| ▲ | wxw 10 hours ago |
| > One key feature of Flock is its national lookup tool. > Axon, simply, does not have a national network. Meaning that it would not be possible for cops in one jurisdiction to search cameras across the country.
[...] Police departments using Axon can enter into data sharing agreements with each other, though. > Denver, just like the City of Ferndale, explicitly mentioned this lack of this national network as part of its decision to ditch Flock for Axon. This (probably alongside all the bad press Flock has gotten) appears to be the crux of the switching. Ultimately, the tech actually being deployed seems similar. Also interesting: > One reason why journalists, activists, and residents have been able to learn so much about what police use Flock for is that the company has built auditing tools that the public can access through records requests. |
|
| ▲ | wolfi1 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| it took Last Week Tonight years to get these records in one particular case |
| |
| ▲ | Barbing 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Probably this from 3d ago: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lnBPhelCdWE Generally, silly jokes but a very serious research and fact checking team. | | |
| ▲ | ortusdux 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Also one heck of a legal team. | | |
| ▲ | chaps 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | For those interested in FOIA lawsuits, there are many, many attorneys out there who'd love to take on a pro bono FOIA case. Lots of it is quite boiler plate and pushing back on arguments that the courts decided on years prior. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | FireBeyond 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How long before Axon turns data sharing "opt out"? > One reason why journalists, activists, and residents have been able to learn so much about what police use Flock for is that the company has built auditing tools that the public can access through records requests. As someone else says, "in theory". Also of note, their "Transparency Portal" is... not. I know of at least three agencies in my County who are using Flock who are not listed on the Transparency Portal... |
|
| ▲ | pphysch 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is a step in the right direction. Everyone hates public surveillance until they become the victim of a crime, but it's critical that the surveillance is owned and controlled fully on an appropriate level. You should fully own and control your home security cameras. Right now many homeowners are shipping their data to national datacenters. Municipalities should fully own and control their public security cameras, on municipal datacenter resources. Data sharing / federation should always be intentional and time-bound. It should be impossible for a small town cop to unilaterally access security records from a random city he has no jurisdiction in. |
| |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don’t know if people hate public surveillance. Most people handle it fine when it’s traffic cameras, security cameras in malls and stores, etc. The issue is a massive unaccountable dragnet that is prone to abuse and mistakes being treated as infallible by less than competent police. People really don’t care if the local PD puts up cameras at an intersection with high accident rates, or a street with high crime rates. The issue is automated proactive alerts on incorrect license plates, tracking, nationwide data sharing, lack of judicial oversight, data in private databases, etc. | |
| ▲ | gilthelander 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You should fully own and control your home security cameras. Right now many homeowners are shipping their data to national datacenters. In practice it's difficult to do and offer remote access. | | |
| ▲ | asteroidburger 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s not a technical limitation. Nobody sees the need to build it that way though. | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not at all. If they can get the data to their server to store it, they could just as easily not do that and instead serve it from your local device by proxy through their server. It’s t he exact same difficulty as what they are already doing. Arguably easier since you don’t have to manage file storage in the cloud. | | |
| ▲ | gilthelander 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | tomhow 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you think they use magic to stream live video with today’s implementation? It already works. We stream HD video out of our homes all day every day, and that includes video from security cameras. If the devices can stream live video, and they all can, then they can stream stored video. As to why they would do that? Online storage costs money. Some users are not comfortable having their videos stored with Amazon. Plenty of good reasons. This isn’t some lunatic idea, local storage is literally how ALL security cameras used to work, and there are products that do exactly this. They have good reviews too. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nullsanity 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | gilthelander 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | zeeveener 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | It forces a paper trail of warrants and other "official" pathways that we would normally consider proper policing. If another district wants to ask a question, they have to follow the appropriate chain of command and use the correct tools. Flock appears to have been a way for them to work around all of that and just answer any question they had willy-nilly. |
|
