforcing public safety effectively is one of the most pro-democracy things you can do. Otherwise people use democracy to elect public safety authoritarians like the wildly popular Bukele and Duterte.
  - cucumber3732842 6mo ago
    So we should 1984 the crap out of ourselves because if we don't we'll elect an authoritarian who'll 1984 the crap out of us? Reminds me of this classic: https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/11/2020-11-07-22.31.49.jpg https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/11/2020-11-07-22.31.49.j... Yeah, I'm all for public safety in theory but seems like these days that's just a dog whistle for "go hard on whatever sort of petty deviance I don't like" and so I'm unwilling to support things like that in the default case. It's all just so tiresome.
    - krastanov 6mo ago
      I read OP differently. I thought they said "we should invest in non-dystopian public safety[1] to avoid dystopian populist creating a 1984 version of public safety". [1]: I imagine this includes things like mental heath help, housing, and other related social safety nets.
- eitally 6mo ago
  I think it's also true that many people are wildly out of touch when they think about how "safe" their local municipality is. The Bay Area is objectively safe, for example, yet I constantly run into neighbors in affluent neighborhoods who are afraid of venturing various places, letting their kids play outside or bike to school, or just generally exploring around. I was at a BayFC match last weekend, for example, and ran into the family of an acquaintance from my elementary daughter's school. They have an 8th grader and are trying to get an intra-district transfer approved for high school so she doesn't have to go to the neighborhood school where a student brought a ghost gun on campus 3 years ago (he was arrested and successfully prosecuted, and no one was hurt)... and instead go to the local school where a handful of kids arranged their bodies in a swastika pattern on the football field (and photographed it!) several months ago. My point isn't that either of these crimes is acceptable, but that people tend to be irrational and ignorant of statistical analysis. Both of these are good schools with better than average student outcomes, but families consistently bring their own prejudices into analysis and it creates mild chaos & havoc across the system overall.

thinkingtoilet 6mo ago

Does he really believe it or is it his job to say he really believes it?

everdrive 6mo ago
Could he tell the difference?
- stronglikedan 6mo ago
  Anyone can tell whether they believe what they're saying. If you pay me enough to lie, I'll lie, but of course I won't believe it.
FireBeyond 6mo ago
As an ex-employee of Flock, if he doesn't really believe it he is an amazing actor. He talks of a very Minority Report-esque future, where there is literally zero crime, and it's because of Flock. Flock's stats are very misleading too. If there was a Flock query in the course of investigating a crime, even if it leads nowhere or isn't relevant to the arrest or conviction, still, Flock was queried, so "Flock solved a crime". It was sad. I had significant ethical questions when I joined, but all through recruitment and week one, everything was all about controls and restraints and auditing and ethics. After that, nope, a free for all. Selling our products in states that don't allow the use of certain functionality? Not our problem. We're not disabling it. That's up to you to decide whether you're using it or not.

Zigurd 6mo ago

"Garrett Langley" sounds like what they renamed the villain in Le Mis for an American audience.

doctorpangloss 6mo ago

Another POV is, they didn't invent cameras or drones, they aren't philosophers / employ any great or influential thinkers, nobody at Flock has won an election, all they really have done is sell some stuff that is easily defeated by a guy with a hammer or spray paint. I'm not sure he has another chance at a big Pay Day in his life, so in such desperate circumstances it will take something really criminal (or souring with VCs) to end this appearance in public life.