5 ms·

25 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headlin

by taylodl 5mo ago

25 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.

patcon 5mo ago
I feel that part of the insight is that many people reading this story may want it to be true as stated. All the upvotes and it's propagation in networks may lossily lay this claim (of course debatable) The beauty of surveillance is that it mutes the ability to cover the distance between desire and action. Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect" As I understand, part of any story being shared is that its propagation is part of the story, in a McLuhan medium-is-the-message sense.
- tptacek 5mo ago
  The idea that this is an important trend story is infinity times more fun to talk about than the corrective that this isn't really a thing at all, which means online forums will sharply bias towards the notion that this is important. This whole thread is pretty powerful evidence for that proposition: it's sprawling commentary on what pretty clearly seems to be LLM slop writing. You could build a novel operating system and get flagged off the front page for having a README with Claude tells in it, but that preference is obviously contingent.
- Ylpertnodi 5mo ago
  And yet, the death penalty, doesn't seem to have muted murder.
  - idle_zealot 5mo ago
    That's not really the contradiction you seem to be implying. The belief that one is being watched and the knowledge that if caught there will be extremely high consequences are two completely different things, not to mention that the chilling effects of surveillance may impact a mostly different set of criminal and non-criminal behaviors.
  - AxisAngles 5mo ago
    It seems like it takes a rational mind to be muted. It seems like most murders are committed irrationally.
- smsm42 5mo ago
  > I feel that part of the insight is that many people reading this story may want it to be true as stated. People that are writing this story surely would. They, of course, wouldn't do it themselves - I mean, you could be arrested and lose your job and go to jail... but if somebody else would bear those consequences, then of course it's fine! > Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect" Yes, that's kind of the point. The question is what does it chill. If it is chilling criminal activities, it's good, if it's chilling legal activities, it's bad.
  - appplication 5mo ago
    Not all criminal activity is bad. See: John Lewis and “good trouble”
    - smsm42 5mo ago
      Activities such as public disobedience to fight unjust laws are unlikely to be affected by surveillance because their whole point is to publicly violate unjust law to attract attention to its unjustness. MLK did not march in secret and avoid surveillance, he marched in public and welcomed attention. That was the whole point of it.
      - godelski 5mo ago
        But there's different dangers and responsibilities by those leading and those joining. The surveillance affects those in the march. Those who might lose their jobs or get arrested. Which did happen at that time. Surveillance increases that scale. A weird thing is that as groups scale they become anonymous. Small groups have no anonymity, but big groups do. There's safety in numbers. This is why people protest differently now. Why they wear masks. Why people leave their phones at home. The way you protest evolves, but we should ensure that protesting is easy and safe
        smsm42 5mo ago
        > This is why people protest differently now. Why they wear masks No, they wear masks to commit criminal acts, which we witness a lot and for which they definitely should be prosecuted. I am wholeheartedly for peaceful protests, but sorry, black block masked crowds torching businesses and beating up people is not peaceful protests. That's where our ways part. Anarchy and democracy are very different things, and I do not want the former, and I do not want the latter to be confused with the former. And no, it should not be easy and safe to wear a mask and riot - not individually and not with a mob. It should be very dangerous and land one in jail, preferable for a good long time. The fact that it is not happening today is one of the very profound problem that we have in our society - that breaking the laws is tolerated under the thin guise of "protest". And I am not talking about Jim Crow laws, I am talking about common sense laws like "don't torch your neighbor's business" and "don't loot your local Target" and "don't beat up random people walking on the street because you felt like they think wrong thoughts". This has to stop.
- ipython 5mo ago
  Totally. Like, for example, the so-called throngs of roaming domestic terrorists setting Teslas on fire across the US. My dad still asks me if anyone has vandalized mine. (No, and I’m personally unaware of anyone who has had theirs vandalized. At least 1/3 of vehicles in my area are teslas)
unglaublich 5mo ago
I think the concern is widespread, but most people aren't ready to challenge the government which can have severe consequences to your life.
- cj 5mo ago
  Does a significant percentage of the population even know what flock is or that it's happening? In my non-tech circles, people don't think and don't care about this stuff.
- bko 5mo ago
  I don't think there is "widespread concern". I'd be willing to bet >99% of people don't know what Flock is. But if you go ask people, in a non-duplicitous way, whether you want less of a police presence or curtail use technology to solve crimes, most people will not want less police. Here is an example > When asked whether they want the police to spend more time, the same amount of time or less time than they currently do in their area, most Black Americans -- 61% -- want the police presence to remain the same. This is similar to the 67% of all U.S. adults preferring the status quo, including 71% of White Americans. > Meanwhile, nearly equal proportions of Black Americans say they would like the police to spend more time in their area (20%) as say they'd like them to spend less time there (19%). It's really a privileged out of touch luxury belief to believe that there is no need to deter or solve crime. People that are affected by crime and/or have common sense, understand that technology that helps solve or prevent criminal activities is actually a good thing. https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-r...
  - idle_zealot 5mo ago
    Black people wanting more police presence is a well known fact, as is the fact that increased police presence in their communities results in the police arresting and killing a lot of innocent people. This reflects a world where policing is broken, but it's the only discussed mechanism to reduce crime. In parallel the perception of crime rates has become totally unhinged from actual crime statistics. If you ask an average person whether they think crime has gone up or down they're likely to say "up by a lot." Which is basically uniformly untrue. So then they ask for more police, the only way they can think of to solve the real (but overestimated) problem. It's not a luxury belief to grapple with reality instead of subjecting yourself to a false dichotomy where you either have police prowling the streets or gangs doing the same. Don't give this "common sense" crap, you know very well that intuition fails all the time, especially when applied to incredibly complex topics like governance or social policy.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
gbriel 5mo ago
So Americans (plural) is true, since there are > 1 people smashing cameras. (: I would love to use AI to re-write article headlines into non-ragebait slop.
hankerapp 5mo ago
[dead]
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
lashull 5mo ago
It doesn't. You are right. For comparison: main area of Richmond (Virgina) as a quick random lookup alone lists 441 Flock cams + 6 Alpr cams.
deepsquirrelnet 5mo ago
Flock is only one company. Someone in my town smashed one from a different company and was treated like a hero in Facebook comments. It’s not mentioned in the article.
dbg31415 5mo ago
That’s a shame. But it’s not too late!
diebillionaires 5mo ago
it is a widespread concern that more haven’t been destroyed

