5 ms·

> Why would you trust the city more than Flock Nationally, I trust a system where the data are split up between siloes more than a single, privately-owned data

> Why would you trust the city more than Flock Nationally, I trust a system where the data are split up between siloes more than a single, privately-owned database.

throwaway894345 4mo ago
Agreed, and more than that, those siloes are governed by democratic processes. Of course, democracy doesn't preclude abuse but it's a lot better than private governance.
- sandeepkd 4mo ago
  In other words centralization of the power is most risky end game here
logancbrown 4mo ago
The large distribution of silo'ed law enforcement across the US is one of the driving reasons why it can be so hard to solve crimes (murder, vehicular theft, etc). Once any crime has the potential to cross state or even jurisdiction lines, dealing with the inner-bureaucracy of crossed enforcement agencies adds days to weeks to solving urgent crimes. A distributed system without consideration into how to coalesce the data together is no better of a solution vs what we have today.
- vablings 4mo ago
  I would like to see some evidence of this demonstrated. I feel a large majority of high-profile cases that went unsolved for a long time most often hinged on incompetence or negligence rather than lack of information sharing. Also, once crime does cross state lines the local FBI gets involved and they have a lot more resources than a small-town police force
  - cliglot 4mo ago
    > often hinged on incompetence or negligence rather than lack of information sharing. Or just technology. Almost every “50 year old cold case solved” I see is because advancements in DNA processing .
- macintux 4mo ago
  > A distributed system without consideration into how to coalesce the data together is no better of a solution vs what we have today. Unless you'd rather prioritize liberty over safety. I want crimes to be harder to solve if the alternative is a panopticon.
jchw 4mo ago
Do we genuinely, really need a mass surveillance network? Isn't the expansion of surveillance through increasing prevalence of technology already way too much? Police can real-time track almost anyone if they have a warrant as it is, thanks to the magic of modern cell phones. We didn't even have time to discuss whether that was a good status quo before it became normal. Are we really sure we want to expand this to a massive network of cameras? I get that it helps solve crimes, but solving crime is not the end-all-be-all of improving society. If anything, it's a highly symptom-oriented solution, and we absolutely have plenty of levers we could be trying to pull if we wanted to prevent crime instead. Forget whether one global surveillance network is more trustworthy than another global surveillance network for a minute. Do we want this at all?
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > Do we genuinely, really need a mass surveillance network? I think that's a fair question for each local jurisdiction to make on its own.
  - jchw 4mo ago
    Hmm. Personally, I disagree; I'd prefer to outlaw it explicitly. That's just my opinion, but I think that regulation has failed to keep up with the pace of technology and we've essentially lost the effect of some constitutional protections.
    - etdznots 4mo ago
      Sadly this was the entire lesson of Marbury v Madison, and the courts are supposed to be the mechanism that brings the hammer down on things that clearly violate the constitution where legislation has not yet arrived, but the courts are completely failing to protect us from what are obviously 4th amendment violations writ large on the entire nation, absurd.
    - saghm 4mo ago
      I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't think that it makes sense to wait to address the immediate issue of a private company centralizing the surveillance until there's sufficient political will for that (which realistically might not ever happen).

> Why would you trust the city more than Flock Nationally, I trust a system where the data are split up between siloes more than a single, privately-owned database.

throwaway894345 4mo ago

Agreed, and more than that, those siloes are governed by democratic processes. Of course, democracy doesn't preclude abuse but it's a lot better than private governance.

sandeepkd 4mo ago
In other words centralization of the power is most risky end game here

logancbrown 4mo ago

The large distribution of silo'ed law enforcement across the US is one of the driving reasons why it can be so hard to solve crimes (murder, vehicular theft, etc). Once any crime has the potential to cross state or even jurisdiction lines, dealing with the inner-bureaucracy of crossed enforcement agencies adds days to weeks to solving urgent crimes. A distributed system without consideration into how to coalesce the data together is no better of a solution vs what we have today.

vablings 4mo ago
I would like to see some evidence of this demonstrated. I feel a large majority of high-profile cases that went unsolved for a long time most often hinged on incompetence or negligence rather than lack of information sharing. Also, once crime does cross state lines the local FBI gets involved and they have a lot more resources than a small-town police force
- cliglot 4mo ago
  > often hinged on incompetence or negligence rather than lack of information sharing. Or just technology. Almost every “50 year old cold case solved” I see is because advancements in DNA processing .
macintux 4mo ago
> A distributed system without consideration into how to coalesce the data together is no better of a solution vs what we have today. Unless you'd rather prioritize liberty over safety. I want crimes to be harder to solve if the alternative is a panopticon.

jchw 4mo ago

Do we genuinely, really need a mass surveillance network? Isn't the expansion of surveillance through increasing prevalence of technology already way too much? Police can real-time track almost anyone if they have a warrant as it is, thanks to the magic of modern cell phones. We didn't even have time to discuss whether that was a good status quo before it became normal. Are we really sure we want to expand this to a massive network of cameras? I get that it helps solve crimes, but solving crime is not the end-all-be-all of improving society. If anything, it's a highly symptom-oriented solution, and we absolutely have plenty of levers we could be trying to pull if we wanted to prevent crime instead. Forget whether one global surveillance network is more trustworthy than another global surveillance network for a minute. Do we want this at all?

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> Do we genuinely, really need a mass surveillance network? I think that's a fair question for each local jurisdiction to make on its own.
- jchw 4mo ago
  Hmm. Personally, I disagree; I'd prefer to outlaw it explicitly. That's just my opinion, but I think that regulation has failed to keep up with the pace of technology and we've essentially lost the effect of some constitutional protections.
  - etdznots 4mo ago
    Sadly this was the entire lesson of Marbury v Madison, and the courts are supposed to be the mechanism that brings the hammer down on things that clearly violate the constitution where legislation has not yet arrived, but the courts are completely failing to protect us from what are obviously 4th amendment violations writ large on the entire nation, absurd.
  - saghm 4mo ago
    I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't think that it makes sense to wait to address the immediate issue of a private company centralizing the surveillance until there's sufficient political will for that (which realistically might not ever happen).