They don't have a lost-kid feature?

In China, kids are accustomed to face recognition early.[1] The kids are checking into school via fare gates with face recognition. Here's an ad for Hikvision surveillance systems showing the whole system.[2] Hikvision has a whole series of videos presenting their concept of a kindly, gentler Big Brother. This is probably the most amusing.[3]

Amazon's concept is in some ways more powerful. They don't need full coverage. Just sparse, but widespread coverage. Anything that moves around will pass through the view of cameras at some point. Suspicious behavior can be detected in the back end cloud processing, which improves over time.

Flock has the same concept. Flock coverage is sparse in terms of area, but widespread.

"1984" was so last cen.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SMKG8aLTJ38

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHFJz-u85A

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otAuH6FDhgw

▲

toephu2 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Every technology has pros and cons. Are you insuating Flock is bad and evil (with your reference to 1984?)

I don't think Flock is this Big EviL coMpaNy you are making them out to be.

SFPD reported a 125% homicide clearance rate in 2025 (solving more cases than occurred that year), citing license plate readers (read: Flock) and drones as key factors in providing digital evidence.

▲

xboxnolifes an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Not who you are replying to, but I think mass surveillance is bad and evil, period. So, any person or company contributing toward mass surveillance is bad.

Most bad things have some good part you can point to. Mass surveillance and all of the other police and government aiding technologies usually point to improved conviction rates or something similar. But making police more efficient at convicting people isn't the only goal of society. That's only one part of what makes up a country and it's society. And, as the saying goes: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

▲

nilamo an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That's beside the point? Gaining security by losing freedom was always on the table. What's interesting is the cultural shift toward not caring about losing freedom.

▲

janalsncm 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I think it is the point: there is a balance between freedom and safety.

For example, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun onto a plane. Most people would agree that is an acceptable trade of freedom for safety.

There are places with even less safety and more “freedom” than the US so people who take an absolutist view towards freedom also need to justify why the freedoms that the US does not grant are not valuable.

▲

toephu2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Everything I want to do in public I can still do.

What "freedom" is lost? I gain security and lose no freedoms (unless you are doing something illegal).

When property crime is up 53%.. plenty of people are willing to lose "freedom" whatever you are referring to, in exchange for safety.

▲

yibg 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

How about just general privacy? I mean do you really want someone / the government to be able to track everywhere you go?

- Going to your girlfriends place while the wife is at work

- Visiting a naughty shop

- Going into various companies for interviews while employed

With mass surveillance there is the risk of mass data leak. Would you be comfortable with a camera following you around at all times when you're in public? I wouldn't be.

▲

svachalek 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The right to privacy, to not let the government have a master record of everywhere you've ever been and everything you've ever said just in case they decide to someday revoke free speech and due process, or decide it doesn't apply. Lately we have plenty of examples of how quickly that can happen.

▲

warkdarrior an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You were recorded smoking marijuana, an illegal drug at the federal level.

You were recorded walking into an abortion clinic, although face recognition identified as a resident of a state where abortion is illegal.

▲

janalsncm 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The solution is to change the laws, not to stop enforcing them. Otherwise this is basically just giving up on the concept of having laws.

▲

chasd00 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Well aren’t both of those things crimes? I’m not a fan of mass surveillance either but maybe pick a different example.

	▲	svachalek 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The second is clearly not. State governments don't have jurisdiction over their residents when they are out of state.