by taylodl 5mo ago

25 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.

patcon 5mo ago

I feel that part of the insight is that many people reading this story may want it to be true as stated. All the upvotes and it's propagation in networks may lossily lay this claim (of course debatable) The beauty of surveillance is that it mutes the ability to cover the distance between desire and action. Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect" As I understand, part of any story being shared is that its propagation is part of the story, in a McLuhan medium-is-the-message sense.

tptacek 5mo ago
The idea that this is an important trend story is infinity times more fun to talk about than the corrective that this isn't really a thing at all, which means online forums will sharply bias towards the notion that this is important. This whole thread is pretty powerful evidence for that proposition: it's sprawling commentary on what pretty clearly seems to be LLM slop writing. You could build a novel operating system and get flagged off the front page for having a README with Claude tells in it, but that preference is obviously contingent.
Ylpertnodi 5mo ago
And yet, the death penalty, doesn't seem to have muted murder.
- idle_zealot 5mo ago
  That's not really the contradiction you seem to be implying. The belief that one is being watched and the knowledge that if caught there will be extremely high consequences are two completely different things, not to mention that the chilling effects of surveillance may impact a mostly different set of criminal and non-criminal behaviors.
- AxisAngles 5mo ago
  It seems like it takes a rational mind to be muted. It seems like most murders are committed irrationally.
smsm42 5mo ago
> I feel that part of the insight is that many people reading this story may want it to be true as stated. People that are writing this story surely would. They, of course, wouldn't do it themselves - I mean, you could be arrested and lose your job and go to jail... but if somebody else would bear those consequences, then of course it's fine! > Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect" Yes, that's kind of the point. The question is what does it chill. If it is chilling criminal activities, it's good, if it's chilling legal activities, it's bad.
- appplication 5mo ago
  Not all criminal activity is bad. See: John Lewis and “good trouble”
  - smsm42 5mo ago
    Activities such as public disobedience to fight unjust laws are unlikely to be affected by surveillance because their whole point is to publicly violate unjust law to attract attention to its unjustness. MLK did not march in secret and avoid surveillance, he marched in public and welcomed attention. That was the whole point of it.
    - godelski 5mo ago
      But there's different dangers and responsibilities by those leading and those joining. The surveillance affects those in the march. Those who might lose their jobs or get arrested. Which did happen at that time. Surveillance increases that scale. A weird thing is that as groups scale they become anonymous. Small groups have no anonymity, but big groups do. There's safety in numbers. This is why people protest differently now. Why they wear masks. Why people leave their phones at home. The way you protest evolves, but we should ensure that protesting is easy and safe
      - smsm42 5mo ago
        > This is why people protest differently now. Why they wear masks No, they wear masks to commit criminal acts, which we witness a lot and for which they definitely should be prosecuted. I am wholeheartedly for peaceful protests, but sorry, black block masked crowds torching businesses and beating up people is not peaceful protests. That's where our ways part. Anarchy and democracy are very different things, and I do not want the former, and I do not want the latter to be confused with the former. And no, it should not be easy and safe to wear a mask and riot - not individually and not with a mob. It should be very dangerous and land one in jail, preferable for a good long time. The fact that it is not happening today is one of the very profound problem that we have in our society - that breaking the laws is tolerated under the thin guise of "protest". And I am not talking about Jim Crow laws, I am talking about common sense laws like "don't torch your neighbor's business" and "don't loot your local Target" and "don't beat up random people walking on the street because you felt like they think wrong thoughts". This has to stop.
ipython 5mo ago
Totally. Like, for example, the so-called throngs of roaming domestic terrorists setting Teslas on fire across the US. My dad still asks me if anyone has vandalized mine. (No, and I’m personally unaware of anyone who has had theirs vandalized. At least 1/3 of vehicles in my area are teslas)

