5 ms·

Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

74 points by mediaeater 2mo ago

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 2mo ago
Site fails to load without one heck of a lot of uMatrix unblocking.
- mediaeater 2mo ago
  The joy of Google sites, page itself, makes zero external requests, the container not so much - will deploy elsewhere.
  - dredmorbius 2mo ago
    Thanks!
  - nicbou 2mo ago
    Bear Blog maybe?
mannanj 2mo ago
dropping here, again: - Montana vehicle registrations give you privacy - are not tax evasion, those straw mans and ad hominems are to scare you into giving away your privacy protections - you can pay use tax still (consult a professional, I'm no attorney) That will speak louder to your representatives who are voting in these cameras which violate your privacy. BTW officials in California, Texas have a history of selling your persona info tied to your vehicle registrations to 3rd policies and have been fined before. Trust them to have changed? Hah.
- know-how 2mo ago
  [dead]
- asdfasgasdgasdg 2mo ago
  NY VTL § 250(1) says otherwise.
  - mannanj 2mo ago
    The LLC’s ownership and Montana registration are not inherently tax evasion. The appropriate party can pay California or New York use tax arising from the vehicle’s in-state use. Whether Montana registration may legally remain or California requires a registration from you for a vehicle you do not own is a separate question. Generally, the LLC registers it. Since this vehicle has had its use tax already paid, the tax evasion argument won't apply.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 2mo ago
      I don’t think a shell LLC is gonna help you avoid the requirement to register a car you own as a New York resident. The law in New York requires that for the vehicle to be considered non-resident it be garaged at the out-of-state place of business. Taxes are irrelevant.
      - mannanj 2mo ago
        You are mistaking ownership and falsifying who owns the vehicle. Do you understand how ownership is defined, legally? How can you simultaneously own a vehicle, and the LLC too? If the LLC owns the vehicle, you do not.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 2mo ago
        Good luck with that. It’s bad advice. But people will have to read the law and take risks as seems appropriate to them.
        mannanj 2mo ago
        So you called my advice bad. Then ignored my questions before retreating. You stated something as thought it were fact earlier (ownership) and then didn’t back it up. How can you own something that is owned by another company? Or said another way, do you have any sound basis to say you are on the hook to register property in New York (you linked to a New York statue) that you do not own. Or is it the LLC’s responsibility. Genuinely curious as every state is a bit different.
- bikezen 2mo ago
  This is not legal in California. If you are a resident in California you need California plates/registration. Even if you're a non-resident you need to register it here within a short period of time. > Except as provided in Section 6700, 6702, and 6703, any vehicle which is registered to a nonresident owner, and which is based in California or primarily used on California highways, shall be registered in California.
  - onetokeoverthe 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - mannanj 2mo ago
    The LLC’s ownership and Montana registration are not inherently tax evasion. The appropriate party can pay California or New York use tax arising from the vehicle’s in-state use. Whether Montana registration may legally remain or California requires a registration from you for a vehicle you do not own is a separate question. Generally, the LLC registers it. Since this vehicle has had its use tax already paid, the tax evasion argument won't apply. Now is vehicle registration evasion a real thing or something you made up to conflate your fear mongering with legality?
- nullc 2mo ago
  Care to explain how you can insure a car without the insurance selling your data to data brokers? All states with remotely private registration still require insurance, including Montana.
  - mannanj 2mo ago
    Sure. Insurance isn't asking for your vehicle registration though, and is not even getting your license plate. You are not being tracked by flock cameras and your license plate linked to your identity through your insurance registration. You are though, through your state registration at the DMV. Unless, of course, you have Montana registrations.
    - nullc 2mo ago
      Insurance demands your vin and reports it to LexisNexis, and anyone with a Lexis Nexis account can turn a VIN into a Montana plate so long as they self-certify that their use complies with the DPPA (which includes enough reasons to drive two busses through, even if you want to assume bad actors don't lie).
      - mannanj 2mo ago
        So what's your argument or point here? I am arguing that a Montana registration, with registration under an LLC and not you, with insurance even where the vehicle's vin is tied to your name, as a driver of the vehicle (not owner), is still more privacy protection and better for you in reference to Flock privacy-invading-cameras than an in-state registration where it's directly registered under you. Seems your whole post may fall under my original "Straw Man" camp that I was referring to. edit: And the whole "bad actors lie" comment feels to me like a bad faith, Ad hominem style statement that attacks credibility rather than substance.
