9 ms·

While I think this isn’t great. Why is the camera there in the first place?? Presumably there are people that have access to it. And if you are demoing softwa

While I think this isn’t great. Why is the camera there in the first place?? Presumably there are people that have access to it. And if you are demoing software that connects to cameras, then someone gave the sales guy access to those cameras. I’m also assuming those probably weren’t the only cameras…

KaiserPro 6mo ago
> Why is the camera there in the first place?? I imagine its for security. Ie if there are reports of robbery, you can find who did it. I know its not that popular in the states but its common elsewhere, but with better controls. (well, "better" as in controlled by shitty IoT devices) I think the thing with flock is just how poorly put together everything is. They are obviously insecure, and the entire network has massive holes in it. Yet its still being rolled out.
- ses1984 6mo ago
  Why would a gymnastics gym get robbed? It’s just a bunch of smelly equipment that’s hard to sell and probably very little cash.
  - tedggh 6mo ago
    Looting is done for fun too. It must suck to have kids show up for practice in the morning and some of the essential gear is gone. It doesn’t matter if it is inexpensive to replace, you still have to cancel class and take a day or two up replace it, file a police report, etc
    - antiframe 6mo ago
      Right, but why is a Flock camera a better approach than: insurance, on-prem camera, etc. The Flock camera doesn't prevent theft. It increases remote viewing (especially if it's used in a demo to strangers they aren't customers yet, doubly especially if those strange customers are doing it because the might want to see young gymnasts)
      - KaiserPro 6mo ago
        normally a condition of insurance is that you have CCTV and other preventative systems in place. > The Flock camera doesn't prevent theft. Not directly, but it does increase the chance of the perpetrator getting caught (not flock, the camera) in theory this means that less people are about to steal/break stuff. Also sign posts with saying that "this place has surveillance" tends to reduce opportunists. On a side note I would recommend volunteering at a community centre/sports/scouts/library. First its extremely rewarding, and secondly you learn about how things are in the real world "for the normals"
        gamerslexus 6mo ago
        At least for private households, it's not mandatory to have surveillance cameras at home. If you do have one though, they will demand footage and can deny your claim if it was off, or worse. https://youtu.be/UMIwNiwQewQ?t=903 https://youtu.be/UMIwNiwQewQ?t=903
        KaiserPro 6mo ago
        Yeah, I wouldnt have that in my house
  - KaiserPro 6mo ago
    here its mostly mobile phones.
  - Symbiote 6mo ago
    Possibly as a deterrent to a child (or adult) going through clothing/bags and stealing mobile phones while the owners are exercising.
  - RandallBrown 6mo ago
    Robbery may not be the main reason for a camera. Having a video of any incident that happens (broken equipment leading to injury, angry parent, etc.) would be valuable.
  - jjmarr 6mo ago
    It's the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta. Jewish Community Centers are targeted more for attacks than a YMCA.
    - direwolf20 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      - amanaplanacanal 6mo ago
        Pretty sure some Atlanta organization has exactly zero to do with whatever Holocaust you are thinking of.
        direwolf20 6mo ago
        [flagged]
  - TZubiri 6mo ago
    School shootings?
    - tremon 6mo ago
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a faceless guy with a camera?
  - nerdsniper 6mo ago
    Vandalism.
rcoder 6mo ago
In many cases the people deploying these cameras have no idea the feeds are being resold to Flock. It’s not like they have a consumer brand and people are saying, “oh yeah, Flock, they’re the license plate camera folks…I definitely want one of those in my locker room.”
- aleksiy123 6mo ago
  I feel like I’m missing something. There is someone that is making the decision right? Or are you just saying the person placing the cameras is decoupled from the person making the decision to aggregate them all. But I still feel like the accountability is on who is giving the access to sensitive cameras.
  - bluGill 6mo ago
    Most often the business hires a security contractor to take care of it, and signs the contract without understanding the terms. You should be able to trust your suppliers enough that you can do the above, they are the experts in the thing (cameras in this thing, but could be things like plumbing or accounting) and you have your own business to run. "Should" is key though, all too often someone doesn't do right by their clients.
    - TZubiri 6mo ago
      >Most often the business hires a security contractor to take care of it, and signs the contract without understanding the terms. The bulk of the responsibility here would lie on whoever signed I think. It's one thing to click "I agree" when you are making a SaaS account for downloading cat videos. But at a job, you are getting paid to read these things and to make informed decisions.
  - cogman10 6mo ago
    > Or are you just saying the person placing the cameras is decoupled from the person making the decision to aggregate them all. That's exactly what's happening. People are buying webcams which are cheap and have in their ToS something to the effect of "we get to sell everything the camera can see". Which, in turn, allows them to partner with Flock and sell video footage directly to them. Consider the fact that at one point, Amazon partnered with Flock to sell their ring camera footage to Flock. [1] It only got botched because of the creepy superbowl commercial selling the spying as "finding lost puppies". [1] https://apnews.com/article/amazon-flock-super-bowl-surveillance-privacy-32b7d32a06d369bffe3ffdcdd31962a1 https://apnews.com/article/amazon-flock-super-bowl-surveilla...
throw848tjfj 6mo ago
[flagged]
- throw848tjfj 6mo ago
  [flagged]
- collingreen 6mo ago
  What does this have to do with cameras covering little kids doing gymnastics? I'm sorry you had a bad experience and using cameras to protect yourself is a thing but filming kids doing gymnastics seems very very far from purely defensive.
  - throw848tjfj 6mo ago
    Because predators are even at schools! Our school gym park is used as a toilet by dog owners! I want to have video evidence, if some crazy person blames kid for provoking the attack!
    - dghlsakjg 6mo ago
      That’s understandable. Why does the video footage need to be able to be viewed live, remotely, by a sales team and a prospective client in another state? Predators have access to these cameras. There are numerous instances of police using these systems to stalk women. If I want video proof of what happened at a school, I’m much more comfortable with it being held on premises in a tamper evident location. That eliminates some of the predators from the situation.
      - throw848tjfj 6mo ago
        [flagged]
    - ashtonshears 6mo ago
      Your trauma is not reason to prescribe privacy invasion on others
bluGill 6mo ago
Any sane business that has lots of random people coming in will have cameras recording (except in bathrooms/locker rooms). There is too much opportunity for crime, and a camera is cheap. If something happens you pull up the feed from the last month and give the interesting parts to the police; most often you just delete everything after a month. More than one crime has been solved this way. That said, if there wasn't a crime the camera footage should be deleted.
- themafia 6mo ago
  > There is too much opportunity for crime, and a camera is cheap. The camera doesn't prevent crime. It just displaces it. Even when it doesn't it will not prevent the crime from happening. It _may_ provide you an opportunity to prosecute the person who committed it. In reality the only real reason to have one is to reduce your insurance premiums. > crime has been solved A perpetrator was potentially caught and now has to be tried or negotiated into a plea. I understand we use the term "solve" as a term of art but it's a particularly poor one. It speaks to the need of police to clear their books of negative indicators and not to any first order desirable social outcome. > That said That said, if during a demo, you access another customers equipment, I will _never_ do business with you. That's just extremely unprofessional behavior.
  - SauntSolaire 6mo ago
    > The camera doesn't prevent crime. It just displaces it. That's why I periodically leave a bunch of bicycles with cheap locks downtown. They act like a kind of criminal sacrificial anode, reducing crime in the rest of the city.
    - NonHyloMorph 6mo ago
      Lol
    - themafia 6mo ago
      That's why the police don't enforce drug laws in _particular_ areas. What you describe is obviously already happening on a much larger scale. I'm not sure why people have trouble grasping something this basic.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
amelius 6mo ago
> Presumably there are people that have access to it. Could also be AI.

