25 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.
I feel that part of the insight is that many people reading this story may want it to be true as stated. All the upvotes and it's propagation in networks may lossily lay this claim (of course debatable)
The beauty of surveillance is that it mutes the ability to cover the distance between desire and action. Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect"
As I understand, part of any story being shared is that its propagation is part of the story, in a McLuhan medium-is-the-message sense.
Totally. Like, for example, the so-called throngs of roaming domestic terrorists setting Teslas on fire across the US. My dad still asks me if anyone has vandalized mine. (No, and I’m personally unaware of anyone who has had theirs vandalized. At least 1/3 of vehicles in my area are teslas)
> I feel that part of the insight is that many people reading this story may want it to be true as stated.
People that are writing this story surely would. They, of course, wouldn't do it themselves - I mean, you could be arrested and lose your job and go to jail... but if somebody else would bear those consequences, then of course it's fine!
> Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect"
Yes, that's kind of the point. The question is what does it chill. If it is chilling criminal activities, it's good, if it's chilling legal activities, it's bad.
The idea that this is an important trend story is infinity times more fun to talk about than the corrective that this isn't really a thing at all, which means online forums will sharply bias towards the notion that this is important.
This whole thread is pretty powerful evidence for that proposition: it's sprawling commentary on what pretty clearly seems to be LLM slop writing. You could build a novel operating system and get flagged off the front page for having a README with Claude tells in it, but that preference is obviously contingent.
That's not really the contradiction you seem to be implying. The belief that one is being watched and the knowledge that if caught there will be extremely high consequences are two completely different things, not to mention that the chilling effects of surveillance may impact a mostly different set of criminal and non-criminal behaviors.
Flock is only one company. Someone in my town smashed one from a different company and was treated like a hero in Facebook comments. It’s not mentioned in the article.
I don't think there is "widespread concern". I'd be willing to bet >99% of people don't know what Flock is.
But if you go ask people, in a non-duplicitous way, whether you want less of a police presence or curtail use technology to solve crimes, most people will not want less police. Here is an example
> When asked whether they want the police to spend more time, the same amount of time or less time than they currently do in their area, most Black Americans -- 61% -- want the police presence to remain the same. This is similar to the 67% of all U.S. adults preferring the status quo, including 71% of White Americans.
> Meanwhile, nearly equal proportions of Black Americans say they would like the police to spend more time in their area (20%) as say they'd like them to spend less time there (19%).
It's really a privileged out of touch luxury belief to believe that there is no need to deter or solve crime. People that are affected by crime and/or have common sense, understand that technology that helps solve or prevent criminal activities is actually a good thing.
Black people wanting more police presence is a well known fact, as is the fact that increased police presence in their communities results in the police arresting and killing a lot of innocent people. This reflects a world where policing is broken, but it's the only discussed mechanism to reduce crime. In parallel the perception of crime rates has become totally unhinged from actual crime statistics. If you ask an average person whether they think crime has gone up or down they're likely to say "up by a lot." Which is basically uniformly untrue. So then they ask for more police, the only way they can think of to solve the real (but overestimated) problem.
It's not a luxury belief to grapple with reality instead of subjecting yourself to a false dichotomy where you either have police prowling the streets or gangs doing the same. Don't give this "common sense" crap, you know very well that intuition fails all the time, especially when applied to incredibly complex topics like governance or social policy.
> If you ask an average person whether they think crime has gone up or down they're likely to say "up by a lot." Which is basically uniformly untrue.
If direct experience and official stats conflict, it's usually the official stats that are wrong.
Yes, I agree things like murder has gone down (especially since it's recent peak in 2020/2021)
But in terms of lawlessness, there is a lot less law and order in most large cities. There were always homeless people in my lifetime, but the fentanyl zombies is relatively new. Or let me give you another example, consider Eric Garner who was killed on Staten Island in 2014 after a confrontation for selling loose untaxed cigarettes.
Today I walk by the same person parked out every single day, with a sign selling loose cigarettes along with weed. This is breaking a number of laws in a highly policed area in NYC. However there is no will to prevent do anything about it.
> It's not a luxury belief to grapple with reality instead of subjecting yourself to a false dichotomy where you either have police prowling the streets or gangs doing the same. Don't give this "common sense" crap, you know very well that intuition fails all the time, especially when applied to incredibly complex topics like governance or social policy.
No, this isn't a complicated issue. People get arrested regularly but they get let out to re-offend. here's a stat:
Among persons admitted to state prison in 2014 across 34 states, 77% had five or more prior arrests in their criminal history, including the arrest that resulted in their prison sentence... The number of prisoners that have had 15 or more prior arrests is over 26%
How about common sense policy, after your 15th arrest, you stay in prison until you're an old man and relatively harmless to society.
> No, this isn't a complicated issue. People get arrested regularly but they get let out to re-offend. here's a stat:
It is a complex issue. Even now we simultaneously let KnifecrimesMcGee out after 15 arrests while also locking up non-dangerous pot smokers for years. This isn't a "we're too lax" or "we're too strict" issue, it's both in different areas. Putting in an absolute 15 strikes program is going to hand more jaywalkers a life sentence than dangerous criminals for the simple fact that people get arrested over minor offenses more often than serious ones. Heavy-handed nonsense solves no problems. You need to acknowledge when an issue is beyond simple solutions if you're interested in solving it.
Police cameras are actually very popular, as is private security. I've even heard rich people voluntarily pay private security with guns (!) to protect them.
You're living in fantasy land my friend. No one outside of your bubble thinks about things this way. People are trying to live their lives and raise their kids. People don't like this chaos and have very little empathy for the few percent of people that terrorize their neighborhoods.
I don't think that's a particularly charitable read of people's objections with Flock.
If Flock was simply a network of plate readers with some additional computer vision classification features (make, model, colour, vehicle type) which only saved data on vehicles matching an active BOLO, there would be far less concern.
But Flock is not that. It saves a timestamp and location of every single plate it sees. It is a mass surveillance machine, enabling gross privacy violations by collecting and making available to law enforcement movement data on anyone with a car.
Flock also shares data with the federal government, particularly ICE, even when the local PD has specifically signed contracts forbidding the practice. People who may otherwise be comfortable with Flock providing data to their local PD may not be comfortable when that data is handed to the Trump administration.
The CEO calling those who disagree with him "domestic terrorists" is also ample reason to be skeptical of Flock's mission.
I've warmed to LLM-generated/assisted writing in general but this kind of stuff is just lazy and is basically "I got Claude to say something I agree with and then made it pretty".
This is virtually impossible to build. Not just because all current "AI detector" systems are fake or outright scams with accuracy comparable to a coin-flip on frontier model output, but because even if someone did build a reliable detector and released it to the public, it could be used for adversarial training and it would become worthless pretty fast.
Pangram is legit. I don't work at pangram, we integrated it in our paper website and one of the cool emergent behaviors I've seen is that on AI papers with example rollouts, it will accurately mark the paper's main text as human generated and the rollouts as AI generated.
My understanding is that they strongly believe in no false positives, so it's definitely possible to slip something by them but if it marks something as AI, it very likely is.
> My understanding is that they strongly believe in no false positives
Who cares what they "believe" (or, more accurately, say they believe). What are the underlying processes that actually guarantee this, and what data supports it?
2: the third study they link there is based entirely around the assumption that Pangram is correct, and seems to have been a collaboration or something as they're included in the credits area.
Bot detectors are broken. Even human bot detectors are broken. When I'm in the right mood, I can be quite capable of writing with very good formatting, structure, and phrasing. When I actually take the time to do this, there seems to be about a 70% chance that some nimrod will crawl out of the woodwork just to accuse me of being a bot.
Even humans who deliberately use lazy formatting and leave obvious errors uncorrected to provide "proof" of being human aren't seeing the big picture, here.
---
That bigger picture is that it's easy to make instruct a bot to be lazy, or to avoid the usual quirks. I hate when I'm working on a project and see a constant outflow of negation ("Don't do x, y, or w" is a recent hit) and unfounded exclusive confidence ("The correct answer" as if this is Highlander and there can be only one). Repetitious jargon like overuse of "gate" for things other than fences and skiing is something I can't stand. Plus the usual things — like overuse of unusual punctuation — that are obvious tells.
That stuff all drives me nuts.
But the bot just follows instructions, and my bot has been instructed to avoid those things. It generally performs very well, though the instructions do need re-hashed every now and then as models ebb and flow.
It's super easy to get the bot to write some python or perl that takes a body of text and intentionally some words or lose a comma while mmaking other errors and converting — into --.
When it comes to human error in written language, we just aren't that hard to emulate.
Now, that all said: You'll just have to take my word for it, but I do not use the bot to help with writing English. But I do have every confidence that if I woke up tomorrow and actually started bulking up my comments using a bot, none of you would be able to tell.
I work somewhere that tries to do such detection (for fraud prevention) and it sort of feels impossible to me in the medium term. AI slop qualities are fleeting - I’ve seen Reddit AI posts that have misspelled words, no dashes, stilted sayings and so on.
Did not strike me as AI-written. But it's useless to try to distinguish. There is only good writing and shite writing. (With things like "accuracy" and "verifiability" and even "awareness of adjacent context" included in my definition of "good.") The article is reasonably good and your comment I'm afraid is fairly shite.
I disagree. There is more content out there than I can read in many lifetimes, so I have to be selective. LLM generated text (like any text) can be well put together on the surface level but require deeper consideration to see the flaws, and of course this takes more effort than the writing did.
A human-written piece indicates someone believes in it enough to put in enough effort to write it up nicely, so it works as a heuristic of underlying quality.
All true, but how do you distinguish human-written from AI-written or a hybrid? They all have an author's name attached. You would have to limit your reading to people you know personally. (Which isn't a terrible idea actually.) Otherwise it's a judgment call, which inevitably comes down to a question of writing quality. "This has to be AI because it's so terrible." But humans are perfectly capable of writing terribly (that is in fact where the LLM learned it) and LLMs can even write well occasionally, including with human intervention. So I decided that if I'm using quality as a proxy to guess at authorship, why not just forget authorship and make quality primary. Basically since authorship is unknowable I'm declaring it irrelevant. It's not ideal but these are the times we're living in.
I’ve definitely learned lately to basically never trust an LLM sending back to me “other people have reported the same issue.” it means it in the most literal sense, as in it went online and found somebody who said something similar to what I am looking in to. It has no ability to determine validity, proportion, relevance, etc.
Unless there's evidence that all of it was fact-checked, it's a waste of time to look harder. You can get any output you like, it doesn't mean it's correct.