unglaublich 5mo ago

I think the concern is widespread, but most people aren't ready to challenge the government which can have severe consequences to your life.

cj 5mo ago
Does a significant percentage of the population even know what flock is or that it's happening? In my non-tech circles, people don't think and don't care about this stuff.
bko 5mo ago
I don't think there is "widespread concern". I'd be willing to bet >99% of people don't know what Flock is. But if you go ask people, in a non-duplicitous way, whether you want less of a police presence or curtail use technology to solve crimes, most people will not want less police. Here is an example > When asked whether they want the police to spend more time, the same amount of time or less time than they currently do in their area, most Black Americans -- 61% -- want the police presence to remain the same. This is similar to the 67% of all U.S. adults preferring the status quo, including 71% of White Americans. > Meanwhile, nearly equal proportions of Black Americans say they would like the police to spend more time in their area (20%) as say they'd like them to spend less time there (19%). It's really a privileged out of touch luxury belief to believe that there is no need to deter or solve crime. People that are affected by crime and/or have common sense, understand that technology that helps solve or prevent criminal activities is actually a good thing. https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-r...
- idle_zealot 5mo ago
  Black people wanting more police presence is a well known fact, as is the fact that increased police presence in their communities results in the police arresting and killing a lot of innocent people. This reflects a world where policing is broken, but it's the only discussed mechanism to reduce crime. In parallel the perception of crime rates has become totally unhinged from actual crime statistics. If you ask an average person whether they think crime has gone up or down they're likely to say "up by a lot." Which is basically uniformly untrue. So then they ask for more police, the only way they can think of to solve the real (but overestimated) problem. It's not a luxury belief to grapple with reality instead of subjecting yourself to a false dichotomy where you either have police prowling the streets or gangs doing the same. Don't give this "common sense" crap, you know very well that intuition fails all the time, especially when applied to incredibly complex topics like governance or social policy.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

gbriel 5mo ago

So Americans (plural) is true, since there are > 1 people smashing cameras. (: I would love to use AI to re-write article headlines into non-ragebait slop.

hankerapp 5mo ago

[dead]

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

lashull 5mo ago

It doesn't. You are right. For comparison: main area of Richmond (Virgina) as a quick random lookup alone lists 441 Flock cams + 6 Alpr cams.

deepsquirrelnet 5mo ago

Flock is only one company. Someone in my town smashed one from a different company and was treated like a hero in Facebook comments. It’s not mentioned in the article.

dbg31415 5mo ago

That’s a shame. But it’s not too late!

diebillionaires 5mo ago

it is a widespread concern that more haven’t been destroyed