KaiserPro 6mo ago

> Why is the camera there in the first place?? I imagine its for security. Ie if there are reports of robbery, you can find who did it. I know its not that popular in the states but its common elsewhere, but with better controls. (well, "better" as in controlled by shitty IoT devices) I think the thing with flock is just how poorly put together everything is. They are obviously insecure, and the entire network has massive holes in it. Yet its still being rolled out.

ses1984 6mo ago
Why would a gymnastics gym get robbed? It’s just a bunch of smelly equipment that’s hard to sell and probably very little cash.
- tedggh 6mo ago
  Looting is done for fun too. It must suck to have kids show up for practice in the morning and some of the essential gear is gone. It doesn’t matter if it is inexpensive to replace, you still have to cancel class and take a day or two up replace it, file a police report, etc
  - antiframe 6mo ago
    Right, but why is a Flock camera a better approach than: insurance, on-prem camera, etc. The Flock camera doesn't prevent theft. It increases remote viewing (especially if it's used in a demo to strangers they aren't customers yet, doubly especially if those strange customers are doing it because the might want to see young gymnasts)
    - KaiserPro 6mo ago
      normally a condition of insurance is that you have CCTV and other preventative systems in place. > The Flock camera doesn't prevent theft. Not directly, but it does increase the chance of the perpetrator getting caught (not flock, the camera) in theory this means that less people are about to steal/break stuff. Also sign posts with saying that "this place has surveillance" tends to reduce opportunists. On a side note I would recommend volunteering at a community centre/sports/scouts/library. First its extremely rewarding, and secondly you learn about how things are in the real world "for the normals"
      - gamerslexus 6mo ago
        At least for private households, it's not mandatory to have surveillance cameras at home. If you do have one though, they will demand footage and can deny your claim if it was off, or worse. https://youtu.be/UMIwNiwQewQ?t=903 https://youtu.be/UMIwNiwQewQ?t=903
        KaiserPro 6mo ago
        Yeah, I wouldnt have that in my house
- KaiserPro 6mo ago
  here its mostly mobile phones.
- Symbiote 6mo ago
  Possibly as a deterrent to a child (or adult) going through clothing/bags and stealing mobile phones while the owners are exercising.
- RandallBrown 6mo ago
  Robbery may not be the main reason for a camera. Having a video of any incident that happens (broken equipment leading to injury, angry parent, etc.) would be valuable.
- jjmarr 6mo ago
  It's the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta. Jewish Community Centers are targeted more for attacks than a YMCA.
  - direwolf20 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - amanaplanacanal 6mo ago
      Pretty sure some Atlanta organization has exactly zero to do with whatever Holocaust you are thinking of.
      - direwolf20 6mo ago
        [flagged]
- TZubiri 6mo ago
  School shootings?
  - tremon 6mo ago
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a faceless guy with a camera?
- nerdsniper 6mo ago
  Vandalism.