How different is this from humans? In my experience people fill in the blanks quite the same, they just do it less convincingly and sometimes maliciously. Having the sort of prejudice you describe against AI content doesn't make sense if you consider humans make mistakes and lie all the time, coming from a position of less knowledge than LLMs. You need to approach both with similar caution.
Why does this make it better for you the consumer? You still need to detect the lie and respond to it appropriately. Machines lie more elegantly, I think is the scary part
At least part of it is that we do attribute malice or lack of care (or madness) to people who repeatedly do it, and treat their output differently in the future.
For some reason, some people repeatedly defend machines that constantly do the same thing, and claim we should give it the benefit of the doubt.
Why give anyone benefit of doubt when you're just trying to extract true information. If a person BSs you, you don't believe them in the future either. Giving BS the benefit of doubt isn't serving anyone. Giving intent benefit of doubt makes sense, but intent isn't important when it comes to technical information and lying about it
Yes, that is my point about "AI" generated text. It's deep into "doubt by default, require evidence before bothering" territory. Hence I think it's strange to defend spending time on it by default.
It’s interesting this AI-generated article references “Reddit threads” being “full of support” two or three times, yet I can’t find Reddit threads in the references.
I wonder if we are seeing what may be the result of a Reddit bot campaign to sway generative output.
Eventually toll cameras and a consortium of private businesses will have this tech and then game over. Better to use this energy and legislate the behavior you want. Never let the enemy decide the terms.
People are able to do both. There are plenty of grassroots efforts across the country to end cities’ contracts with Flock. Unfortunately, just as many counties have been unresponsive about stopping data center construction, many cities have been unresponsive about ending contracts with Flock. I don’t condone illegal property damage, but civil disobedience on a large scale both in the US and around the world have often been the only effective mechanism for change.
Civil disobedience and non-violent (towards people) destruction of invasive technology is the only outlet left for most people, I would argue. The money and power is so incredibly lopsided that 'traditional' routes of impacting City, county, or state/national practices are closed to most of us.
This is just my thought with nothing to back it up, but I believe it's valid. I also believe we'll see widespread actions of this type within the next decade.
Outside of lobbying, advertising, voting, and legal action, in order of decreasing efficacy, presumably?
Civil disobedience, in perspective, has by comparison been incredibly ineffective historically.
Books are written to glamorize remarkable exceptions, not the mundane reality of the facts we expect in every day life. The majority by far were punished or executed and forgotten.
Voting has plenty of impact. But most people don't and they're really easy to manipulate into free advertising to garner support for an otherwise unpopular cause at the expense of their own well-being.
It's far better to ask yourself if your cause might not be popular or even just before you run out and change the world. With very, very few exceptions that you're not likely to be able to recognize through mere self reflection.
No it won't. (Source: got legislation for this, pretty good bead on who the stakeholders are).
This is all Internet logic. It's fun to talk about destroying cameras as a vector for public policy, ergo, by the First Law of Message Boards, that must be a viable strategy. Reader, it is not. Nobody's going to blink at these costs, but residents who supported or were on the fence about the cameras are now negatively polarized against doing anything about them.
The cringe-ier thing here is the clear message being sent by many commentators, incl. the author of this post, that nobody's ever thought of breaking surveillance cameras before. Y'all, this is literally a meme.
That's why planes should be flown using direct democracy. Passengers (correctly) feel like they have little power over the maneuvers planes make and affect them moment to moment.
Representational democracy is far superior. Decisions need to be weighed against both their popularity and their effect with input from experts and other affected parties.
The problem with representative democracy arises when it stops being representative. Alas, at least in the US, Congress nearly always votes according to moneyed interests over the desires of its constituent voters.
That isn't to say we should use something other than representative democracy. I believe the best option is to fix the system rather than replace it. However, it does explain why people currently feel they have very little power of the laws that affect them.
I think increasing the size of the House would make representatives more responsive to their constituents. I also don't think it'll ever happen for exactly that reason.
As an European, the biggest issue with US politics I see is that you only have 2 parties. It makes no sense. As a voter, you can only express a binary choice and whatever you choose for the issue you care about most effectively decides what you vote for regarding all other issues.
I'd like to see more separation. If we are to keep indirect democracy, at least have separate representation for criminal law, economic decisions (taxes, healthcare, ...), social decisions (abortions, marriage, ...), etc. But even where to draw the lines is difficult. I think that too should be in some ways decided by voters.
Of course, in a country which can't get rid of FPTP/plurality, despite being objectively the worst voting system[0-3], that's never gonna happen. If you need to explain math to people to convince them, you've already lost, because people are not smart enough and definitely not educated enough.
I'd love to get rid of FPTP and the two party system. I feel like small enclaves of alternative voting systems are happening but I feel pretty hopeless about it being wider spread. In general I feel pretty hopeless about all of it after Citizens United. My interests aren't aligned with big money, therefore I have no speech.
See, with a plane, you get to choose which one you board.
And the pilot is not a random guy from the street with no education or at best a completely unrelated degree. And he's probably not 90 years old. And he's the engineer, mechanic, ATC, pilot, stewerd, advertiser, accountant and TSA in one person.
Direct democracy shouldn't be the only change, obviously. As you correctly point out the issue is when uninformed, uneducated and not sufficiently intelligent people make decisions for everyone.
The issue with direct democracy is that you're describing a highly dimensional vector (your opinion) by picking one of a small set of predefined points (the political parties). Some countries only have 2. That's obviously stupid.
---
For example we should weight votes by how informed they are. How to determine that? That's a difficult question. But shooting down the idea does move us closer to a solution.
Making voting indirect only has the effect that all nuance is lost. You still get dumb people voting for populists, fascists, narcissists, rapists, etc.
We need better democracy, where opportunities for corruption are minimized and proper representation is possible.
Campaign finance reform would be the foundation for this, otherwise we will continue with legalized bribery.
The other need is for daylight and accountability. As much as I loath the Web3 cryptocrowd, having some sort of public ledger of government operations would be incredibly valuable. Anything and everything related to government actions should be public record with the small exception of sensitive information (which itself should have oversight on not being abused).
This is an easy problem to solve (on a technical level), but the established political base will always fight against it they like things the way they are.
I agree and we need to talk about specific things if we have any chance of turning ideas into change. The issue is these are complex topics not suited for a discussion platform where most activity on a post ceases within a day (and if it continues longer in rare cases, nobody sees it). But there are no really good platforms for this so everything is simplified into short statements which lose nuance.
---
It's impossible for every person to have a well-researched opinion on everything. Opponents of direct democracy use this to shoot it down. But it applies to indirect democracy too.
The real issue we need to solve is how to make sure people (whether all citizens or representatives) only vote on what they actually understand.
I think votes weighted based on the score of a knowledge test would be a good start if the test is well-designed. But we need to figure out how to decide what the questions are (what is relevant, what is enough in-depth, what is too specific, etc.) and what the correct answers are (some topics are still a matter of debate even among experts). And that's hard.
It's hard in a cooperative environment (e.g. engineers deciding which factors are relevant to their proposed solution) and it's even harder in an adversarial environment like politics.
The irony is destruction of private property will only justify the very surveillance one is trying to avoid. Would you agree ring cameras should be destroyed too? The police can use their footage. In practice they are similar to flock.
Kinda like saying "Throwing the British's tea into Boston harbor will only make us subject to harsher terms."
The reality is the vast majority of social progress in the last millenium was achieved with force and threat of force. I find this weird revisionist "violence is never the answer" trope recited as a fact that needs no justification to be incredibly weird and unreliable.
Someone shoplifts $50 worth of stuff from Wallyworld and the cops come a runnin' (if they're not already there, because they station a cop full time there.)
Someone steals your $500 bicycle and cops tell you not to bother filing a police report because nothing will happen.
How did we start tolerating public employees not only discouraging people from making them do their jobs, but them justifying it by saying they're incompetent and nothing will happen?
And before someone screeches that wallyworld has cameras: so do many people now, too. The cops won't do anything even when a tracker like an airtag shows the bike is in a specific house. Facebook Marketplace and OfferUp and other forums are chock full of obvious stolen bike listings and people are easily tracing them to lost-bike posts.
There's a huge encampment under a bridge in my city that is known as the regional bike 'chop shop' where tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of bicycles are being cut up for their parts and the parts sold through fences and the frames et al going out for scrap metal.
Had France not been willing to subsidize an insurgent campaign to distract the British, it's incredibly likely those Acts would've remained in place for some time.
People who rush to using violence as an answer frequently do not consider the outcome if they've misjudged their opponents' capacity for it.
It's like the "watering the tree of patriotism with the blood of centrists" or whatever the fuck it was. You probably wouldn't want to hang out with the groups of people most likely to deploy these arguments.
> Kinda like saying "Throwing the British's tea into Boston harbor will only make us subject to harsher terms."
I mean, that it... quite literally did?
Yeah, you can externalize enforcement of sanctions against you to drag other people into a conflict with you, but I wouldn't suggest getting caught making that argument.
By the way -- Where do you stand on throwing tea into the harbor? And where do you stand on the legitimacy of publicly discussing throwing tea into the harbor?
I think its better to lodge displeasure by placing sticky notes instead of destroying. It decreases camera usefulness and I’m not quite sure it’s a crime.
It's not violence, it's vandalism. Quite diferrent.
But why smash'em when you have the right to bear arms? I'd do target practice instead. Improve your shootong skills while getting rid of surveillance. Win-win.
There is both a practical and ideological difference between a private person putting a camera on their private property and agreeing to share that data with law enforcement when requested, and government organizations deploying fleets of cameras and collecting troves of data just in case.
The difference is so staggering I have trouble believing anyone who has spent more than about 90 seconds thinking about the issue could believe in good faith that they're in any way comparable. Happy to be proven wrong, though.
That justification is a red herring. The goal is the surveillance, and safety is just an interchangeable excuse. It should be obvious when they'll do things like increasing surveillance to "protect the children" and at the same time avoid other measures that would be far more effective at keeping children safe. The real irony is when it turns out they themselves were the biggest danger for children all along.
It matters because while the choice of excuse doesn't really matter to the surveilling end, they still need to make the excuse with the fig leaf of plausibility. The worse their excuses look, the easier it is for you to convince other people who don't already agree with you that you're right and they're wrong.
I'm not destroying anything, and based on the article it looks like they're handing out decent sentences to the people destroying the cameras. Surely no judge would appreciate someone running onto a taxpaying home owner's front porch and destroying their doorbell.
That being said, Ring cameras creep me out and I feel they have a powerful anti-social effect.
What's going on here is that out of 100,000 constituents, three know that Gary's Carpets is licensing the city reservoir as a PFOAs dump, and combined they have $1,000 of advertising reach if in-kind contribution is counted. Meanwhile, Gary's Carpets has a $60k advertising budget annually, donates to all five churches, subcontracts influence operations with bot farms, and attends weekly meetings of the grand lupus lodge.
