4 ms·

I don't see anything so wrong with cutting them down. I see it similar to maintaining a local trail. Removing obstacles like fallen trees or brambles. These are

I don't see anything so wrong with cutting them down. I see it similar to maintaining a local trail. Removing obstacles like fallen trees or brambles. These are pests that are unconstitutional. It seems like a statement to the prosperity of the American ideals of freedom that they are being removed both by local activism and illegal means. Along with the general sentiment on social media. It's genuinely insane the power social media has on earth. It's attributed to the revolution in Nepal, major protests in India, and there were a bunch more in other countries[1]. We as humans have been brainwashed with the nothing to hide fallacy. It's good to see it dismantled once we see mass surveillance in practice. [1] Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Morocco, Madagascar, Peru, and Bulgaria from a Brave overview (can't say I researched any of these). Prompt: other countries that had uprisings like the Nepal 2025 one

linkjuice4all 2mo ago
Cutting them down isn’t the worst idea but it would be nice if we could just elect people that wouldn’t allow this in the first place. Knowing that won’t happen, the only chance reasonable people have to stop this is to turn these systems against the decision makers until they yield. Some kind of Flock@home volunteer surveillance network that tracks politicians, records LEO interactions (including those involving masked unaccountable agents), and provides the only accountability that the public has left.
- willis936 2mo ago
  What do you mean "allow"? Police chiefs are not elected positions and they often find funding outside of the town's budget for these automated bill of rights violation machines.
  - Brian_K_White 2mo ago
    Does the police deptartment own the land where the cameras are installed?
  - borski 2mo ago
    Sheriffs are elected (except in New York City, Rhode Island and Hawaii) and responsible for a county whereas a police chief manages law enforcement in a city or town and is appointed by its local government. There are a lot of sheriffs.
- conception 2mo ago
  Sparrowmap.com is an attempt
- jMyles 2mo ago
  > Cutting them down isn’t the worst idea but it would be nice if we could just elect people that wouldn’t allow this in the first place. Is this really better though? First-party community maintenance is more direct, cheaper, and doesn't rely on fragile central authorities (granted, it _does_ rely on a difficult pattern of community discussion and collaboration to satisfy tribal consensus, etc). I'm broadly OK with cameras being in public, but I have much more trust in direct action than I do in elected "officials". On medium time-scales, it seems to me that a great solution will be to have community-maintained cameras kinda all over the commons, but such that the camera eye can be accessed publicly (ie, removing the information asymmetry which gives the undesirable actors (police, etc) greater view than the actual community participants).
- andai 2mo ago
  Remember when someone set up a website tracking Elon Musk's private jet? iirc he politely asked him to take it offline.
  - preg_match 2mo ago
    Elon Musk fully tweaked out and I believe banned his twitter account. There’s some people who think he bought out twitter purely for this power, to unilaterally ban people who annoy him. He also offered some money for the kid to take it down, which he refused. It was really not enough money if I remember correctly, maybe 10,000 dollars. Me personally, if I was squeezed to give up my conviction, I’d at least want to maximize my profit.
ericmay 2mo ago
I don't really care too much one way or the other about these cameras, and generally think it's probably bad to have more surveillance but could you help me understand what exactly is "unconstitutional" or even nefarious with these cameras provided they are bought and installed on property that is owned by the installer or an entity such as the government which presumably has legal justification for installing them? I'm genuinely asking since I'm a bit out of touch with this latest controversy, but how are they any different than a dash cam, doorbell camera, or my alley camera, for example such that they deserve special consideration?
- snazz 2mo ago
  It’s an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which is loosely supported by Supreme Court precent in Carpenter and Jones. See my previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46359826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46359826 Edit: To be more clear, the issue courts have considered is warrantless searches of ALPR databases (and whether that evidence should be excluded), not whether it’s constitutional to put up cameras.
  - atmavatar 2mo ago
    More recently, there's also United States v. Chatrie, which was a 6-3 decision that searching Google's location history data is covered by the Fourth Amendment See: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-important-supreme-court-decision-making-clear-location-data-is-protected-by-fourth-amendment https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-important-... See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
- harimau777 2mo ago
  The constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizure. Tracking people's movements without specific reason the believe that they are a criminal has generally been regarded, at least by the public, as a classic example of government overreach.
- ThrustVectoring 2mo ago
K0balt 2mo ago
I don’t know, but it seems like a magnetron gun might be a decent way to turn these off.

