Remix.run Logo
▲ qmr 2 hours ago

Cameras are great. Especially with diverse ownership.

Police can walk about, ask or order (warrant) for footage.

A network of AI powered cameras linked to the hive mind controlled by real life super mega evil corp inc run by real life super villains... not so great.

Also the 4th amendment is a thing. Mosaic theory is a thing.

Enough of these flocking cameras.

▲SauciestGNU 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think that police should be allowed to ask camera owners to voluntarily hand over footage, even if they would be willing to. That just allows them to privatize the mechanism of surveillance, similar to using data brokers to get around warrant requirements. Instead, I think that even where camera owners would willingly hand over footage, the state should still be required to obtain a warrant for said footage in order to preserve legal safeguards around evidence collection.

▲bradknowles 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m okay with them asking private citizens. I own my own cameras, and that video lives on my own NVRs, and all of that is 100% on my own property. And I get to choose if I want to share that with them, presumably to help solve a crime that has affected one of my neighbors. But they need to come ask me and talk to me in person.

I’m not okay with them using the third-party doctrine and going to a company like Amazon and having them do a dragnet for them.

And I’m really not okay with having a company like Flock make all that information publicly available to any bozo with a friend at a law enforcement organization who wants to make a little money on the side.

▲kennywinker an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> And I get to choose if I want to share that with them

Are you sure about that?

Not sure where you are what laws specifically apply, but I believe you could be compelled to hand over footage, and jailed for obstruction or destruction of evidence if you didn’t.

Just a thought - you may have less control than you think.

▲jacobolus 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

> you could be compelled to hand over footage

If they need to get a court order signed by a judge to recover material that is directly relevant to a legally justified criminal investigation, then there's significantly less scope for abuse than what cops are doing with the flock mass surveillance system, where some have literally written "LMAO" in the form field describing the reason for their search, and where they've been using the searches to stalk citizens who are not suspected of any crime.

▲kennywinker 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

Oh absolutely. Non-cloud cameras are far less prone to abuse. But to say you control the footage isn’t entirely true. For instance, if the government wanted to build a case against you for something you’ve done they didn't like…

▲SauciestGNU 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the current status quo and has been generally reasonable in the past, but with dragnet surveillance becoming the norm I would vastly prefer that a judge review and authorize any police interest in my footage. I don't think we can trust that the state is being forthright about their reasons for wanting the footage or that the investigation for which the footage requested is legitimate, and the state has extreme latitude to lie to people in order to further its interests.

▲sippingabonedry an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> hive mind controlled by real life super mega evil corp inc run by real life super villains

I've concluded that the hyperbolic, visceral level of hate for Flock on this forum (a YC startup by the way) is rooted in jealousy of their success by people who wish they thought of it first.

▲ToucanLoucan 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I for one do not currently nor will ever work for a company that is actively undermining the rule of law. I of course can't speak for everyone but I assure you, I am not one iota jealous.

▲cucumber3732842 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

There are a lot of evil authoritarians who are pissed that Flock is gonna rack up some bad precedents before they've had a chance to implement some 1984 type system where some guy winds up losing his house because he drove drunk for 100ft to get his car where it wouldn't be towed for street cleaning or threw a broken TV in a ditch or some other crime that's really not all that bad in the grand scheme of things but deeply offends people of a certain social class and ideological bent.

And there's another whole bunch of petty authoritarians who have grand plans to fine the shit out of everyone they see leaving Home Depot with a water heater and no open building permit. They're also just as pissed off this might get reigned in before they've got their chance to put the population under their jackboot.