How long will it take the three of them to talk with leadership of those churches? Are they allowed to bring up off topic concerns at PTA meetings where they can tell parents to be aware of the bot farms? Did they already knock on some neighbors’ doors?
All of this is really hard and really time-consuming. The alternative is for those three people to start smashing cameras and we know they won’t finish with their freedom. The uphill battle is the one we must fight.
Why not? They can retroactively be used like flock. Amazon could partner with them tomorrow. The police already can and have asked Amazon to footage and correlated it to find people.
Illegally breaking Flock cameras makes you look like a conspiracy nut or radical to the average Joe and make them sceptical of any privacy movements by association.
this is apparantly a reaction to failure of the legistative process to recognize the will of the people.
the behaviour most people seem to want is to have a polis driven by the will of the people at large, rather than a small cadre, of -for lackof a better word, liars.
Eventually all dash cams will have this tech and a built in data connection you can't turn off. The incentive to do so will cost too much to not add it or likely mandated by law as the "the threat to children is too great not to have it!". (all the child abductions could be stopped of course don't you care for children?)
The author wants them smashed. The point of the article is to attempt to normalize and provide justification for the behavior, so that more people feel OK doing it.
I'm not going to suggest anyone break the law since I don't think it's worth risking jail time for this, and I'm certainly too much of a coward to do it myself, but it's also hard for me to condemn this.
ICE sort of feels like a militia with infinite funding and basically no oversight. This was already kind of true even before the latest presidential administration, but it has been ramped up to 11 in the last 1.5 years. I don't love the idea of a president effectively having his own "secret police" and people fighting back does seem kind of appropriate to me.
For a deeper dive on just how that funding is meant to circumvent constitutional protections that normally exist around law enforcement, I recommend watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkgNnbTrsgw
> ICE sort of feels like a militia with infinite funding and basically no oversight.
ICE is a proto-gestapo for what it's worth - including having a way to report unwanted ethnicities. They answer to the sovereign and are not accountable to the law of the people.
On both points, sure, trivially, if I do not value property or the rule of law, I will not care about destroying it. But obviously we're talking about the moral value of the implications more than the direct value of the camera. Do keep up.
On the second point specifically, that's actually much more interesting! If one values the rule of law, then you would actually want your laws to be morally aligned! Otherwise, the conflict of the law with morality _devalues_ the rule of law. Valuing rule of law does not imply only some sort of legalistic value of laws unto themselves, but of the value of a society with good laws, enforced well. This incentivizes analysis and evolution _of the law_ and, to some degree, forcing conflict to bring about those changes.
Russia greatly benefits from political instability and turmoil in America and encouraging stuff like this is their modus operandi. I say this as somebody who very much dislikes the idea of Flock.
Just curious, but what's the basis for this claim? I've heard it a lot. But I feel like this in itself is a political statement more than one rooted in sound facts.
Flock cameras appeal to weak communist attitudes, where there is a desire for a "good" authoritarian government that tracks everyone... for "their own good".
If you won't form an argument illustrating how X is like Y, then try to resist simply stating that they are alike. It creates a wasteful, distracting fork in the conversation. Rhetorical analogies are lazy and almost always very shaky.
not sure why people are bothering with destruction, just drive around and shut them down wirelessly.
some newer models require a button to be pressed for them to start the AP, but still leaves them vulnerable to attacks with a long stick and doesn't draw any attention while hundreds of cameras suddenly stop working, making the city government think they're unreliable.
yah, but that's just not a good way to 'send a message'.
a good 'message' would be convincing the government and cities that these are useless and that they don't work as well as create more administrative costs than just hiring more police officers or raising education levels.
Ben Jordan has some great videos on Flock in general, would highly recommend if your not aware of this beyond knowing they're some form of security camera
We don't need to destroy them to stop them. Just use them to surveil your local legislators and report on a few of their wrongdoings. The 4th Amendment is so abstract when it isn't _your_ privacy being invaded. Bring the message home.
I've always said we should build an open-source flock that makes all data available for free to anyone, in a ploy to get proper regulations passed. But they'd probably just make it illegal to track police/government cars then break down your door and arrest you for tracking unmarked ICE agent vehicles
Take the Helium crypto scheme of antennas on roofs, but replace antennas with networked cameras, and instead of a scam it’s a protest.
If a few people set them up, took pictures, recorded some of their friends’ license plates with the cameras… then prime time to make a marketing website for the roof cameras that is as scary as possible. It would include the real footage of the license plates, some story about how you get paid for bounties like facial recognition of a husband and the partner he’s suspected to be cheating with… and that you’re not allowed to hire the camera network for stalking (“wink“).
Claim to pay bonuses for cameras mounted in the highest traffic/value locations, with illusions to corporate espionage and stuff.
Counter point - I live in a major-ish city in which our police force isn't as strong as the surrounding suburbs so I don't mind a few extra eyes on the streets. My kids like to explore the neighborhood and I like a little extra peace of mind.
I am interested to hear why the cameras give you peace of mind? I'd be curious to know what situation you imagine where these cameras help protect you or your family from any harm.
An event in which something happens and I have no record, such as robbery or violence within my home or neighborhood. It feels like the suburbs around us insulate themselves from crime. It gives me the feeling that if there are repetitive criminals in my neighborhood we might be able to track them down or prevent it from happening again.
The other day somebody sped through my neighborhood ignoring all red lights and lane markers. It would be cool to deter this behavior before somebody gets hurt. The police aren’t patrolling 24/7.
People generally underestimate the amount of damage to morale and civic pride the lack lack of police enforcement causes. People see people speeding and driving recklessly, vandalism, littering, and violent crime with impunity.
Morale and civic pride? Dog the government is putting untrained morons with guns on the street to harass, beat up, and deport people who look vaguely ethnic. That shit is bad for civic pride, and they use the cameras.
A short paragraph of interesting content inflated by LLMs into repetetive multiple-page slop and bulleted lists. Skip the middleman and just post the prompt if you're not going to bother copywriting.
Good. I generally believe in following the law within limits, and a surveillance state is outside of those limits. I don't care about the "good" these cameras provide, because they're neglecting the very real dangers of living in a surveillance state.
Jeffrey S. Sovern, 41, of Suffolk, Virginia, didn’t hide what he did. He set up a GoFundMe for his legal defense. He linked to deflock.org, an anti-surveillance activist site. He wrote a statement:
“I appreciate everyone’s right to privacy, enshrined in the fourth amendment.”
And:
“I appreciate a quiet life and am not looking forward to this process, but I will take the silver lining that this can be a catalyst in a bigger movement to roll-back intrusive surveillance.”
Better yet, dismantle them without harm and send them back with no return address. Reduces what you can be charged with, prevents Flock from getting insurance benefits, and is all the more frustrating for them to deal with.
> I found this on the side of the road and thought you might want it back.
I think my choice of the word "dismantle" has caused some confusion. "Cleanly dismount, and ship back whole" is what I meant. If nothing is destroyed, they can't charge your with destruction. If the item is returned, it is not stolen. There surely will be some lesser things one could be charged with here, but I doubt they would be worth the effort and expense of a lawsuit, and unlikely to sway a jury to convict.
Frustrating them is not the goal per-se, but it feels good, and may make them consider that market as not worth the cost of maintaining a presence there.
I'd like to see some software that can be used to connect and hack them (which has been already proven possible), erase any data, then fill their memory with tons and tons of out of place images. Take real traffic images, flip them in different orientations to slow down future training, throw in nonsense, etc. Leaving them in place and making them unreliable is a better solution - they can always put up another camera.
A Little Brother solution: they want data, give them so much bad data the rest of their data becomes worthless. But it only works on a mass scale.
Most pedestrian deaths aren't from speeding. They occur on high traffic roads where the posted limits are beyond what will most certainly be lethal (45mph+). And growing vehicle mass pushes lower speeds into the lethal range, anyway. (Someone's Yukon is going to kill pedestrians at much lower speeds than a Civic.)
Alcohol is involved nearly half the time as well...but the driver is intoxicated only 18% of the time. Usually it's drunk pedestrians stumbling into the road.
Pedestrian fatalities are largely not a vehicle speed issue so much as a street design issue. Cities should be planned so nobody is ever walking near higher speed arterial roads, with crosswalks at controlled intersections, foot bridges over long/wide streets, and separated sidewalks. Then areas that need lower speeds (residential areas, downtown areas with street parking) should use narrower designs.
In contrast, the city I live in is primarily built around a handful of four lane streets that all of the businesses are along, with no crossings for miles and places where sidewalks randomly disappear. So you'll see pedestrians standing in the middle of a lane, waiting for a gap to run across the next two lanes. It's wildly dangerous, but the problem has nothing to do with people exceeding the speed limit...and even lowering it would achieve nothing.
I get where you're coming from here- I also don't see justice as an inherent good. If somebody kills somebody else, the death penalty will only increase the number of victims by one. It does nothing to undo the crime. Karma isn't real.
But you have to think about second order effects. The knowledge that you may be punished afterwards serves as a disincentive for doing the wrong thing now. It may be preferable to convince everyone that they would be punished without actually doing the punishment, but it's not possible. Apart from the death penalty, punishments also can directly teach an individual not to commit the crime again.
Right, I just responded to that claim. Do you have any thoughts on the disincentivizing effects of punishment?
Or, if not, we can be more specific. Imprisonment means that an individual is separated from society, making it much harder for them to commit crimes. Most crime is done by young men, and time spent in prison contributes to age. Issuing a 10-year sentence means directly reducing the number of crimes that occur. Is that not beneficial to society?
Or if a CFO embezzles $10M, should society be indifferent to whether taxpayers make the company whole or the CFO does it?
Many a local government is known to trap people with no good reason. Place a speed limit sign somewhere it's hard to spot from the road and the road does not indicate a speed limit by e.g. reducing lanes, place a few strategic cops and loot everyone who doesn't have a navigation system with speed hints.
Bonus, use the opportunity for some nice civil forfeiture scams.
They aren’t a tiny evil. It’s safetyism, and safetyism gets regularly abused to violate our rights. See age verification laws or online censorship for other examples. By promoting safety they get a way to conduct surveillance. And flock isn’t the only company in the surveillance game. How long before cameras and ALPRs for speeding end up being used by ICE to unconstitutionally round up people?
Regarding road safety: Many roads have artificially low speed limits to either generate revenue or appease anti car activists. But the benefit of cars, getting us quickly to our destinations, is very clear. Vehicle deaths are very rare, and getting to places quickly matters. I see this a lot on highways especially, where a low speed limit like 55-60 should really be 80.
