| ▲ | bigyabai 16 hours ago |
| I personally blame Y Combinator for looking at Flock and going "Well, there is potential for abuse, but that's a risk we're willing to impose on society to make some money." |
|
| ▲ | solenoid0937 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Not enough people blame VCs and the people that fund evil things. They are accessories. They knew this would happen, let's not pretend they didn't. They are just shameless because making money has been canonized as a greater moral good than being a decent human being. We need to bring back name and shame. |
| |
| ▲ | matsemann 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sooo many will tout something along "fiduciary duty to shareholders" to explain why evil must happen. Just search for it in comments here on HN, and you will see it again and again, as if everyone's hands are twisted. | | |
| ▲ | eecc 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, doing the most immoral and reprehensible thing on the edge of what’s lawful is a guaranteed “blue ocean” strategy so it’s inevitable that the most sociopathic will take the opportunity | |
| ▲ | jtbayly 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are confused. Yes, lots of people say that here, but the intention is almost never to justify immoral behavior. Rather the goal is to delegitimize capitalism by blaming it for the immoral behavior. | | |
| ▲ | mafuy 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, the parent is exactly right. I've seen it countless times and I am so sick of it. The poor, poor CEO has to be evil, it is his duty. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 01284a7e 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They are the reason these companies exist. When it comes to the creation of large for-profit technology companies, they decide what comes about and what doesn't. The blame is on them. | | |
| ▲ | Zigurd 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | They also fit startup logic in a peculiarly perverted way: try all the nasty stuff compartmentalized into a low stakes stealth mode start up, then become an acquisition target once you've got the perverted PMF of having a benign looking product that hides the evil within. Clean hands for the acquirer. |
| |
| ▲ | notnullorvoid 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They are more than a accessory. You wouldn't say someone who funds a contract killing is merely an accessory to murder. VCs should likewise be considered as principal offenders, unless there is proof that the company was not transparent with the VCs. | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They're more than accessories, that nearly writes them off as being innocent looped-in bystanders. Y Combinator has a vested stake, they want to encourage a maximalist Flock-centric police force. They directly profit off police that are incapable of doing their job without extreme, abusive tools at their disposal. You could argue that YC has more of a conscience than other investors like A16Z. But I'm not sure how much I believe that seeing Gary Tan's moral indifference towards startups that are the incarnate equivalent of the Torment Nexus. | |
| ▲ | Jtarii 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Blaming people trying to make money is so pointless. Change the law if you don't like what is happening. | | |
| ▲ | lokar 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The law is properly a limit on behavior, not a grant for acceptable behavior. It defines in which situations the state will ultimately employ its monopoly on violence to compel compliance. This is a vastly smaller set of situations compared to what a health society would consider acceptable. | |
| ▲ | a2ff6eeb0 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're right. People trying to make money should be held legally accountable for the impact of their investments. | |
| ▲ | solenoid0937 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Change the law There is a huge gulf between what the law allows, and what being a decent person requires, and that gulf is called "being a scumbag." We should not alter the law to prohibit everything in that gulf, because it would create an authoritarian society ripe for abuse, relying on controls like mass surveillance and the erasure of civil liberties. However, we can and should name, shame, and socially/commercially outcast people who gleefully engage in the art of being a scumbag. > trying to make money It is indeed possible to make money without funding evil things. | |
| ▲ | catlover76 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ipython 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Don’t know why you’re downvoted but this venture funding is exactly what makes the scale and centralization of surveillance possible. You can’t build this sort of system out without the debt financing provided by the vc industry. For example - I don’t have links to substantiate this yet - but I’d bet the same playbook that’s always used was used here as well. Flock cameras were provided to cash strapped police departments at a very low cost - unsustainably low for any other non vc funded company to compete with - in order to juice growth and build the scale/network effect to make the system valuable. |
|
| ▲ | 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | bko 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Its a camera bro, reading the same license plates your can read with your eyes. If you care about your precincts policies go take it up with them. You may as well go after companies selling firearms to police. |
| |
| ▲ | patrickmay 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There is a massive difference between a human making observations and 120,000 cameras (at last count) coordinated through a single company's computer systems. This surveillance state enablement is as anti-American as it gets. | | |
| ▲ | bko 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | They take pictures of cars in certain intersections and register their license plates and keep them between 0 and 30 days typically (usually 7). It can be queried and logged. So if someone gets kidnapped and they're looking for someone its easy to track them. There have been 1m “cases supported” and helping to locate approximately 10k missing persons. If you don't believe that look at a few real cases. Every example of a bad case is basically cops keeping tabs on ex-girlfiends or wives. Yes, that's bad but I prefer to save kids from kidnapping. Saying its "anti-American" isn't an argument. I think it's very pro-American in that it protects law abiding Americans from criminals. https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/how-effective-is-flock https://www.wbrc.com/2026/09/04/moody-police-woman-charged-w... https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/galt-flock-kidnappin... https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/mitchell-weber-arrest-... | | |
| ▲ | jst1fthsdys 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 200k kids are kidnapped each year (overwhelmingly by family) but hey they stopped a small percentage so we should all give up our rights to the government. You’re a fool. | | |
| ▲ | bko 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree, we should let "a small percentage" of 200k kidnapped kids go missing because a police officer might track his ex-wife during a 7 day window. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You certainly do. If you're not willing to wear a camera and microphone 24/7 for the good of the police, then you're helping the kidnappers hide their crimes and legitimize their privacy. This is why the human life arithmetic has to be dropped if you want to genuinely steelman your point, it's a tortured statistic that we can use to justify any number of outlawed practices. If you can defend your point sincerely without the use of hysteric examples, then please walk us through the logic and authority that convinces you Flock is good. If you can't, then I'm going to have to agree with the people dogpiling on you, this is a ridiculous opinion. | | |
| ▲ | bko 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | 1. find two things that are different in nearly every possible way 2. find one superficial similarity between them (this proves they are actually identical) 3. "why are you against one but not the other" | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's sarcasm. It only offends you because we're reusing your justification for a more extreme encroachment of privacy. Can we drop the human life arithmetic and discuss the pros/cons like normal people? Do you understand why your stance is being repeatedly mocked in the same exact way? "It's a camera bro, taking the same pictures of your daughter that anyone can take with their phone. If you don't want there to be a log of the route she walks home, take it up with the police." |
|
| |
| ▲ | nmeagent 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why hold back? Clearly we should install live-feed cameras in every home so we can solve most domestic crimes; surely a little police abuse shouldn't prevent such a profound reduction of crime. It's not like any of these people have rights or anything like that. /s |
|
| |
| ▲ | ipython 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Agreed. Which is why I’m in favor of recording all conversations within earshot of any public location. Those can be tagged for keywords related to child endangerment. After all, who would argue against protecting kids? In fact, we should take the pictures from public school districts and feed them into this system. Facial recognition immediately available on any kid that happens to walk on any public street. Why would anyone want to opt out of such a system? (/s if it isn’t obvious) | | |
| ▲ | bko 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or how about we have a license plate camera in some intersections, that records license plates that can be queried by police officer to try to find perpetrators of crime. Pretty much the same thing right? |
| |
| ▲ | 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
