If you’re in either of these states, please contact your attorney general. Flock Safety should bear some liability (or at least have to suffer investigations).
“Action happened. A state used network of cameras outside of that state’s borders.” seems like a reasonable template to describe what happened.
They don't really care about massive surveillance or extremely concentrated power as long as it serves their interest. When it doesn't, the complain but rarely want to focus on the core of the problem.
The HN crowd is disproportionately aware of how such systems operate and their implications, while the public has little understanding of it.
The headline summarizes the issue very succinctly. What is the issue? Installing massive networks of surveillance gear will eventually erode freedoms and impact people in ways that many people would disagree with. Regardless of how "standard" the described usage of the system might be, the fact remains that the mechanisms available to agencies now are pretty stunning in their scale and reach, and that much of the public is unaware, doesn't care because they don't know enough to care, or believes such a system would never be misused.
That wasn't me driving your honor. My 3-year-old must have got a hold of my keys and went for a joy ride up I-5.
You could do car pooling to make it somewhat more difficult to be tracked by the license plate (the car can be tracked but you may be in someone else's car) (and car pooling can have other benefits as well if done well rather than badly), but that won't solve it. Reducing the mass surveillance is what should be done to solve it (regardless of your opinions about abortion).
ChrisArchitect•8mo ago
Source days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44128923
haswell•8mo ago