3 ms·

Flock has solved crimes in my state, including a few horrendous violent crimes. We forget US society was configured (imperfectly) to allow families to raise th

Flock has solved crimes in my state, including a few horrendous violent crimes. We forget US society was configured (imperfectly) to allow families to raise their children in stability and safety, with guardrails around both sides of liberty. Surveillance has a legit role in protecting communities and their families - especially the most vulnerable. Willing to be most of the Flock hate crowd doesn't have kids walking to school in areas where bad things happen - many probably don't have kids.

Jcampuzano2 13d ago
I tend to agree that when used correctly, a surveillance system like this could have benefits at a societal level. The problem is the many stories we already have of misuses of this equipment, showing that people in power are not mentally capable of actually managing a surveillance system like this in a societally beneficial way. If the use of the system was designated as only being allowed to stop heinous crimes and we had a track record and way to prove this was always the case, then I would be 100% in support. But given it has already proven to not be possible is likely why most people are against it. I simply don't think Humans are capable of proper use of a system like this.
- snarf21 13d ago
  The problem is that these system are setup specifically to be able to be used incorrectly. Flock is getting all the rage right now but they aren't the only vendor. An acquisition and rename later and everyone will have forgotten this all. Police (others?) are setting up stingrays. Stalin's secret police had a maxim: "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime." Remember, everyone who installed a Ring doorbell camera paid to help set up these kinds of networks. (all so that a porch pirate might get caught even though Amazon will reship for free). These systems also set up a huge target for bad actors to hack outside of the law. If these things were only ever used with the a valid search warrant, that would be a great step forward. But even that will only stop "honest" people from abusing the system.
jamesnorden 13d ago
Oh, yes, "think of the children", nobody has ever explored this angle to push unpopular things before.
HeWhoLurksLate 13d ago
There is also a large difference between local surveillance (home/business/area CCTV), public surveillance (openly accessible cameras like traffic cams), and dragnet surveillance- I generally trust my local police precincts but don't like the fact that the alphabet soup of federal agencies has warrantless access to track me on the way to and from church or work or Facebook marketplace deals
- pwython 13d ago
  Honest question: If the feds were actually tracking you on your way to church, how does that impact you? Is that a real fear you have?
  - elsonrodriguez 13d ago
    What kind of church…?
    - HeWhoLurksLate 13d ago
      Does that matter? It's one where I share a common belief in a higher being with other people and we try to build a community and become better people and followers of our specific beliefs.
  - simoncion 13d ago
    > Honest question: If the feds were actually tracking you on your way to church, how does that impact you? Why do you suppose that stalking is illegal? Before you write up any "clever" retorts, remember that many illegal activities (theft, kidnapping, murder, etc) are permitted when permission is obtained from a judge.
  - throwaway9980 13d ago
    Yes, I often wonder if Martin Luther King felt at all concerned by the Feds tracking him on his way to church.
  - HeWhoLurksLate 13d ago
stego-tech 13d ago
Except there was literally just a piece a few days back here on HN where a Mom was arrested for letting her kid walk half a mile alone in a gated community with active security patrols. The guardrails you describe aren’t for child safety so much as adult persecution. Surveillance may help solve some crimes, but its goal isn’t safety of the people surveilled as much as protecting the power of those doing the surveilling. Research continues pointing out that cameras don’t do shit to deter crime, and its actual ability to solve crimes is limited to the humans using said tools - and with a longer history of abuses than successes, it’s a fairly safe conclusion that mass surveillance does fuck all to actually protect the populace.
- pwython 13d ago
  "This technology can be abused" and "this technology provides no public-safety value" are two entirely different claims. Saying their ability to solve crimes is "limited to the humans using the tools" isn't much of an argument against the technology. That's true of fingerprints, DNA databases, radios, firearms databases, and virtually every other investigative tool. A police officer can misuse a DMV database to stalk an ex. That means the officer should be prosecuted and access to the database tightly controlled. It doesn't demonstrate that DMV records have no legitimate investigative purpose. The same reasoning applies to LPRs. By the way, that mom that was arrested? The kid was 5 years old, and was intentionally sent to a pond.
edot 13d ago
Sum up the number of kids harmed or murdered by the state (pick the top n dictators in the last 100 years for example). Sum up the number of kids harmed or murdered by random people (remember that, for example, non-family abductions are 1% of abductions). Compare. I guarantee you that an empowered state is worse for child welfare than random criminals.
pwython 13d ago
I'm 100% in favor of LPR cameras. Any technology can be abused. The handful of corrupt officers that were caught using the cameras for nefarious reasons shouldn't overshadow the incredible benefit these are. > Willing to [bet] most of the Flock hate crowd doesn't... ...have a reason at all to worry about LPR cameras tracking their car. Just "something something government."
nkrisc 13d ago
We could solve even more crimes if the police were allowed to install cameras in everyone's homes.
joquarky 13d ago
"Won't someone think of the children" has become the rally cry of authoritarians.