linkjuice4all 2mo ago

Cutting them down isn’t the worst idea but it would be nice if we could just elect people that wouldn’t allow this in the first place. Knowing that won’t happen, the only chance reasonable people have to stop this is to turn these systems against the decision makers until they yield. Some kind of Flock@home volunteer surveillance network that tracks politicians, records LEO interactions (including those involving masked unaccountable agents), and provides the only accountability that the public has left.

willis936 2mo ago
What do you mean "allow"? Police chiefs are not elected positions and they often find funding outside of the town's budget for these automated bill of rights violation machines.
- Brian_K_White 2mo ago
  Does the police deptartment own the land where the cameras are installed?
- borski 2mo ago
  Sheriffs are elected (except in New York City, Rhode Island and Hawaii) and responsible for a county whereas a police chief manages law enforcement in a city or town and is appointed by its local government. There are a lot of sheriffs.
conception 2mo ago
Sparrowmap.com is an attempt
jMyles 2mo ago
> Cutting them down isn’t the worst idea but it would be nice if we could just elect people that wouldn’t allow this in the first place. Is this really better though? First-party community maintenance is more direct, cheaper, and doesn't rely on fragile central authorities (granted, it _does_ rely on a difficult pattern of community discussion and collaboration to satisfy tribal consensus, etc). I'm broadly OK with cameras being in public, but I have much more trust in direct action than I do in elected "officials". On medium time-scales, it seems to me that a great solution will be to have community-maintained cameras kinda all over the commons, but such that the camera eye can be accessed publicly (ie, removing the information asymmetry which gives the undesirable actors (police, etc) greater view than the actual community participants).
andai 2mo ago
Remember when someone set up a website tracking Elon Musk's private jet? iirc he politely asked him to take it offline.
- preg_match 2mo ago
  Elon Musk fully tweaked out and I believe banned his twitter account. There’s some people who think he bought out twitter purely for this power, to unilaterally ban people who annoy him. He also offered some money for the kid to take it down, which he refused. It was really not enough money if I remember correctly, maybe 10,000 dollars. Me personally, if I was squeezed to give up my conviction, I’d at least want to maximize my profit.

ericmay 2mo ago

I don't really care too much one way or the other about these cameras, and generally think it's probably bad to have more surveillance but could you help me understand what exactly is "unconstitutional" or even nefarious with these cameras provided they are bought and installed on property that is owned by the installer or an entity such as the government which presumably has legal justification for installing them? I'm genuinely asking since I'm a bit out of touch with this latest controversy, but how are they any different than a dash cam, doorbell camera, or my alley camera, for example such that they deserve special consideration?

snazz 2mo ago
It’s an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which is loosely supported by Supreme Court precent in Carpenter and Jones. See my previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46359826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46359826 Edit: To be more clear, the issue courts have considered is warrantless searches of ALPR databases (and whether that evidence should be excluded), not whether it’s constitutional to put up cameras.
- atmavatar 2mo ago
  More recently, there's also United States v. Chatrie, which was a 6-3 decision that searching Google's location history data is covered by the Fourth Amendment See: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-important-supreme-court-decision-making-clear-location-data-is-protected-by-fourth-amendment https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-important-... See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
harimau777 2mo ago
The constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizure. Tracking people's movements without specific reason the believe that they are a criminal has generally been regarded, at least by the public, as a classic example of government overreach.
ThrustVectoring 2mo ago

K0balt 2mo ago

I don’t know, but it seems like a magnetron gun might be a decent way to turn these off.