Hacker News

points by felixgallo 3 days ago | 0 comments

You can imagine that, but at least in my city, no, crime was going down before Flock, and continued its trajectory; Flock did not cause that. Same for, e.g., SF.

[–] bko 3 days ago

SF has (had?) a lot of car thefts.

Suppose there was a technology where, when you report your car as stolen, police would be able to track exactly where this car is currently and it's history over the last 2 weeks.

You don't think this would have ANY impact of police being able to apprehend the thief?

[–] simoncion 3 days ago

> You don't think this would have ANY impact of police being able to apprehend the thief?

Speaking as a San Francisco resident: No. SF cops give nearly zero shits about recovering stolen property.

Speaking as a USian: Even if it did lead the cops right to the car and provided unimpeachable evidence that what the footage showed was a theft, rather than something legal, I still don't want these electronic mass-surveillance systems to be deployed. Dragnet surveillance is plainly unacceptable.

If -somehow- we can magically build such surveillance systems to be completely unable to provide data that's unrelated to a search warrant or other such court order, I'd reconsider my stance. However, building such a system is simply impossible.

[–] bko 3 days ago

You hold such a ridiculous position I don't know how to argue with it. Cops don't care about crime or stolen property? Why have cops at all? It's like arguing w a third grader

[–] simoncion 3 days ago

> Cops don't care about crime or stolen property?

Cops have limited resources, so they must prioritize. Even the Supreme Court acknowledges this.

Because of this truth, SF cops give nearly zero shits about recovering stolen property. It has been decided that they spend their limited resources elsewhere.

> Why have cops at all?

Yeah, that's a really good question that folks who are poorly-served by their federal, state, and local police forces often find themselves asking. Folks who are well-served generally ask themselves that question far less often.

[–] prmoustache 3 days ago

This would only work for a few months until car thieves start having a habit of mounting different plates.

Obviously the perfect crime is harder to do in an orwellian society. But happiness and freedom too so nothing good is gained from that.

[–] bko 3 days ago

Or they move to a neighborhood not patrolled by flock?

[–] izme 3 days ago

Is there a reason you say "patrolled by" and not "surveilled by" ?

[–] felixgallo 3 days ago

Suppose there was a pre-pardoned, unaccountable, masked band of brownshirts in Temu youtuber military wannabe gear, stalking the streets with impunity, terrorizing people who aren't white, holding down American citizens and emptying guns into their backs. Suppose they have been given access to every database that the US has at its disposal, as well as sweeping powers to demand data from anyone they choose.

Suppose Flock's license agreement additionally said that they could give data to anyone they wanted to, as it does.

Suppose the leader of these brownshirts frequently talks about his opponents, protestors, etc., as enemies of the state and domestic terrorists.

How great do you feel about this nonexistent mystery technology of yours now?

[–] bko 3 days ago

Congrats! You just hit the clever hypothetical on my anti flock bingo card!

Step one: find two things that differ in nearly every relevant respect

Step two: identify the broad category they share.

Step three: ask, “If you accept one, why don’t you accept the other?”

https://mleverything.substack.com/p/anti-flock-activist-bing...

[–] tanjtanjtanj 3 days ago

So your position is that if you can predict someone's arguments (valid or otherwise) before they make them that those arguments are less valid? Maybe if you had pre-countered them but looking at your comments here and the linked blurb that doesn't seem to be the case.

[–] thereader12 3 days ago

It wasn't a hypothetical, the op was listing things that both literally are happening and that ALPR's (and flock specifically) are enabling. "Hypothetically" was a bit of rhetorical flourish.

[–] felixgallo 3 days ago

Unlike your hypothetical, mine is actual.

[–] newspaper1 3 days ago

This is a myopic view of the situation. Suppose you had $100M to spend. What would lower crime more:

1. Helping to shelter the homeless, deal with mental health issues and make sure people are properly fed.

2. Build a mass surveillance network at the expense of all of the above.

Regardless, mass surveillance is far worse than any amount of car theft.