We should be designing for faster, not slower, roads. Safety is always improving due to cars having all kinds of driver assistance features now anyways, but we also could just make roads support the speeds people want to drive at. And then the value of surveillance cameras for safety will also go away.
This is an ad hominem. It is a fact that road deaths are a small cost relative to the benefit of vehicles. If it weren’t, cars and trucks would be outright banned. Most people prefer to have them around, and prefer them to public transit if they can afford them and if infrastructure exists.
If you think even one death should mean the benefits don’t matter, then the only solution is to shut down all of society. There is risk everywhere. One death per 100 million miles is a small risk to most people.
But that doesn’t mean we are “not having any sort of empathy”.
This website and article promote the destruction of property. If you disagree with something, you can engage civily, encourage people to vote with you, run for elections. Violence is not the answer.
Hi. The mayor of Denver pushed through flock cameras despite them being unpopular and not even getting enough votes to buy them. He got them to change the price enough that he didn't need the votes to get them installed.
How do you have a civil society when the people in power cheat?
It sounds like he worked within the legal constraints of the system he was elected to work within.
This kind of discretionary spending authority can used for things that are good, bad, or indifferent. When it gets used to cut through the red tape and buy a new swingset for a neighborhood park, then that's good; nobody complains about that. (Except someone would surely complain about that, but come on man.)
And when it gets used to install government tracking systems, that's bad.
> How do you have a civil society when the people in power cheat?
The problem isn't that the mayor can spend some money. Rather, the problem here is that government tracking systems are completely legal to buy.
The laws need adjusted so that government tracking systems are completely illegal, instead.
"Yeah, good luck getting the government to do that!"
The people of Colorado are free to initiate their own legislation and constitutional amendments and then vote them into force.
Destroying a camera isn't violence. It's destruction of property, sure. But property isn't inherently good and sometimes it degrades society.
If some goober installs massive floodlights that blast into windows of some houses, I think everyone would support a kid with a slingshot busting a few bulbs. If some guy is blasting music from a speaker at 3 AM every single day, I don't think anyone will complain about a cable being cut. If cameras are installed that sell data to companies like Palantir, companies that say they want to kill you and they're going to kill you and it's just a matter of time until they kill you, destroying those cameras is the non-violent option.
"Violence" is a word normally used when the victim is sentient, but I'll go along with it:
Violence against inanimate objects is morally neutral. Violence against instruments of violence is self-defense. Violence against oppression is how the USA was founded.
A corporation has unfair political advantages including a deep purse, an unlimited lifespan, and more recently all the rights of personhood. The only advantage the people have is their numbers, and yeah numbers of votes would be great, I agree, but when votes are ignored, or never solicited in the first place, it often comes down to numbers of pitchforks, as it were.
On voting harder, see the lead incident mentioned: "This happened weeks after the city council voted to keep the cameras despite overwhelming public opposition." I also advocate patiently working through the process, but people are not blind to the trends: the democratic process is failing as government increasingly sidelines voters and the richest have the levers of power.
I don't see anything on the site or article that promote the destruction of property. It's an aggregation of public information regarding the history of vandalism towards a specific target.
The website largely documents the current state of privacy and provides resources for (digital) services that help maintain privacy. This is an encouraging civil engagement which educates and empowers the audience.
Everything I've read and learned in my 50 or so years on this planet leads me to believe that the times injustice can be corrected purely by civil engagement and voting are massively outweighed by the times that they can't. So depending on how bad the thing is - people make choices.
Without having thought about it for more than about 10 seconds: I guess I associate violence with something more personal: an actual person or living thing, or personal property. I guess "corporate property" is where it gets more into the grey zone for me.
But I see your point. Destroying a thing (even corporate) is a pretty extreme reaction that I can only see making sense after having exhausted all other "peaceable" avenues.
People that see these things as detrimental to society though are likely pretty motivated.
25 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.
I feel that part of the insight is that many people reading this story may want it to be true as stated. All the upvotes and it's propagation in networks may lossily lay this claim (of course debatable)
The beauty of surveillance is that it mutes the ability to cover the distance between desire and action. Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect"
As I understand, part of any story being shared is that its propagation is part of the story, in a McLuhan medium-is-the-message sense.
Totally. Like, for example, the so-called throngs of roaming domestic terrorists setting Teslas on fire across the US. My dad still asks me if anyone has vandalized mine. (No, and I’m personally unaware of anyone who has had theirs vandalized. At least 1/3 of vehicles in my area are teslas)
> I feel that part of the insight is that many people reading this story may want it to be true as stated.
People that are writing this story surely would. They, of course, wouldn't do it themselves - I mean, you could be arrested and lose your job and go to jail... but if somebody else would bear those consequences, then of course it's fine!
> Which is another way to state "it has a chilling effect"
Yes, that's kind of the point. The question is what does it chill. If it is chilling criminal activities, it's good, if it's chilling legal activities, it's bad.
Not all criminal activity is bad. See: John Lewis and “good trouble”
The idea that this is an important trend story is infinity times more fun to talk about than the corrective that this isn't really a thing at all, which means online forums will sharply bias towards the notion that this is important.
This whole thread is pretty powerful evidence for that proposition: it's sprawling commentary on what pretty clearly seems to be LLM slop writing. You could build a novel operating system and get flagged off the front page for having a README with Claude tells in it, but that preference is obviously contingent.
And yet, the death penalty, doesn't seem to have muted murder.
That's not really the contradiction you seem to be implying. The belief that one is being watched and the knowledge that if caught there will be extremely high consequences are two completely different things, not to mention that the chilling effects of surveillance may impact a mostly different set of criminal and non-criminal behaviors.
It seems like it takes a rational mind to be muted. It seems like most murders are committed irrationally.
It doesn't. You are right. For comparison: main area of Richmond (Virgina) as a quick random lookup alone lists 441 Flock cams + 6 Alpr cams.
Flock is only one company. Someone in my town smashed one from a different company and was treated like a hero in Facebook comments. It’s not mentioned in the article.
I think the concern is widespread, but most people aren't ready to challenge the government which can have severe consequences to your life.
I don't think there is "widespread concern". I'd be willing to bet >99% of people don't know what Flock is.
But if you go ask people, in a non-duplicitous way, whether you want less of a police presence or curtail use technology to solve crimes, most people will not want less police. Here is an example
> When asked whether they want the police to spend more time, the same amount of time or less time than they currently do in their area, most Black Americans -- 61% -- want the police presence to remain the same. This is similar to the 67% of all U.S. adults preferring the status quo, including 71% of White Americans.
> Meanwhile, nearly equal proportions of Black Americans say they would like the police to spend more time in their area (20%) as say they'd like them to spend less time there (19%).
It's really a privileged out of touch luxury belief to believe that there is no need to deter or solve crime. People that are affected by crime and/or have common sense, understand that technology that helps solve or prevent criminal activities is actually a good thing.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-r...
Black people wanting more police presence is a well known fact, as is the fact that increased police presence in their communities results in the police arresting and killing a lot of innocent people. This reflects a world where policing is broken, but it's the only discussed mechanism to reduce crime. In parallel the perception of crime rates has become totally unhinged from actual crime statistics. If you ask an average person whether they think crime has gone up or down they're likely to say "up by a lot." Which is basically uniformly untrue. So then they ask for more police, the only way they can think of to solve the real (but overestimated) problem.
It's not a luxury belief to grapple with reality instead of subjecting yourself to a false dichotomy where you either have police prowling the streets or gangs doing the same. Don't give this "common sense" crap, you know very well that intuition fails all the time, especially when applied to incredibly complex topics like governance or social policy.
> If you ask an average person whether they think crime has gone up or down they're likely to say "up by a lot." Which is basically uniformly untrue.
If direct experience and official stats conflict, it's usually the official stats that are wrong.
Yes, I agree things like murder has gone down (especially since it's recent peak in 2020/2021)
But in terms of lawlessness, there is a lot less law and order in most large cities. There were always homeless people in my lifetime, but the fentanyl zombies is relatively new. Or let me give you another example, consider Eric Garner who was killed on Staten Island in 2014 after a confrontation for selling loose untaxed cigarettes.
Today I walk by the same person parked out every single day, with a sign selling loose cigarettes along with weed. This is breaking a number of laws in a highly policed area in NYC. However there is no will to prevent do anything about it.
> It's not a luxury belief to grapple with reality instead of subjecting yourself to a false dichotomy where you either have police prowling the streets or gangs doing the same. Don't give this "common sense" crap, you know very well that intuition fails all the time, especially when applied to incredibly complex topics like governance or social policy.
No, this isn't a complicated issue. People get arrested regularly but they get let out to re-offend. here's a stat:
Among persons admitted to state prison in 2014 across 34 states, 77% had five or more prior arrests in their criminal history, including the arrest that resulted in their prison sentence... The number of prisoners that have had 15 or more prior arrests is over 26%
How about common sense policy, after your 15th arrest, you stay in prison until you're an old man and relatively harmless to society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner
https://mleverything.substack.com/p/acceptance-of-crime-is-a...
> No, this isn't a complicated issue. People get arrested regularly but they get let out to re-offend. here's a stat:
It is a complex issue. Even now we simultaneously let KnifecrimesMcGee out after 15 arrests while also locking up non-dangerous pot smokers for years. This isn't a "we're too lax" or "we're too strict" issue, it's both in different areas. Putting in an absolute 15 strikes program is going to hand more jaywalkers a life sentence than dangerous criminals for the simple fact that people get arrested over minor offenses more often than serious ones. Heavy-handed nonsense solves no problems. You need to acknowledge when an issue is beyond simple solutions if you're interested in solving it.
Ask them what they think about cameras run by private companies being used to spy on them and their neighbors and see what the poll results look like.
Just because people want policing doesn't mean they want the kind of policing that we seem to be getting.
And that article you cite is a pretty good example of this.
The title is: Black Americans Want Police to Retain Local Presence
The bottom half is: Black Americans Lack Assurance Police Encounters Will Go Well
Let me introduce you to Ring security cameras...
Police cameras are actually very popular, as is private security. I've even heard rich people voluntarily pay private security with guns (!) to protect them.
You're living in fantasy land my friend. No one outside of your bubble thinks about things this way. People are trying to live their lives and raise their kids. People don't like this chaos and have very little empathy for the few percent of people that terrorize their neighborhoods.
> The bottom half is: Black Americans Lack Assurance Police Encounters Will Go Well
My "bubble" is that I read past the headline and got more than halfway through that article that you cited.
I don't think that's a particularly charitable read of people's objections with Flock.
If Flock was simply a network of plate readers with some additional computer vision classification features (make, model, colour, vehicle type) which only saved data on vehicles matching an active BOLO, there would be far less concern.