rcoder 6mo ago

In many cases the people deploying these cameras have no idea the feeds are being resold to Flock. It’s not like they have a consumer brand and people are saying, “oh yeah, Flock, they’re the license plate camera folks…I definitely want one of those in my locker room.”

aleksiy123 6mo ago
I feel like I’m missing something. There is someone that is making the decision right? Or are you just saying the person placing the cameras is decoupled from the person making the decision to aggregate them all. But I still feel like the accountability is on who is giving the access to sensitive cameras.
- bluGill 6mo ago
  Most often the business hires a security contractor to take care of it, and signs the contract without understanding the terms. You should be able to trust your suppliers enough that you can do the above, they are the experts in the thing (cameras in this thing, but could be things like plumbing or accounting) and you have your own business to run. "Should" is key though, all too often someone doesn't do right by their clients.
  - TZubiri 6mo ago
    >Most often the business hires a security contractor to take care of it, and signs the contract without understanding the terms. The bulk of the responsibility here would lie on whoever signed I think. It's one thing to click "I agree" when you are making a SaaS account for downloading cat videos. But at a job, you are getting paid to read these things and to make informed decisions.
- cogman10 6mo ago
  > Or are you just saying the person placing the cameras is decoupled from the person making the decision to aggregate them all. That's exactly what's happening. People are buying webcams which are cheap and have in their ToS something to the effect of "we get to sell everything the camera can see". Which, in turn, allows them to partner with Flock and sell video footage directly to them. Consider the fact that at one point, Amazon partnered with Flock to sell their ring camera footage to Flock. [1] It only got botched because of the creepy superbowl commercial selling the spying as "finding lost puppies". [1] https://apnews.com/article/amazon-flock-super-bowl-surveillance-privacy-32b7d32a06d369bffe3ffdcdd31962a1 https://apnews.com/article/amazon-flock-super-bowl-surveilla...

throw848tjfj 6mo ago

[flagged]

throw848tjfj 6mo ago
[flagged]
collingreen 6mo ago
What does this have to do with cameras covering little kids doing gymnastics? I'm sorry you had a bad experience and using cameras to protect yourself is a thing but filming kids doing gymnastics seems very very far from purely defensive.
- throw848tjfj 6mo ago
  Because predators are even at schools! Our school gym park is used as a toilet by dog owners! I want to have video evidence, if some crazy person blames kid for provoking the attack!
  - dghlsakjg 6mo ago
    That’s understandable. Why does the video footage need to be able to be viewed live, remotely, by a sales team and a prospective client in another state? Predators have access to these cameras. There are numerous instances of police using these systems to stalk women. If I want video proof of what happened at a school, I’m much more comfortable with it being held on premises in a tamper evident location. That eliminates some of the predators from the situation.
    - throw848tjfj 6mo ago
      [flagged]
  - ashtonshears 6mo ago
    Your trauma is not reason to prescribe privacy invasion on others

bluGill 6mo ago

Any sane business that has lots of random people coming in will have cameras recording (except in bathrooms/locker rooms). There is too much opportunity for crime, and a camera is cheap. If something happens you pull up the feed from the last month and give the interesting parts to the police; most often you just delete everything after a month. More than one crime has been solved this way. That said, if there wasn't a crime the camera footage should be deleted.

themafia 6mo ago
> There is too much opportunity for crime, and a camera is cheap. The camera doesn't prevent crime. It just displaces it. Even when it doesn't it will not prevent the crime from happening. It _may_ provide you an opportunity to prosecute the person who committed it. In reality the only real reason to have one is to reduce your insurance premiums. > crime has been solved A perpetrator was potentially caught and now has to be tried or negotiated into a plea. I understand we use the term "solve" as a term of art but it's a particularly poor one. It speaks to the need of police to clear their books of negative indicators and not to any first order desirable social outcome. > That said That said, if during a demo, you access another customers equipment, I will _never_ do business with you. That's just extremely unprofessional behavior.
- SauntSolaire 6mo ago
  > The camera doesn't prevent crime. It just displaces it. That's why I periodically leave a bunch of bicycles with cheap locks downtown. They act like a kind of criminal sacrificial anode, reducing crime in the rest of the city.
  - NonHyloMorph 6mo ago
    Lol
  - themafia 6mo ago
    That's why the police don't enforce drug laws in _particular_ areas. What you describe is obviously already happening on a much larger scale. I'm not sure why people have trouble grasping something this basic.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

amelius 6mo ago

> Presumably there are people that have access to it. Could also be AI.