        nullc 2mo ago
        Sorry to offend, my point is that the necessity of auto insurance will stick your name (as the insured party for that vin) in a place accessible to flock (or at least flock's users). And as such I don't think it provides the results your post suggested "Montana vehicle registrations give you privacy". I really wish it did and I hoped you had some solution!
know-how 2mo ago
[dead]
phendrenad2 2mo ago
The flock discourse is slowly climbing the ladder to real discussion. We're at the "mostly intelligent people who are casually interested in the topic being confidently wrong about it" phase (and I know I'm going to get very angry replies accusing me of being one, hah caught you thinking about it!) > log every trip > This system tracks the whole of everyone's movements, every day Funny, because current lawsuits over flock have hinged on the point that they DO NOT have total coverage of roads. Author seems to be talking about Long Island, which is an unusual case, and flock might have total coverage there. But special places need special laws, and an edge case isn't the model for the whole world! > The Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that the government may not track the whole of a person's movements without a warrant. No, that court case established that the government needs a warrant to get, specifically, historical cellphone pings from a 3rd party (the cellphone companies). And overly-emotional language to fool the more credulous: > It is called Flock for a reason. We are sheep only if we let this happen Oh please, it's named flock because it's perched on a pole, like a bird, not a sheep. > feed a national database searched by 59 outside agencies nobody in this town chose > 0: Opt-in or opt-out decisions the Town made about any of this sharing, in its own words Well why not? It seems like a lot of the flock discussion takes a bizarre twist where people go "It's useless to try to limit it, we need to ban it outright". Like okay? Do we ban the police when one goes rogue? (I guess that's kind of a bad question to ask, given that "defund the police" was trending a few years ago)
- titanomachy 2mo ago
  You’re responding as if those phrases were intentionally chosen, rather than the stochastic slop that they are.
- StanislavPetrov 2mo ago
  >No, that court case established that the government needs a warrant to get, specifically, historical cellphone pings from a 3rd party (the cellphone companies). Flock is gathering far, far more intrusive data than "cellphone pings" including hoovering up bluetooth signals and other identifying information. The court may not have ruled on it yet, but it is absurd to think that the courts would think that the government needs a warrant to collect cellphone pings but doesn't need a warrant to collect far more blanket data, including facial recognition on a mass scale. Hopefully we will get a ruling on this sooner rather than later. >Well why not? It seems like a lot of the flock discussion takes a bizarre twist where people go "It's useless to try to limit it, we need to ban it outright". Like okay? Do we ban the police when one goes rogue? (I guess that's kind of a bad question to ask, given that "defund the police" was trending a few years ago) This is a bizarre take. Police are a necessary component for running a society. Blanket surveillance is not. This is self-evidently true because society still functioned before the recent past when they introduced blanket surveillance. Equating, or even comparing, a core and necessary function of society, like policing, with a new and completely optional and unnecessary blanket surveillance system is absurd (and that's the polite term).
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
downrightmike 2mo ago
"The Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that the government may not track the whole of a person's movements without a warrant. This system tracks the whole of everyone's movements, every day, and no warrant is ever asked. " ~94,000 Cameras in the national Flock network that Southold officers had access to, never disclosed to the Town Board 0 Opt-in or opt-out decisions the Town made about any of this sharing, in its own words
vietmin3 2mo ago
T
rmnoflock 2mo ago
[dead]
Tempest1981 2mo ago
> The list includes a school district near Syracuse, a casino's tribal police force in Connecticut, the Fort Worth, Texas police department 1,600 miles away, and Home Depot Corporation, a private company Can any private corporation request/buy access? Or is Home Depot special? Found this: https://corporate.homedepot.com/page/immigration-activity-our-parking-lots https://corporate.homedepot.com/page/immigration-activity-ou...
- ratmice 2mo ago
  > We do not grant access to our license plate readers to federal law enforcement. That sounds very weasel worded, if they get license plate readers from someone who does.
  - kotaKat 2mo ago
    Bingo. Local cop goes in, buddy-buddys with the loss prevention manager, gets access to run plates for the immigration folks outside. "Professional courtesy" strikes again!
crises-luff-6b 2mo ago
[dead]