But Flock is not that. It saves a timestamp and location of every single plate it sees. It is a mass surveillance machine, enabling gross privacy violations by collecting and making available to law enforcement movement data on anyone with a car.
Flock also shares data with the federal government, particularly ICE, even when the local PD has specifically signed contracts forbidding the practice. People who may otherwise be comfortable with Flock providing data to their local PD may not be comfortable when that data is handed to the Trump administration.
The CEO calling those who disagree with him "domestic terrorists" is also ample reason to be skeptical of Flock's mission.
Does a significant percentage of the population even know what flock is or that it's happening?
In my non-tech circles, people don't think and don't care about this stuff.
it is a widespread concern that more haven’t been destroyed
So Americans (plural) is true, since there are > 1 people smashing cameras. (:
I would love to use AI to re-write article headlines into non-ragebait slop.
That’s a shame.
But it’s not too late!
I've warmed to LLM-generated/assisted writing in general but this kind of stuff is just lazy and is basically "I got Claude to say something I agree with and then made it pretty".
A browser plugin that scores webpage content based on how likely it is to have been AI-generated would be quite useful.
Browser vendors can't build this.
> A browser plugin that scores webpage content based on how likely it is to have been AI-generated would be quite useful.
I am strongly against this, because you cannot accurately detect it. People start to get blamed even more when they actually did not use the AI.
Nothing new under the sun unfortunately. It’s just an easy way to dismiss people you don’t want to listen to, and people abuse it like crazy.
This is virtually impossible to build. Not just because all current "AI detector" systems are fake or outright scams with accuracy comparable to a coin-flip on frontier model output, but because even if someone did build a reliable detector and released it to the public, it could be used for adversarial training and it would become worthless pretty fast.
Pangram is legit. I don't work at pangram, we integrated it in our paper website and one of the cool emergent behaviors I've seen is that on AI papers with example rollouts, it will accurately mark the paper's main text as human generated and the rollouts as AI generated.
My understanding is that they strongly believe in no false positives, so it's definitely possible to slip something by them but if it marks something as AI, it very likely is.
> My understanding is that they strongly believe in no false positives
Who cares what they "believe" (or, more accurately, say they believe). What are the underlying processes that actually guarantee this, and what data supports it?
What is a rollout in this context?
> Pangram is legit.
Their 99.98% accuracy claim[1] makes me doubt that.
[1]: https://www.pangram.com/solutions/chrome-extension
Rather obviously they're choosing the one that makes them look best. Another they link to¹ shows 98% for example.
Much more importantly, 9/10 dentists agree it's the best.
1: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15654, linked from² https://www.pangram.com/blog/third-party-pangram-evals (the second section)
2: the third study they link there is based entirely around the assumption that Pangram is correct, and seems to have been a collaboration or something as they're included in the credits area.
Bot detectors are broken. Even human bot detectors are broken. When I'm in the right mood, I can be quite capable of writing with very good formatting, structure, and phrasing. When I actually take the time to do this, there seems to be about a 70% chance that some nimrod will crawl out of the woodwork just to accuse me of being a bot.
Even humans who deliberately use lazy formatting and leave obvious errors uncorrected to provide "proof" of being human aren't seeing the big picture, here.
---
That bigger picture is that it's easy to make instruct a bot to be lazy, or to avoid the usual quirks. I hate when I'm working on a project and see a constant outflow of negation ("Don't do x, y, or w" is a recent hit) and unfounded exclusive confidence ("The correct answer" as if this is Highlander and there can be only one). Repetitious jargon like overuse of "gate" for things other than fences and skiing is something I can't stand. Plus the usual things — like overuse of unusual punctuation — that are obvious tells.
That stuff all drives me nuts.
But the bot just follows instructions, and my bot has been instructed to avoid those things. It generally performs very well, though the instructions do need re-hashed every now and then as models ebb and flow.
It's super easy to get the bot to write some python or perl that takes a body of text and intentionally some words or lose a comma while mmaking other errors and converting — into --.
When it comes to human error in written language, we just aren't that hard to emulate.
Now, that all said: You'll just have to take my word for it, but I do not use the bot to help with writing English. But I do have every confidence that if I woke up tomorrow and actually started bulking up my comments using a bot, none of you would be able to tell.
Everyone has failed to build this. They can only sell claims that they have built it to fools.
I work somewhere that tries to do such detection (for fraud prevention) and it sort of feels impossible to me in the medium term. AI slop qualities are fleeting - I’ve seen Reddit AI posts that have misspelled words, no dashes, stilted sayings and so on.
People want their slop to be undetectable.
Check out Pangram
AI is very hard to detect and changes on a weekly basis.
But you could build something that ranks the quality of the webpage content! This would also be more useful.
Of course, that tool would have to use AI...
generate a story where there is not much of a story. What is unfortunate is this has gotten upvoted and is now part of the noise.
AI didn't start this, journalist have been using wordplay to "technically tell the truth" forever.
Did not strike me as AI-written. But it's useless to try to distinguish. There is only good writing and shite writing. (With things like "accuracy" and "verifiability" and even "awareness of adjacent context" included in my definition of "good.") The article is reasonably good and your comment I'm afraid is fairly shite.
I disagree. There is more content out there than I can read in many lifetimes, so I have to be selective. LLM generated text (like any text) can be well put together on the surface level but require deeper consideration to see the flaws, and of course this takes more effort than the writing did.
A human-written piece indicates someone believes in it enough to put in enough effort to write it up nicely, so it works as a heuristic of underlying quality.
All true, but how do you distinguish human-written from AI-written or a hybrid? They all have an author's name attached. You would have to limit your reading to people you know personally. (Which isn't a terrible idea actually.) Otherwise it's a judgment call, which inevitably comes down to a question of writing quality. "This has to be AI because it's so terrible." But humans are perfectly capable of writing terribly (that is in fact where the LLM learned it) and LLMs can even write well occasionally, including with human intervention. So I decided that if I'm using quality as a proxy to guess at authorship, why not just forget authorship and make quality primary. Basically since authorship is unknowable I'm declaring it irrelevant. It's not ideal but these are the times we're living in.
I’ve definitely learned lately to basically never trust an LLM sending back to me “other people have reported the same issue.” it means it in the most literal sense, as in it went online and found somebody who said something similar to what I am looking in to. It has no ability to determine validity, proportion, relevance, etc.
How is this relevant to the article?
The article was written with a premise into a prompt for Claude, which then wrote the whole thing.
What do you think about the contents?
Unless there's evidence that all of it was fact-checked, it's a waste of time to look harder. You can get any output you like, it doesn't mean it's correct.
How different is this from humans? In my experience people fill in the blanks quite the same, they just do it less convincingly and sometimes maliciously. Having the sort of prejudice you describe against AI content doesn't make sense if you consider humans make mistakes and lie all the time, coming from a position of less knowledge than LLMs. You need to approach both with similar caution.
> How different is this from humans?
Humans exercise judgement.
At least when humans lie they're usually doing it on purpose. When machines lie they don't know they're doing it.
Why does this make it better for you the consumer? You still need to detect the lie and respond to it appropriately. Machines lie more elegantly, I think is the scary part
I wouldn't say machines lie more elegantly.
They lie more unpredictably.
At least part of it is that we do attribute malice or lack of care (or madness) to people who repeatedly do it, and treat their output differently in the future.
For some reason, some people repeatedly defend machines that constantly do the same thing, and claim we should give it the benefit of the doubt.
Why give anyone benefit of doubt when you're just trying to extract true information. If a person BSs you, you don't believe them in the future either. Giving BS the benefit of doubt isn't serving anyone. Giving intent benefit of doubt makes sense, but intent isn't important when it comes to technical information and lying about it
Yes, that is my point about "AI" generated text. It's deep into "doubt by default, require evidence before bothering" territory. Hence I think it's strange to defend spending time on it by default.
It’s poorly written and untrustworthy. I’d rather it not exist.
I think I could prompt Claude to make me an opposite article telling me Americans love flock cameras
Why does that even matter? It's inauthentic, don't waste your time.
It’s interesting this AI-generated article references “Reddit threads” being “full of support” two or three times, yet I can’t find Reddit threads in the references.
I wonder if we are seeing what may be the result of a Reddit bot campaign to sway generative output.
If the contents can be generated, why does the contents matter? They can just distill the blog down to a prompt and skip forcing us to read bullshit.
Eventually toll cameras and a consortium of private businesses will have this tech and then game over. Better to use this energy and legislate the behavior you want. Never let the enemy decide the terms.
People are able to do both. There are plenty of grassroots efforts across the country to end cities’ contracts with Flock. Unfortunately, just as many counties have been unresponsive about stopping data center construction, many cities have been unresponsive about ending contracts with Flock. I don’t condone illegal property damage, but civil disobedience on a large scale both in the US and around the world have often been the only effective mechanism for change.
Civil disobedience and non-violent (towards people) destruction of invasive technology is the only outlet left for most people, I would argue. The money and power is so incredibly lopsided that 'traditional' routes of impacting City, county, or state/national practices are closed to most of us.
This is just my thought with nothing to back it up, but I believe it's valid. I also believe we'll see widespread actions of this type within the next decade.
Just wait until they start burning down all the datacenters after AI takes all the jobs.
"AI taking all the jobs" is going to result in some tech companies going down like the Titanic.
Outside of lobbying, advertising, voting, and legal action, in order of decreasing efficacy, presumably?
Civil disobedience, in perspective, has by comparison been incredibly ineffective historically.
Books are written to glamorize remarkable exceptions, not the mundane reality of the facts we expect in every day life. The majority by far were punished or executed and forgotten.
Voting has plenty of impact. But most people don't and they're really easy to manipulate into free advertising to garner support for an otherwise unpopular cause at the expense of their own well-being.
It's far better to ask yourself if your cause might not be popular or even just before you run out and change the world. With very, very few exceptions that you're not likely to be able to recognize through mere self reflection.
Smashing cameras is enjoyable whereas building movement for legislation is laborious.
It will be easier to negotiate for legislation as well if the economic risk of installation increases because of vandalism.
No it won't. (Source: got legislation for this, pretty good bead on who the stakeholders are).
This is all Internet logic. It's fun to talk about destroying cameras as a vector for public policy, ergo, by the First Law of Message Boards, that must be a viable strategy. Reader, it is not. Nobody's going to blink at these costs, but residents who supported or were on the fence about the cameras are now negatively polarized against doing anything about them.
The cringe-ier thing here is the clear message being sent by many commentators, incl. the author of this post, that nobody's ever thought of breaking surveillance cameras before. Y'all, this is literally a meme.
What if we just zip tie bags over them while working on legislation?
