| ▲ | Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement(ohio.news) |
| 73 points by pseudolus 4 hours ago | 53 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | gleenn 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's surprising to me this is news. Governments buy and install this equipment and it flags license plates and anyone thought that wouldn't be used for things like immigration control? I'm not saying it's right, just that it's shocking people wouldn't realize that. |
| |
| ▲ | JohnMakin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No one is surprised, but the news is that Flock’s agreement with these pd’s said this was not happening and it’s now been shown it has. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > it's shocking people wouldn't realize that It's really not. These systems are bought and paid for predominantly by local governments. Most of whom don't spend any resources on immigration enforcement. Some of which have policies prohibiting such co-operation. | | | |
| ▲ | MrBuddyCasino 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | there are at least weekly threads on hn about why people dont want to live in a mass-surveillance state with an astronomical potential for abuse (and plenty of evidence of abuse already: see the flock employees watching kids gymnastics recently) pretending that it is only "pro illegal immigration" people that are against what happened here is misguided at best, or purposefully manipulative and bad faith | | |
| ▲ | MrBuddyCasino 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | No I get that. My impression is that the angle here is specifically not against Orwellian mass surveillance, but „the evil fascists at ICE use it too“ which I find hypocritical. | | |
| ▲ | pavel_lishin 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why is that hypocritical? | | |
| ▲ | MrBuddyCasino 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because if public video surveillance was only used for legitimate purposes, worked well and made everyone‘s life better as a consequence there wouldn’t be as much opposition to it. In practice this is not always the case. If every new proposed law to combat „child abuse“ was well intentioned and actually worked, there wouldn’t be much opposition either. But since they are mostly an underhanded tactic to censor the internet, there is. So to use this legitimate actually useful example of fighting illegal immigration leaves a very bitter taste. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | righthand 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Spying on people is a violation of plenty of amendments. Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony. Stop treating the law as a binary illegal or not. It just leads to brain dead interpretations of the law. There is plenty of “illegal” things people do every day and yet we don’t install public dragnet cameras to stop it. Illegal immigration hasn’t shown any real harm to people that regular citizens don’t also take part in. Immigration has just been used to rile you up because you can scream “illegal illegal illegal” a bunch of times without reading the 14th amendment and understand that you can’t have a country of rights if you don’t extend those rights to non-citizens within your borders. | | |
| ▲ | suburban_strike 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Illegal immigration hasn’t shown any real harm to people that regular citizens don’t also take part in Eliminating competition comes with the territory of survival. > you can’t have a country of rights if you don’t extend those rights to non-citizens within your borders. Sophistry. "Rights" asserted by contractual violation are invalid. If you pirate Windows you don't get to sue Microsoft when WGA denies you access. Expectation otherwise is an assertion of dominance by the weaker party. You don't have a country at all if you don't enforce borders, which become meaningless in practice once you extend ingroup rights to outgroups. But you know this, hence your phrasing. | |
| ▲ | GorbachevyChase 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So assuming you drive, when a police car gets really inappropriately close behind you for a couple minutes and then backs off, then they are probably using their eyes to look at your license plate and having someone run that or texting while driving to do that on the computer in the car. I don’t think there is a fundamental difference between this process and using a camera other than a camera doesn’t expect you to give it a pension. | | |
| ▲ | righthand 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The cops actions are vetted and have responsible party attached. The camera is used to bypass responsibility of bad actors entirely. Infact the camera is used to enable bad actors instead of catching bad actors. Huge difference in my opinion but okay just shrug your shoulders and claim there’s no difference. | | |
| ▲ | BobaFloutist 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | And, crucially, cops are expensive, so the percentage of drivers they can do this to is low. Whereas a stationary camera can scan the license plates of ~100% of cars that go past it and save that data for later fishing expeditions. And is cheap enough that we can (and have) blanketed roads with them. |
|
| |
| ▲ | buzer 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony. My understanding is that entering without getting inspected is misdemeanor (or felony in some cases), but that's often not the case. Usually people just overstay and that's civil case. And because it's treated as a civil matter a lot constitutional protections do not apply (to clarify: some still do). | |
| ▲ | kristjansson 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Viz: any public comment session on any proposal to add speed cameras to any American city. | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | xp84 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | pavel_lishin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > non-citizens don’t have any particular rights beyond the Geneva Convention That's just untrue. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8... > Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976) ("There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."); | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >A “misdemeanor”? I don’t really care what you define it as, the user 'righthand' didnt define it that way... its how the government defined it in 8 U.S.C. § 1325 >Also non-citizens don’t have any particular rights beyond the Geneva Convention. this is also wrong. the constitutions protections generally extend to all people in the US | |
| ▲ | righthand 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You have a brain dead interpretation of the law it seems. You may be interested in the US Constitution Amendments 4-14 should give you quite a few answers to your confusion on how we treat people here. Your interpretation of the laws would make you an illegal for misinterpreting the laws. Let’s deport you. | |