74 points by mediaeater 2mo ago

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 2mo ago

Site fails to load without one heck of a lot of uMatrix unblocking.

mediaeater 2mo ago
The joy of Google sites, page itself, makes zero external requests, the container not so much - will deploy elsewhere.
- dredmorbius 2mo ago
  Thanks!
- nicbou 2mo ago
  Bear Blog maybe?

mannanj 2mo ago

dropping here, again: - Montana vehicle registrations give you privacy - are not tax evasion, those straw mans and ad hominems are to scare you into giving away your privacy protections - you can pay use tax still (consult a professional, I'm no attorney) That will speak louder to your representatives who are voting in these cameras which violate your privacy. BTW officials in California, Texas have a history of selling your persona info tied to your vehicle registrations to 3rd policies and have been fined before. Trust them to have changed? Hah.

know-how 2mo ago
[dead]
asdfasgasdgasdg 2mo ago
NY VTL § 250(1) says otherwise.
- mannanj 2mo ago
  The LLC’s ownership and Montana registration are not inherently tax evasion. The appropriate party can pay California or New York use tax arising from the vehicle’s in-state use. Whether Montana registration may legally remain or California requires a registration from you for a vehicle you do not own is a separate question. Generally, the LLC registers it. Since this vehicle has had its use tax already paid, the tax evasion argument won't apply.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 2mo ago
    I don’t think a shell LLC is gonna help you avoid the requirement to register a car you own as a New York resident. The law in New York requires that for the vehicle to be considered non-resident it be garaged at the out-of-state place of business. Taxes are irrelevant.
    - mannanj 2mo ago
      You are mistaking ownership and falsifying who owns the vehicle. Do you understand how ownership is defined, legally? How can you simultaneously own a vehicle, and the LLC too? If the LLC owns the vehicle, you do not.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 2mo ago
        Good luck with that. It’s bad advice. But people will have to read the law and take risks as seems appropriate to them.
        mannanj 2mo ago
        So you called my advice bad. Then ignored my questions before retreating. You stated something as thought it were fact earlier (ownership) and then didn’t back it up. How can you own something that is owned by another company? Or said another way, do you have any sound basis to say you are on the hook to register property in New York (you linked to a New York statue) that you do not own. Or is it the LLC’s responsibility. Genuinely curious as every state is a bit different.
bikezen 2mo ago
This is not legal in California. If you are a resident in California you need California plates/registration. Even if you're a non-resident you need to register it here within a short period of time. > Except as provided in Section 6700, 6702, and 6703, any vehicle which is registered to a nonresident owner, and which is based in California or primarily used on California highways, shall be registered in California.
- onetokeoverthe 2mo ago
  [dead]
- mannanj 2mo ago
  The LLC’s ownership and Montana registration are not inherently tax evasion. The appropriate party can pay California or New York use tax arising from the vehicle’s in-state use. Whether Montana registration may legally remain or California requires a registration from you for a vehicle you do not own is a separate question. Generally, the LLC registers it. Since this vehicle has had its use tax already paid, the tax evasion argument won't apply. Now is vehicle registration evasion a real thing or something you made up to conflate your fear mongering with legality?
nullc 2mo ago
Care to explain how you can insure a car without the insurance selling your data to data brokers? All states with remotely private registration still require insurance, including Montana.
- mannanj 2mo ago
  Sure. Insurance isn't asking for your vehicle registration though, and is not even getting your license plate. You are not being tracked by flock cameras and your license plate linked to your identity through your insurance registration. You are though, through your state registration at the DMV. Unless, of course, you have Montana registrations.
  - nullc 2mo ago
    Insurance demands your vin and reports it to LexisNexis, and anyone with a Lexis Nexis account can turn a VIN into a Montana plate so long as they self-certify that their use complies with the DPPA (which includes enough reasons to drive two busses through, even if you want to assume bad actors don't lie).
    - mannanj 2mo ago
      So what's your argument or point here? I am arguing that a Montana registration, with registration under an LLC and not you, with insurance even where the vehicle's vin is tied to your name, as a driver of the vehicle (not owner), is still more privacy protection and better for you in reference to Flock privacy-invading-cameras than an in-state registration where it's directly registered under you. Seems your whole post may fall under my original "Straw Man" camp that I was referring to. edit: And the whole "bad actors lie" comment feels to me like a bad faith, Ad hominem style statement that attacks credibility rather than substance.
      - nullc 2mo ago
        Sorry to offend, my point is that the necessity of auto insurance will stick your name (as the insured party for that vin) in a place accessible to flock (or at least flock's users). And as such I don't think it provides the results your post suggested "Montana vehicle registrations give you privacy". I really wish it did and I hoped you had some solution!