Just break the cameras. Nobody cares (I mean, local police will care, in that they will arrest you if they can, but that's about the extent of it.)
Yes, local police would be my concern in this situation
The Judge, the Justice System, and a potential prison sentence should factor into your concern in this situation.
And that's why we need more direct democracy. People (correctly) feel like they have very little power over laws which affect them day to day.
If someone represents me, then logically I should have the right to vote directly instead of him, or remove him at any point.
That's why planes should be flown using direct democracy. Passengers (correctly) feel like they have little power over the maneuvers planes make and affect them moment to moment.
Representational democracy is far superior. Decisions need to be weighed against both their popularity and their effect with input from experts and other affected parties.
The problem with representative democracy arises when it stops being representative. Alas, at least in the US, Congress nearly always votes according to moneyed interests over the desires of its constituent voters.
That isn't to say we should use something other than representative democracy. I believe the best option is to fix the system rather than replace it. However, it does explain why people currently feel they have very little power of the laws that affect them.
I think increasing the size of the House would make representatives more responsive to their constituents. I also don't think it'll ever happen for exactly that reason.
As an European, the biggest issue with US politics I see is that you only have 2 parties. It makes no sense. As a voter, you can only express a binary choice and whatever you choose for the issue you care about most effectively decides what you vote for regarding all other issues.
I'd like to see more separation. If we are to keep indirect democracy, at least have separate representation for criminal law, economic decisions (taxes, healthcare, ...), social decisions (abortions, marriage, ...), etc. But even where to draw the lines is difficult. I think that too should be in some ways decided by voters.
Of course, in a country which can't get rid of FPTP/plurality, despite being objectively the worst voting system[0-3], that's never gonna happen. If you need to explain math to people to convince them, you've already lost, because people are not smart enough and definitely not educated enough.
[0]: https://rangevoting.org/
[1]: https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/aaron-hamlin-voting-...
[2]: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
[3]: https://ncase.me/ballot/
I'd love to get rid of FPTP and the two party system. I feel like small enclaves of alternative voting systems are happening but I feel pretty hopeless about it being wider spread. In general I feel pretty hopeless about all of it after Citizens United. My interests aren't aligned with big money, therefore I have no speech.
It indeed makes no sense, do you have parties voting in Europe? In the US we have representatives each casting their own vote.
See, with a plane, you get to choose which one you board.
And the pilot is not a random guy from the street with no education or at best a completely unrelated degree. And he's probably not 90 years old. And he's the engineer, mechanic, ATC, pilot, stewerd, advertiser, accountant and TSA in one person.
Direct democracy shouldn't be the only change, obviously. As you correctly point out the issue is when uninformed, uneducated and not sufficiently intelligent people make decisions for everyone.
The issue with direct democracy is that you're describing a highly dimensional vector (your opinion) by picking one of a small set of predefined points (the political parties). Some countries only have 2. That's obviously stupid.
---
For example we should weight votes by how informed they are. How to determine that? That's a difficult question. But shooting down the idea does move us closer to a solution.
Making voting indirect only has the effect that all nuance is lost. You still get dumb people voting for populists, fascists, narcissists, rapists, etc.
We need better democracy, where opportunities for corruption are minimized and proper representation is possible.
Campaign finance reform would be the foundation for this, otherwise we will continue with legalized bribery.
The other need is for daylight and accountability. As much as I loath the Web3 cryptocrowd, having some sort of public ledger of government operations would be incredibly valuable. Anything and everything related to government actions should be public record with the small exception of sensitive information (which itself should have oversight on not being abused).
This is an easy problem to solve (on a technical level), but the established political base will always fight against it they like things the way they are.
I agree and we need to talk about specific things if we have any chance of turning ideas into change. The issue is these are complex topics not suited for a discussion platform where most activity on a post ceases within a day (and if it continues longer in rare cases, nobody sees it). But there are no really good platforms for this so everything is simplified into short statements which lose nuance.
---
It's impossible for every person to have a well-researched opinion on everything. Opponents of direct democracy use this to shoot it down. But it applies to indirect democracy too.
The real issue we need to solve is how to make sure people (whether all citizens or representatives) only vote on what they actually understand.
I think votes weighted based on the score of a knowledge test would be a good start if the test is well-designed. But we need to figure out how to decide what the questions are (what is relevant, what is enough in-depth, what is too specific, etc.) and what the correct answers are (some topics are still a matter of debate even among experts). And that's hard.
It's hard in a cooperative environment (e.g. engineers deciding which factors are relevant to their proposed solution) and it's even harder in an adversarial environment like politics.
There seems to be enough energy for both?
The irony is destruction of private property will only justify the very surveillance one is trying to avoid. Would you agree ring cameras should be destroyed too? The police can use their footage. In practice they are similar to flock.
Kinda like saying "Throwing the British's tea into Boston harbor will only make us subject to harsher terms."
The reality is the vast majority of social progress in the last millenium was achieved with force and threat of force. I find this weird revisionist "violence is never the answer" trope recited as a fact that needs no justification to be incredibly weird and unreliable.
I'd say, "you can't commit violence against a camera" but now everything is violence if it costs someone money.
...only if it costs a corporation money.
Someone shoplifts $50 worth of stuff from Wallyworld and the cops come a runnin' (if they're not already there, because they station a cop full time there.)
Someone steals your $500 bicycle and cops tell you not to bother filing a police report because nothing will happen.
How did we start tolerating public employees not only discouraging people from making them do their jobs, but them justifying it by saying they're incompetent and nothing will happen?
And before someone screeches that wallyworld has cameras: so do many people now, too. The cops won't do anything even when a tracker like an airtag shows the bike is in a specific house. Facebook Marketplace and OfferUp and other forums are chock full of obvious stolen bike listings and people are easily tracing them to lost-bike posts.
There's a huge encampment under a bridge in my city that is known as the regional bike 'chop shop' where tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of bicycles are being cut up for their parts and the parts sold through fences and the frames et al going out for scrap metal.
The cops do not give a shit.
They're only there to enforce property rights ultimately.
Violence is only the answer if you're willing to cost a few thousands (sometimes millions) of lives.
That’s an instant debate winner if we can’t differentiate between breaking cameras and mass death.
Yes, breaking cameras never results in positive changes. Mass death sometimes does.
I wouldnt call property crime violence.
That's...exactly what happened with the Boston Tea Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts
Had France not been willing to subsidize an insurgent campaign to distract the British, it's incredibly likely those Acts would've remained in place for some time.
People who rush to using violence as an answer frequently do not consider the outcome if they've misjudged their opponents' capacity for it.
>People who rush to using violence as an answer frequently do not consider the outcome if they've misjudged their opponents' capacity for it.
It's part of the fun of being an internet revolutionary. Eventually, though, most end up thinking things through.
You could use this Boston Tea Party logic for virtually any violent action no matter how dumb or counterproductive.
To be fair to the loyalists, a lot of people were making this point at the time. Tally ho, gents.
It's like the "watering the tree of patriotism with the blood of centrists" or whatever the fuck it was. You probably wouldn't want to hang out with the groups of people most likely to deploy these arguments.
> Kinda like saying "Throwing the British's tea into Boston harbor will only make us subject to harsher terms."
I mean, that it... quite literally did?
Yeah, you can externalize enforcement of sanctions against you to drag other people into a conflict with you, but I wouldn't suggest getting caught making that argument.
So what are you advocating for?
For throwing the tea into the harbor.
By the way -- Where do you stand on throwing tea into the harbor? And where do you stand on the legitimacy of publicly discussing throwing tea into the harbor?
I feel like you're trying to bait people into saying something that violates the site guidelines.
I think its better to lodge displeasure by placing sticky notes instead of destroying. It decreases camera usefulness and I’m not quite sure it’s a crime.
Property destruction is not the same crime as battery/assault/etc.
Let’s not call breaking a camera “violence”.
It's not violence, it's vandalism. Quite diferrent.
But why smash'em when you have the right to bear arms? I'd do target practice instead. Improve your shootong skills while getting rid of surveillance. Win-win.
Extra charge for using a gun. Slingshot maybe? Or as I said before, just put a bag over the camera. Is that even illegal?
There is both a practical and ideological difference between a private person putting a camera on their private property and agreeing to share that data with law enforcement when requested, and government organizations deploying fleets of cameras and collecting troves of data just in case.
The difference is so staggering I have trouble believing anyone who has spent more than about 90 seconds thinking about the issue could believe in good faith that they're in any way comparable. Happy to be proven wrong, though.
That justification is a red herring. The goal is the surveillance, and safety is just an interchangeable excuse. It should be obvious when they'll do things like increasing surveillance to "protect the children" and at the same time avoid other measures that would be far more effective at keeping children safe. The real irony is when it turns out they themselves were the biggest danger for children all along.
It matters because while the choice of excuse doesn't really matter to the surveilling end, they still need to make the excuse with the fig leaf of plausibility. The worse their excuses look, the easier it is for you to convince other people who don't already agree with you that you're right and they're wrong.
I'm not destroying anything, and based on the article it looks like they're handing out decent sentences to the people destroying the cameras. Surely no judge would appreciate someone running onto a taxpaying home owner's front porch and destroying their doorbell.
That being said, Ring cameras creep me out and I feel they have a powerful anti-social effect.
It's not valid "private property" if it's spying on the public. Your right to punch ends where my nose begins.
You do not have the right to own and operate something that infringes on my rights.
Exactly, let your local politicians know the only way they can get your vote is by rejecting Flock.
What's going on here is that out of 100,000 constituents, three know that Gary's Carpets is licensing the city reservoir as a PFOAs dump, and combined they have $1,000 of advertising reach if in-kind contribution is counted. Meanwhile, Gary's Carpets has a $60k advertising budget annually, donates to all five churches, subcontracts influence operations with bot farms, and attends weekly meetings of the grand lupus lodge.
Great, sad-in-its-truths comment.
How long will it take the three of them to talk with leadership of those churches? Are they allowed to bring up off topic concerns at PTA meetings where they can tell parents to be aware of the bot farms? Did they already knock on some neighbors’ doors?
All of this is really hard and really time-consuming. The alternative is for those three people to start smashing cameras and we know they won’t finish with their freedom. The uphill battle is the one we must fight.
an irony may come from the increase, of crime rate where these are installed rather than reduction.
Similar but nowhere close to a substitute
Why not? They can retroactively be used like flock. Amazon could partner with them tomorrow. The police already can and have asked Amazon to footage and correlated it to find people.
Illegally breaking Flock cameras makes you look like a conspiracy nut or radical to the average Joe and make them sceptical of any privacy movements by association.
I would disagree. I feel like typical Americans value freedom and privacy rights very highly.
