In this case this officer was searching numerous networks over and over again, that alone should trigger some metrics that raise the question "uh ... why?"
Like I said in the last thread... I went and spoke at my county commission meeting today against these cameras: https://www.youtube.com/live/1OmEmpL-7qY?t=720
I went back and got transcripts for the rest of the meetings for the day, and after saying it was not up for a vote today, two of the commissioners attempted to push it through within 10 min of the end of day, but it ended up failing in a tie. So, decision is delayed, and there is actually a chance of fighting these being put up, as well as the ones already there.
YC’s an investor after all
The tech angle is very weak otherwise too similar to the ordinary news. It's not that we don't care or even disagree.
I'm not saying this to stir an argument either. I'm just giving an honest answer why the rest of us ordinary folk flag these. They go into the same bin as most of the AI posts.
As well, I can't speak for everyone, but the pushback replies to my comment here (if any) would likely be assumed bots/paid engagement.
This problem isn't unique to HN either. The discussion can be fine sometimes, especially if it's more about the tech than the politics, but if people wanted reddit or the ordinary news they'd be over there and wouldn't come here. You can bang your drum over there.
This is a crime that could not be committed without AI, the internet, and relatively inexpensive cameras using solar panels. It is a very tech oriented crime that could not be committed 30 years ago.
It's like saying she drove a Ford police car during these activities therefore Ford is evil, QED.
It's more worthy of discussion noting New Bedford is a shithole and the armpit of Mass.
As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.
Because of the motivations and degrees of agency associated with under-regulated capitalism, derived data about vehicles and people will be stored indefinitely because it has value to be extracted, to be sold and leased, to the highest bidder, be it to data brokers, police agencies (as is the supposed mission), and intelligence agencies. They won't necessarily be US-based entities either. It will be used to form judgements, discriminate, make inferences, and accusations about people with limited or wrong "evidence" anytime between now, days, years, and who knows for how long in the distant future. No privacy and unknowable risks of misuse and abuse that manifest with use of new technology developed or "connections" made with new information at any time in the future.
They are enabling a different type of mass surveillance than was possible before due to the new tech available today for searching through mass amounts of video and audio, and aggregating data from all sources in one easy to use interface.
Nobody's calling for outright banning of cameras.
If the cop used an unauthorized GPS tracker without a warrant, you could take them to court for a Fourth Amendment violation and stand a pretty good chance at winning.
Even if you want to argue it was done purely as a personal citizen vs. citizen matter, you could almost certainly win a lawsuit for harassment and stalking.
There's plenty of precedent for both types of cases.
Flock cameras are stalking at scale, and they should not be tolerated.
A person with a Ford can do all the things car owners can do. But very few people are trusted with access to ALPR cameras.
So: I disagree.
I have no qualms with New Bedford and I'm sure it has lots of, or even mostly, upright police officers who follow the law.
New Bedford being a dump is a non-sequitur; it has as much connection and relevance to the incident as does Flock.
I didn't bring up New Bedford.
I agree trust is good. I also believe Flock has implemented some auditing tool to flag frivolous searches which is why these cases are popping up.
I am not against trust, but verifying those who we trust are trustworthy is important, I think.
If we assume surveillance tools will be use inappropriately, that alone is not justification to do away with it.
As with nearly all tools comes great responsibility.
The same argument can be made for police carrying weapons.
Some places like the UK deny the police weapons but have surveillance up the ass.
King-Aaron•1h ago
newsomix9xl•1h ago
Who watches the watchers?
tintor•1h ago
DANmode•59m ago
Walf•58m ago
rationalist•39m ago
Analemma_•16m ago
sixothree•5m ago