know-how 2mo ago

[dead]

phendrenad2 2mo ago

The flock discourse is slowly climbing the ladder to real discussion. We're at the "mostly intelligent people who are casually interested in the topic being confidently wrong about it" phase (and I know I'm going to get very angry replies accusing me of being one, hah caught you thinking about it!) > log every trip > This system tracks the whole of everyone's movements, every day Funny, because current lawsuits over flock have hinged on the point that they DO NOT have total coverage of roads. Author seems to be talking about Long Island, which is an unusual case, and flock might have total coverage there. But special places need special laws, and an edge case isn't the model for the whole world! > The Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that the government may not track the whole of a person's movements without a warrant. No, that court case established that the government needs a warrant to get, specifically, historical cellphone pings from a 3rd party (the cellphone companies). And overly-emotional language to fool the more credulous: > It is called Flock for a reason. We are sheep only if we let this happen Oh please, it's named flock because it's perched on a pole, like a bird, not a sheep. > feed a national database searched by 59 outside agencies nobody in this town chose > 0: Opt-in or opt-out decisions the Town made about any of this sharing, in its own words Well why not? It seems like a lot of the flock discussion takes a bizarre twist where people go "It's useless to try to limit it, we need to ban it outright". Like okay? Do we ban the police when one goes rogue? (I guess that's kind of a bad question to ask, given that "defund the police" was trending a few years ago)

titanomachy 2mo ago
You’re responding as if those phrases were intentionally chosen, rather than the stochastic slop that they are.
StanislavPetrov 2mo ago
>No, that court case established that the government needs a warrant to get, specifically, historical cellphone pings from a 3rd party (the cellphone companies). Flock is gathering far, far more intrusive data than "cellphone pings" including hoovering up bluetooth signals and other identifying information. The court may not have ruled on it yet, but it is absurd to think that the courts would think that the government needs a warrant to collect cellphone pings but doesn't need a warrant to collect far more blanket data, including facial recognition on a mass scale. Hopefully we will get a ruling on this sooner rather than later. >Well why not? It seems like a lot of the flock discussion takes a bizarre twist where people go "It's useless to try to limit it, we need to ban it outright". Like okay? Do we ban the police when one goes rogue? (I guess that's kind of a bad question to ask, given that "defund the police" was trending a few years ago) This is a bizarre take. Police are a necessary component for running a society. Blanket surveillance is not. This is self-evidently true because society still functioned before the recent past when they introduced blanket surveillance. Equating, or even comparing, a core and necessary function of society, like policing, with a new and completely optional and unnecessary blanket surveillance system is absurd (and that's the polite term).

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

downrightmike 2mo ago

"The Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that the government may not track the whole of a person's movements without a warrant. This system tracks the whole of everyone's movements, every day, and no warrant is ever asked. " ~94,000 Cameras in the national Flock network that Southold officers had access to, never disclosed to the Town Board 0 Opt-in or opt-out decisions the Town made about any of this sharing, in its own words

vietmin3 2mo ago

rmnoflock 2mo ago

[dead]

Tempest1981 2mo ago

> The list includes a school district near Syracuse, a casino's tribal police force in Connecticut, the Fort Worth, Texas police department 1,600 miles away, and Home Depot Corporation, a private company Can any private corporation request/buy access? Or is Home Depot special? Found this: https://corporate.homedepot.com/page/immigration-activity-our-parking-lots https://corporate.homedepot.com/page/immigration-activity-ou...

ratmice 2mo ago
> We do not grant access to our license plate readers to federal law enforcement. That sounds very weasel worded, if they get license plate readers from someone who does.
- kotaKat 2mo ago
  Bingo. Local cop goes in, buddy-buddys with the loss prevention manager, gets access to run plates for the immigration folks outside. "Professional courtesy" strikes again!

crises-luff-6b 2mo ago

[dead]