Flock already licenses their data to anyone who pays, right?
Flock is a private business. As are at least some toll roads.
this is apparantly a reaction to failure of the legistative process to recognize the will of the people.
the behaviour most people seem to want is to have a polis driven by the will of the people at large, rather than a small cadre, of -for lackof a better word, liars.
Eventually all dash cams will have this tech and a built in data connection you can't turn off. The incentive to do so will cost too much to not add it or likely mandated by law as the "the threat to children is too great not to have it!". (all the child abductions could be stopped of course don't you care for children?)
Do you think the same people smashing the cameras have the skills to legislate? Or even to organize and lead a movement?
They are very different skill sets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams
Not saying NONE of them have both skill sets, but I many don't
"At least 25 cameras have been destroyed". Sounds like a mere drop in the bucket.
The author wants them smashed. The point of the article is to attempt to normalize and provide justification for the behavior, so that more people feel OK doing it.
I'm not going to suggest anyone break the law since I don't think it's worth risking jail time for this, and I'm certainly too much of a coward to do it myself, but it's also hard for me to condemn this.
ICE sort of feels like a militia with infinite funding and basically no oversight. This was already kind of true even before the latest presidential administration, but it has been ramped up to 11 in the last 1.5 years. I don't love the idea of a president effectively having his own "secret police" and people fighting back does seem kind of appropriate to me.
For a deeper dive on just how that funding is meant to circumvent constitutional protections that normally exist around law enforcement, I recommend watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkgNnbTrsgw
> ICE sort of feels like a militia with infinite funding and basically no oversight.
ICE is a proto-gestapo for what it's worth - including having a way to report unwanted ethnicities. They answer to the sovereign and are not accountable to the law of the people.
It is against the law, but I would wager it is morally coherent to smash them.
It's more coherent with moralities that put a relatively low value on property rights and rule of law.
On both points, sure, trivially, if I do not value property or the rule of law, I will not care about destroying it. But obviously we're talking about the moral value of the implications more than the direct value of the camera. Do keep up.
On the second point specifically, that's actually much more interesting! If one values the rule of law, then you would actually want your laws to be morally aligned! Otherwise, the conflict of the law with morality _devalues_ the rule of law. Valuing rule of law does not imply only some sort of legalistic value of laws unto themselves, but of the value of a society with good laws, enforced well. This incentivizes analysis and evolution _of the law_ and, to some degree, forcing conflict to bring about those changes.
Well yes, not everyone plays make-believe all the time.
From TFA:
> Reddit threads show near-universal support.
If your barometer for actual support is Reddit sentiment, I've got news for you...
9 out if 10 paid astroturfers and bot accounts agree with me!
Trying to imagine who would be paying for bots to support killing flock cameras. Who would profit from that? Seems more likely to go the other way.
Russia greatly benefits from political instability and turmoil in America and encouraging stuff like this is their modus operandi. I say this as somebody who very much dislikes the idea of Flock.
Just curious, but what's the basis for this claim? I've heard it a lot. But I feel like this in itself is a political statement more than one rooted in sound facts.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260317211256fw_/https://www.in...
Flock?
If flock is paying people to support destroying flock cameras, sign me up!
Well, semi-plausible, a wave of "violence" against their cameras would surely excuse installing even more cameras to prevent said "violence".
Never underestimate 5D chess mastery of big money and big agendas.
> If your barometer for actual support is Reddit sentiment, I've got news for you...
I'll write to President Sanders about this issue straight away!
“This thing thats easy to measure agrees with me.”
Shows lack of critical thinking and rigor.
I'd love to see smashing flock cameras so normalized it actually mattered.
Good.
Flock cameras appeal to weak communist attitudes, where there is a desire for a "good" authoritarian government that tracks everyone... for "their own good".
I suspect you have no idea what the word communist actually means.
*fascist
those groups have a lot in common, when you look at historical implementation.
Both create an unaccountable set of elites who control the populace.
Fascism is a plugin host and communism is but one of its plugins.
AKA "A start"
“You can contribute to this article by _adding to the list_”
Flock cameras and the surveillance state generally speaking make me feel like a slave.
What about registration plates? Do they make you feeling like a slave?
If you won't form an argument illustrating how X is like Y, then try to resist simply stating that they are alike. It creates a wasteful, distracting fork in the conversation. Rhetorical analogies are lazy and almost always very shaky.
Prior to Flock, no company was creating a vast surveillance network using my registration plates.
Not particularly, what about you?
not sure why people are bothering with destruction, just drive around and shut them down wirelessly.
some newer models require a button to be pressed for them to start the AP, but still leaves them vulnerable to attacks with a long stick and doesn't draw any attention while hundreds of cameras suddenly stop working, making the city government think they're unreliable.
> not sure why people are bothering with destruction, just drive around and shut them down wirelessly.
The article suggests that some of the cameras are smashed and left in highly visible places to "send a message".
yah, but that's just not a good way to 'send a message'.
a good 'message' would be convincing the government and cities that these are useless and that they don't work as well as create more administrative costs than just hiring more police officers or raising education levels.
Pending clarification, I suspect "just" is doing a lot of work!
You just need a really long stick and walk around the city while trying to use the long stick to click the button on camera.
It's important to not look suspicious. You may also need to start lifting weights right now. That long stick is going to be heavy.
models before 2024 are hardware vulnerable at modems, models after 2025 have a button on the back, 2026 I haven't looked into it.
put on a vest and it looks like you're just doing maintenance.
Ben Jordan has some great videos on Flock in general, would highly recommend if your not aware of this beyond knowing they're some form of security camera
Let’s add Meta Glassholes to the list
> The pattern: destruction in blue states, red states
Which of CA OR VA IL CT(the states mentioned above that sentence) is red? Virginia I guess is the closest one but still rather blue...
Just sharing my regular reminder that Flock is a YC company.
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety
This organization that built itself on top of the “hacker ethos” is now happy to profit from building the surveillance state
were they not always this way?
They at least pretended not to be. In hindsight, it looks a lot more like a blatant lie...
We don't need to destroy them to stop them. Just use them to surveil your local legislators and report on a few of their wrongdoings. The 4th Amendment is so abstract when it isn't _your_ privacy being invaded. Bring the message home.
I've always said we should build an open-source flock that makes all data available for free to anyone, in a ploy to get proper regulations passed. But they'd probably just make it illegal to track police/government cars then break down your door and arrest you for tracking unmarked ICE agent vehicles
I'm of the same mind since you probably can't close that Pandora's box.
As soon as citizens of Minneapolis though start tracking the movements of ICE vehicles though, then something will have to be done about it…
Take the Helium crypto scheme of antennas on roofs, but replace antennas with networked cameras, and instead of a scam it’s a protest.
If a few people set them up, took pictures, recorded some of their friends’ license plates with the cameras… then prime time to make a marketing website for the roof cameras that is as scary as possible. It would include the real footage of the license plates, some story about how you get paid for bounties like facial recognition of a husband and the partner he’s suspected to be cheating with… and that you’re not allowed to hire the camera network for stalking (“wink“).
Claim to pay bonuses for cameras mounted in the highest traffic/value locations, with illusions to corporate espionage and stuff.
AirTag but for dashcams would be cool. The trick is to make a popular product without being a company that's going to gatekeep that data.
I heard someone making the point that these go up but then do not deter street degradation. So basically just targeting regular people.
Counter point - I live in a major-ish city in which our police force isn't as strong as the surrounding suburbs so I don't mind a few extra eyes on the streets. My kids like to explore the neighborhood and I like a little extra peace of mind.
Police having unlimited access to spy and creep on my children would give me the opposite of peace of mind.
I am interested to hear why the cameras give you peace of mind? I'd be curious to know what situation you imagine where these cameras help protect you or your family from any harm.
An event in which something happens and I have no record, such as robbery or violence within my home or neighborhood. It feels like the suburbs around us insulate themselves from crime. It gives me the feeling that if there are repetitive criminals in my neighborhood we might be able to track them down or prevent it from happening again.
I can't reply to the [dead] comment, but cameras don't deter the bad drivers where I live.
Also, cameras can't pull over a bad driver.
Also, I highly doubt a car is in the camera's frame long enough, that the camera could even detect if there is bad driving going on.
The other day somebody sped through my neighborhood ignoring all red lights and lane markers. It would be cool to deter this behavior before somebody gets hurt. The police aren’t patrolling 24/7.
It would indeed be cool to deter that kind of stuff; I agree.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And I think it's fair to say that deterrence works similarly to prevention, in this context.
How does the presence of Flock cameras serve to deter (or prevent) the kind of behavior you describe?
Or, as a corollary question: How does the absence of Flock cameras serve to encourage it?
People generally underestimate the amount of damage to morale and civic pride the lack lack of police enforcement causes. People see people speeding and driving recklessly, vandalism, littering, and violent crime with impunity.
Morale and civic pride? Dog the government is putting untrained morons with guns on the street to harass, beat up, and deport people who look vaguely ethnic. That shit is bad for civic pride, and they use the cameras.
you should get some body cams for your kids, you will get a more pertinent view.
Good. I just wish more people would take down and destroy the red light/speeding cameras in NYC. Say no to the police state.
A short paragraph of interesting content inflated by LLMs into repetetive multiple-page slop and bulleted lists. Skip the middleman and just post the prompt if you're not going to bother copywriting.
Good. I generally believe in following the law within limits, and a surveillance state is outside of those limits. I don't care about the "good" these cameras provide, because they're neglecting the very real dangers of living in a surveillance state.
Some previous discussion in February (when this was published?)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47127081
this seems like an ai article
You're already on maybe 10 cameras any time you go outside. This number will keep doubling several times.
Like it or not, this technology is way too useful for too many purposes to be stopped.
This is case for finding "the serenity to accept the things I cannot change".
I am inspired
Good.
Jeffrey S. Sovern, 41, of Suffolk, Virginia, didn’t hide what he did. He set up a GoFundMe for his legal defense. He linked to deflock.org, an anti-surveillance activist site. He wrote a statement: “I appreciate everyone’s right to privacy, enshrined in the fourth amendment.” And: “I appreciate a quiet life and am not looking forward to this process, but I will take the silver lining that this can be a catalyst in a bigger movement to roll-back intrusive surveillance.”
This is what patriotism really looks like.
Why smash them when you can harvest them. I’m sure they have components that can be sold.
Better yet, dismantle them without harm and send them back with no return address. Reduces what you can be charged with, prevents Flock from getting insurance benefits, and is all the more frustrating for them to deal with.
> I found this on the side of the road and thought you might want it back.
> Better yet, dismantle them without harm and send them back with no return address.
This definitely takes more effort than smashing them does.