Jcampuzano2 13d ago

I tend to agree that when used correctly, a surveillance system like this could have benefits at a societal level. The problem is the many stories we already have of misuses of this equipment, showing that people in power are not mentally capable of actually managing a surveillance system like this in a societally beneficial way. If the use of the system was designated as only being allowed to stop heinous crimes and we had a track record and way to prove this was always the case, then I would be 100% in support. But given it has already proven to not be possible is likely why most people are against it. I simply don't think Humans are capable of proper use of a system like this.

snarf21 13d ago
The problem is that these system are setup specifically to be able to be used incorrectly. Flock is getting all the rage right now but they aren't the only vendor. An acquisition and rename later and everyone will have forgotten this all. Police (others?) are setting up stingrays. Stalin's secret police had a maxim: "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime." Remember, everyone who installed a Ring doorbell camera paid to help set up these kinds of networks. (all so that a porch pirate might get caught even though Amazon will reship for free). These systems also set up a huge target for bad actors to hack outside of the law. If these things were only ever used with the a valid search warrant, that would be a great step forward. But even that will only stop "honest" people from abusing the system.

jamesnorden 13d ago

Oh, yes, "think of the children", nobody has ever explored this angle to push unpopular things before.

HeWhoLurksLate 13d ago

There is also a large difference between local surveillance (home/business/area CCTV), public surveillance (openly accessible cameras like traffic cams), and dragnet surveillance- I generally trust my local police precincts but don't like the fact that the alphabet soup of federal agencies has warrantless access to track me on the way to and from church or work or Facebook marketplace deals

pwython 13d ago
Honest question: If the feds were actually tracking you on your way to church, how does that impact you? Is that a real fear you have?
- elsonrodriguez 13d ago
  What kind of church…?
  - HeWhoLurksLate 13d ago
    Does that matter? It's one where I share a common belief in a higher being with other people and we try to build a community and become better people and followers of our specific beliefs.
- simoncion 13d ago
  > Honest question: If the feds were actually tracking you on your way to church, how does that impact you? Why do you suppose that stalking is illegal? Before you write up any "clever" retorts, remember that many illegal activities (theft, kidnapping, murder, etc) are permitted when permission is obtained from a judge.
- throwaway9980 13d ago
  Yes, I often wonder if Martin Luther King felt at all concerned by the Feds tracking him on his way to church.
- HeWhoLurksLate 13d ago

stego-tech 13d ago

Except there was literally just a piece a few days back here on HN where a Mom was arrested for letting her kid walk half a mile alone in a gated community with active security patrols. The guardrails you describe aren’t for child safety so much as adult persecution. Surveillance may help solve some crimes, but its goal isn’t safety of the people surveilled as much as protecting the power of those doing the surveilling. Research continues pointing out that cameras don’t do shit to deter crime, and its actual ability to solve crimes is limited to the humans using said tools - and with a longer history of abuses than successes, it’s a fairly safe conclusion that mass surveillance does fuck all to actually protect the populace.

pwython 13d ago
"This technology can be abused" and "this technology provides no public-safety value" are two entirely different claims. Saying their ability to solve crimes is "limited to the humans using the tools" isn't much of an argument against the technology. That's true of fingerprints, DNA databases, radios, firearms databases, and virtually every other investigative tool. A police officer can misuse a DMV database to stalk an ex. That means the officer should be prosecuted and access to the database tightly controlled. It doesn't demonstrate that DMV records have no legitimate investigative purpose. The same reasoning applies to LPRs. By the way, that mom that was arrested? The kid was 5 years old, and was intentionally sent to a pond.

edot 13d ago

Sum up the number of kids harmed or murdered by the state (pick the top n dictators in the last 100 years for example). Sum up the number of kids harmed or murdered by random people (remember that, for example, non-family abductions are 1% of abductions). Compare. I guarantee you that an empowered state is worse for child welfare than random criminals.

pwython 13d ago

I'm 100% in favor of LPR cameras. Any technology can be abused. The handful of corrupt officers that were caught using the cameras for nefarious reasons shouldn't overshadow the incredible benefit these are. > Willing to [bet] most of the Flock hate crowd doesn't... ...have a reason at all to worry about LPR cameras tracking their car. Just "something something government."

nkrisc 13d ago

We could solve even more crimes if the police were allowed to install cameras in everyone's homes.

joquarky 13d ago

"Won't someone think of the children" has become the rally cry of authoritarians.