hibf

3 ms·

1.
by hibf 10mo ago
Technically true. Flock could present an unfounded argument that I might be brute-forcing my own security and privacy measures. I think it'd sound pretty dumb.
2.
by hibf 10mo ago
They don't actually allege anything. They add in the keywords without going so far as to say "this website is doing X." It's enough to trip the keyword filters at Cloudflare and other hosting providers and reverse the bu
3.
by hibf 10mo ago
Can't be less than what support has had to say up until now.
4.
by hibf 10mo ago
Whenever anyone does a search in Flock's database, Flock sends the metadata to the related customers. I.e., if someone does a statewide lookup in Nebraska, all Nebraska-based Flock customers receive the search metadata. Ostensibly, to
5.
by hibf 10mo ago
That seems contradictory. You don't care about a parking garage operator, but at the same time distrust "some random third party company"?
6.
by hibf 10mo ago
I'll assume you're correctly citing the statute — someone entering a sequence of characters in a "Search" field doesn't mean that the search term was "gathered by" or "created from the analysis of&quo
7.
by hibf 10mo ago
This automated already, and you don't need a face. Flock does it. https://haveibeenflocked.com/news/reid
8.
by hibf 10mo ago
You assume those aren't logged and accessible by the government. They are.
9.
by hibf 10mo ago
You're right that the dataset is incomplete, but it contains searches done by police, not plates read by Flock. The search logs are public record even when alpr data is not; quite a few come from IL.