> Reduces what you can be charged with,
Does it? How? There's not even a return address to show that a person sent the parts back to Flock instead of just disappearing it.
> prevents Flock from getting insurance benefits
How? The camera doesn't repair itself. It still takes money to turn a pile of camera parts into a working camera on some street corner somewhere.
> and is all the more frustrating for them to deal with.
Is it? Is corporate frustration the goal? (Is corporate frustration even possible?)
I think my choice of the word "dismantle" has caused some confusion. "Cleanly dismount, and ship back whole" is what I meant. If nothing is destroyed, they can't charge your with destruction. If the item is returned, it is not stolen. There surely will be some lesser things one could be charged with here, but I doubt they would be worth the effort and expense of a lawsuit, and unlikely to sway a jury to convict.
Frustrating them is not the goal per-se, but it feels good, and may make them consider that market as not worth the cost of maintaining a presence there.
When I take your things, I have quite clearly stolen from you. That's theft.
When I take your things and then mail them back to you, I have still stolen from you. That's still theft.
It's the taking part that constitutes theft.
---
If I instead just smash your things in-situ, then that can be a different crime like vandalism.
> If the item is returned, it is not stolen.
This isn't how the law works at all. You can absolutely still be charged with theft even if you return the item.
[Shrug] that's for the jury to decide.
I'd like to see some software that can be used to connect and hack them (which has been already proven possible), erase any data, then fill their memory with tons and tons of out of place images. Take real traffic images, flip them in different orientations to slow down future training, throw in nonsense, etc. Leaving them in place and making them unreliable is a better solution - they can always put up another camera.
A Little Brother solution: they want data, give them so much bad data the rest of their data becomes worthless. But it only works on a mass scale.
Great! Now oppose the vehicle kill switch that just got passed by the people that “represent” you
Good
Awful AI slop. Title should be some people vandalized something that I can co-op for my political agenda.
Disgusting, and it's quietly happening worldwide.
In Italy two different agencies are buying spying tools they cannot even legally use.
Laws don't matter.
Speed cameras and other surveillance state Trojan horses next please. Not just flock.
Speed cameras? I dont know, as long as people kill people with their vehicles, speed cameras are a tiny evil.
Most pedestrian deaths aren't from speeding. They occur on high traffic roads where the posted limits are beyond what will most certainly be lethal (45mph+). And growing vehicle mass pushes lower speeds into the lethal range, anyway. (Someone's Yukon is going to kill pedestrians at much lower speeds than a Civic.)
Alcohol is involved nearly half the time as well...but the driver is intoxicated only 18% of the time. Usually it's drunk pedestrians stumbling into the road.
https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-...
Pedestrian fatalities are largely not a vehicle speed issue so much as a street design issue. Cities should be planned so nobody is ever walking near higher speed arterial roads, with crosswalks at controlled intersections, foot bridges over long/wide streets, and separated sidewalks. Then areas that need lower speeds (residential areas, downtown areas with street parking) should use narrower designs.
In contrast, the city I live in is primarily built around a handful of four lane streets that all of the businesses are along, with no crossings for miles and places where sidewalks randomly disappear. So you'll see pedestrians standing in the middle of a lane, waiting for a gap to run across the next two lanes. It's wildly dangerous, but the problem has nothing to do with people exceeding the speed limit...and even lowering it would achieve nothing.
Speed cameras or not, what you described will always happen. I would prefer no evil instead of a tiny evil however.
Likely yea, but with them at least some idiots too stupid to drive get some degree of punishment.
I don’t believe the juice (some speeding tickets) is worth the squeeze (surveillance dragnet covering the country).
In return for everyone giving up privacy.
I need a lot bigger of a return if I am going to give up privacy.
Most of you use a smartphone, you're already giving away most of your privacy...
And I get a lot in return
I don't think punishment benefits society in any way whatsoever.
I get where you're coming from here- I also don't see justice as an inherent good. If somebody kills somebody else, the death penalty will only increase the number of victims by one. It does nothing to undo the crime. Karma isn't real.
But you have to think about second order effects. The knowledge that you may be punished afterwards serves as a disincentive for doing the wrong thing now. It may be preferable to convince everyone that they would be punished without actually doing the punishment, but it's not possible. Apart from the death penalty, punishments also can directly teach an individual not to commit the crime again.
Justice is distinct from punishment. Someone who is wronged should be made whole, but I don't think society benefits from violating the violator.
Right, I just responded to that claim. Do you have any thoughts on the disincentivizing effects of punishment?
Or, if not, we can be more specific. Imprisonment means that an individual is separated from society, making it much harder for them to commit crimes. Most crime is done by young men, and time spent in prison contributes to age. Issuing a 10-year sentence means directly reducing the number of crimes that occur. Is that not beneficial to society?
Or if a CFO embezzles $10M, should society be indifferent to whether taxpayers make the company whole or the CFO does it?
It's the balance society needs for crime. If punishment doesn't benefit society what do we have to do with criminals in your opinion?
Many a local government is known to trap people with no good reason. Place a speed limit sign somewhere it's hard to spot from the road and the road does not indicate a speed limit by e.g. reducing lanes, place a few strategic cops and loot everyone who doesn't have a navigation system with speed hints.
Bonus, use the opportunity for some nice civil forfeiture scams.
They aren’t a tiny evil. It’s safetyism, and safetyism gets regularly abused to violate our rights. See age verification laws or online censorship for other examples. By promoting safety they get a way to conduct surveillance. And flock isn’t the only company in the surveillance game. How long before cameras and ALPRs for speeding end up being used by ICE to unconstitutionally round up people?
Regarding road safety: Many roads have artificially low speed limits to either generate revenue or appease anti car activists. But the benefit of cars, getting us quickly to our destinations, is very clear. Vehicle deaths are very rare, and getting to places quickly matters. I see this a lot on highways especially, where a low speed limit like 55-60 should really be 80.
We should be designing for faster, not slower, roads. Safety is always improving due to cars having all kinds of driver assistance features now anyways, but we also could just make roads support the speeds people want to drive at. And then the value of surveillance cameras for safety will also go away.
>Vehicle deaths are very rare, and getting to places quickly matters.
People not having any sort of empathy on HN shouldn't surprise me not gonna lie.
This is an ad hominem. It is a fact that road deaths are a small cost relative to the benefit of vehicles. If it weren’t, cars and trucks would be outright banned. Most people prefer to have them around, and prefer them to public transit if they can afford them and if infrastructure exists.
If you think even one death should mean the benefits don’t matter, then the only solution is to shut down all of society. There is risk everywhere. One death per 100 million miles is a small risk to most people.
But that doesn’t mean we are “not having any sort of empathy”.
by this logic we need body cams for every pen owner. Pens are class A weapons after all.
This website and article promote the destruction of property. If you disagree with something, you can engage civily, encourage people to vote with you, run for elections. Violence is not the answer.
Hi. The mayor of Denver pushed through flock cameras despite them being unpopular and not even getting enough votes to buy them. He got them to change the price enough that he didn't need the votes to get them installed.
How do you have a civil society when the people in power cheat?
It sounds like he worked within the legal constraints of the system he was elected to work within.
This kind of discretionary spending authority can used for things that are good, bad, or indifferent. When it gets used to cut through the red tape and buy a new swingset for a neighborhood park, then that's good; nobody complains about that. (Except someone would surely complain about that, but come on man.)
And when it gets used to install government tracking systems, that's bad.
> How do you have a civil society when the people in power cheat?
The problem isn't that the mayor can spend some money. Rather, the problem here is that government tracking systems are completely legal to buy.
The laws need adjusted so that government tracking systems are completely illegal, instead.
"Yeah, good luck getting the government to do that!"
The people of Colorado are free to initiate their own legislation and constitutional amendments and then vote them into force.
"But that will never work!"
It can work, and it has worked. As just one example, the people did this rather famously, and with good effect, back in 2012 when they legalized recreational weed: https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Amendment_64,_Regulation_of...
The flock contract was cancelled. It was then replaced with an axon contract that probably isn't much better.
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/denver-city-council-...
Simple. You don't.
Destroying a camera isn't violence. It's destruction of property, sure. But property isn't inherently good and sometimes it degrades society.
If some goober installs massive floodlights that blast into windows of some houses, I think everyone would support a kid with a slingshot busting a few bulbs. If some guy is blasting music from a speaker at 3 AM every single day, I don't think anyone will complain about a cable being cut. If cameras are installed that sell data to companies like Palantir, companies that say they want to kill you and they're going to kill you and it's just a matter of time until they kill you, destroying those cameras is the non-violent option.
"Violence" is a word normally used when the victim is sentient, but I'll go along with it:
Violence against inanimate objects is morally neutral. Violence against instruments of violence is self-defense. Violence against oppression is how the USA was founded.
A corporation has unfair political advantages including a deep purse, an unlimited lifespan, and more recently all the rights of personhood. The only advantage the people have is their numbers, and yeah numbers of votes would be great, I agree, but when votes are ignored, or never solicited in the first place, it often comes down to numbers of pitchforks, as it were.
> Violence is not the answer.
Okay, but what about destruction of property?
On voting harder, see the lead incident mentioned: "This happened weeks after the city council voted to keep the cameras despite overwhelming public opposition." I also advocate patiently working through the process, but people are not blind to the trends: the democratic process is failing as government increasingly sidelines voters and the richest have the levers of power.
I don't see anything on the site or article that promote the destruction of property. It's an aggregation of public information regarding the history of vandalism towards a specific target.
The website largely documents the current state of privacy and provides resources for (digital) services that help maintain privacy. This is an encouraging civil engagement which educates and empowers the audience.
Everything I've read and learned in my 50 or so years on this planet leads me to believe that the times injustice can be corrected purely by civil engagement and voting are massively outweighed by the times that they can't. So depending on how bad the thing is - people make choices.
might want to check a history book, you may be surprised what the answer usually was.
Regardless, I do agree with the commentor. Effective or not, violence, to me, is always the wrong answer.
Calling the "destruction of property" violence though—I might take issue with that.
Under what circumstances might "destruction of property" legitimately be classified as violence in your view?
Without having thought about it for more than about 10 seconds: I guess I associate violence with something more personal: an actual person or living thing, or personal property. I guess "corporate property" is where it gets more into the grey zone for me.
But I see your point. Destroying a thing (even corporate) is a pretty extreme reaction that I can only see making sense after having exhausted all other "peaceable" avenues.
People that see these things as detrimental to society though are likely pretty motivated.
I assume this comment means you strongly oppose every part of the American Revolution?
The amount of justifications I'm seeing in this comment section perfectly suited for ICE to destroy any camera recording them is actually insane.
What is the civil way of installing mass surveillance?