| ▲ | MrBuddyCasino 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | runjake 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's likely on the backend that this is "completely lawful" and was used for "lawful purposes" as deemed by the current US administration. There's probably even subpoenas on the backend. Flock is required to comply with "lawful" requests and seems happy to do so. This is largely the same for all major cloud camera operators. See also: Verkada and their facial recognition. These things are installed all over the place in public areas. And you think their facial recognition is compartmentalized to their specific tenant? |
| |
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | In the case of Illinois, this is not lawful, I'm not sure about the laws in Ohio, but if a village in Illinois buys a Flock camera and that data is accessible to ICE, than they have violated Illinois law. So they either need Flock to provide assurances that ICE cannot use the data, otherwise they have to remove the cameras entirely. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I suspect that the supremacy clause makes this a grey area. Simplified: you can make something illegal locally, but federal law will almost always win out. | | |
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure but the end result of that is simply that local agencies could not legally use this technology, not that they can just ignore local laws because the federal government wants them to. The federal government can maybe force Flock to turn over data, but local governments then cannot use Flock in accordance with Illinois law. In the case of Illinois, this is indeed causing some local governments to reconsider their Flock contracts. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, not quite. The local governments are in compliance with state law until the feds use it for immigration enforcement. Then the supremacy clause takes over and more or less nullifies it. As long as it isn’t the local agency using it for enforcement, then they are in the clear. I think that Flock contracts are getting cancelled due to unpopularity, not because of compliance worries. Can you point to any actual cases where enforcement of the state law led to a termination of service? |
|
| |
| ▲ | kloop 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That probably just means it's illegal for local governments to use cloud based cameras in Illinois | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > probably just means it's illegal for local governments to use cloud based cameras in Illinois Probably not. A state can regulate how its own resources are used. It can't block a federal warrant. | | |
| ▲ | vkou 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It can't stop a warrant but it can make it illegal to gather and retain data in a way that can be later retrieved by a warrant. |
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tencentshill 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ohio dot news doesn't sound credible. Nothing on the About page. https://www.ohio.news/about/. One email contact for statenewsdesk.com, the only indication about who might run this website. WHOIS entirely redacted. I'll assume it's a foreign influence operation until they put some names and faces out there. |
| |
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Does Flock have a competitor who can undercut it on price and provide entirely local data storage and management (or a zero-knowledge cloud)? |
| |
| ▲ | jancsika 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If I understand correctly, a police query to Flock makes inferences from the set of all municipality/HOA/BigBogStore flock cameras. Or at least the ginormous subset who haven't opted out of the default settings that make Flock appealing to police in the first place. If your imagined competitor doesn't offer that feature, then how is it a competitor? If your competitor does offer it, then why would it even matter whether ICE gets access to inferences derived from the cloud vs. some federation of local storage devices? | |
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Any security camera product can do this, Flock is winning on having an integrated cloud solution with an all in once price that integrates with a lot of other law enforcement tools. You can put a camera on a pole with a cell router and enable the LPR plugin in your recording software pretty darn cheap. But you probably can't do that with a single subscription apart from Flock. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Any security camera product can do this, Flock is winning on having an integrated cloud solution Flock provides a fire-and-forget service. The city contracts Flock, and then the cameras are put up and managed. I'm asking if anyone else does this without Flock's baggage. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | JohnMakin 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This should not be flagged. @dang |
| |
|
| ▲ | josefritzishere an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Flagged? It's genuinely market relevant that Flock is used so frequently for crime. |
| |
|
| ▲ | mahmoudhossam 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Allegedly? |
|
| ▲ | ChrisArchitect 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Source: https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/dayton-suspends-flock-... Other coverage: Dayton mayor demands accountability after plate-reader data breach https://www.wdtn.com/news/mayor-commissioner-demand-alpr-dat... |
|
| ▲ | dayyan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Good. |
|
| ▲ | cap11235 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "Alleged" fuck off |
| |
| ▲ | some_random 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah that's how news organizations have to frame things | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, its not. Randomly inserting “allegedly” where it doesn't belong isn't a requirement for news organizations, its sloppiness. Inserting it appropriately may be a requirement or at least a reasonable effort to avoid overstepping the facts (and avoid liability for things like defamation where overstepping would harm reputations), but this is not that. The source they are attributing the claim to did not say that the data was allegedly used, they said that the data was IN FACT used. Either of these headlines would be reasonable and accurate given the facts in the body: “Authorities say Flock cameras' data used for immigration enforcement” or “Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement” The actual headline is, OTOH, just plain wrong. |
| |
| ▲ | righthand 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thank Hulk Hogan for that. | | |
|
