Aggressive US Marketers are Bringing Police Surveillance Tools to the Masses (msn.com) 112
"License plate readers are rapidly reshaping private security in American neighborhoods," reports the Washington Post, as aggressively-marketed $2,500-a-year "safety-as-a-service" packages "spread to cover practically everywhere anyone chooses to live in the United States" and "bringing police surveillance tools to the masses with an automated watchdog that records 24 hours a day."
Flock Safety, the industry leader, says its systems have been installed in 1,400 cities across 40 states and now capture data from more than a billion cars and trucks every month. "This is not just for million-dollar homes," Flock's founder, Garrett Langley, said. "This is America at its core..."
Its solar-powered, motion-sensing camera can snap a dozen photos of a single plate in less than a second — even in the dark, in the rain, of a car driving 100 mph up to 75 feet away, as Flock's marketing materials say. Piped into a neighborhood's private Flock database, the photos are made available for the homeowners to search, filter or peruse. Machine-learning software categorizes each vehicle based on two dozen attributes, including its color, make and model; what state its plates came from; and whether it had bumper stickers or a roof rack. Each "vehicle fingerprint" is pinpointed on a map and tracked by how often it had been spotted in the past month. The plates are also run against law enforcement watch lists for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives; if there's a match, the system alerts the nearest police force with details on how to track it down...
Flock's customer base has roughly quadrupled since 2019, with police agencies and homeowners associations in more than 1,400 cities today, and the company has hired sales representatives in 30 states to court customers with promises of a safer, more-monitored life. Company officials have also attended town hall meetings and papered homeowners associations with glossy marketing materials declaring its system "the most user-friendly, least invasive way for communities to stop crime": a network of cameras "that see like a detective," "protect home values" and "automate [the] neighborhood watch ... while you sleep." Along the way, the Atlanta-based company has become an unlikely darling of American tech. The company said in July it had raised $150 million from prominent venture capital firms such as Andreessen Horowitz, which said Flock was pursuing "a massive opportunity in shaping the future...."
Flock deletes the footage every 30 days by default and encourages customers to search only when investigating crime. But the company otherwise lets customers set their own rules: In some neighborhoods, all the homeowners can access the images for themselves...
Camera opponents didn't want the neighborhood's leaders to anoint themselves gatekeepers, choosing who does and doesn't belong. And they worried that if someone's car was broken into, but no one knew exactly when, the system could lead to hundreds of drivers, virtually all of them innocent, coming under suspicion for the crime. They also worried about the consequences of the cameras getting it wrong. In San Francisco, police had handcuffed a woman at gunpoint in 2009 after a camera garbled her plate number; another family was similarly detained last year because a thief had swiped their tag before committing a crime. And last year in Aurora, 30 miles from Paradise Hills, police handcuffed a mother and her children at gunpoint after a license plate reader flagged their SUV as stolen. The actual stolen vehicle, a motorcycle, had the same plate number from another state. Police officials have said racial profiling did not play a role, though the drivers in all three cases were Black. (The license plate readers in these cases were not Flock devices, and the company said its systems would have shown more accurate results...)
The Paradise Hills opponents were right to be skeptical about a local crime wave. According to Jefferson County sheriff's records shared with The Post, the only crime reports written up since September 2020 included two damaged mailboxes, a fraudulent unemployment claim and some stuff stolen out of three parked cars, two of which had been left unlocked. "I wouldn't exactly say it's a hot spot," patrol commander Dan Aten told The Post...
The cameras clicked on in August, a board member said. In the weeks since, the neighborhood hasn't seen any reports of crime. The local sheriff's office said it hasn't used the Flock data to crack any cases, nor has it found the need to ask.
Flock's founder, Garrett Langley, nonetheless tells the Washington Post, "There are 17,000 cities in America.
"Until we have them all, we're not done."
Its solar-powered, motion-sensing camera can snap a dozen photos of a single plate in less than a second — even in the dark, in the rain, of a car driving 100 mph up to 75 feet away, as Flock's marketing materials say. Piped into a neighborhood's private Flock database, the photos are made available for the homeowners to search, filter or peruse. Machine-learning software categorizes each vehicle based on two dozen attributes, including its color, make and model; what state its plates came from; and whether it had bumper stickers or a roof rack. Each "vehicle fingerprint" is pinpointed on a map and tracked by how often it had been spotted in the past month. The plates are also run against law enforcement watch lists for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives; if there's a match, the system alerts the nearest police force with details on how to track it down...
Flock's customer base has roughly quadrupled since 2019, with police agencies and homeowners associations in more than 1,400 cities today, and the company has hired sales representatives in 30 states to court customers with promises of a safer, more-monitored life. Company officials have also attended town hall meetings and papered homeowners associations with glossy marketing materials declaring its system "the most user-friendly, least invasive way for communities to stop crime": a network of cameras "that see like a detective," "protect home values" and "automate [the] neighborhood watch ... while you sleep." Along the way, the Atlanta-based company has become an unlikely darling of American tech. The company said in July it had raised $150 million from prominent venture capital firms such as Andreessen Horowitz, which said Flock was pursuing "a massive opportunity in shaping the future...."
Flock deletes the footage every 30 days by default and encourages customers to search only when investigating crime. But the company otherwise lets customers set their own rules: In some neighborhoods, all the homeowners can access the images for themselves...
Camera opponents didn't want the neighborhood's leaders to anoint themselves gatekeepers, choosing who does and doesn't belong. And they worried that if someone's car was broken into, but no one knew exactly when, the system could lead to hundreds of drivers, virtually all of them innocent, coming under suspicion for the crime. They also worried about the consequences of the cameras getting it wrong. In San Francisco, police had handcuffed a woman at gunpoint in 2009 after a camera garbled her plate number; another family was similarly detained last year because a thief had swiped their tag before committing a crime. And last year in Aurora, 30 miles from Paradise Hills, police handcuffed a mother and her children at gunpoint after a license plate reader flagged their SUV as stolen. The actual stolen vehicle, a motorcycle, had the same plate number from another state. Police officials have said racial profiling did not play a role, though the drivers in all three cases were Black. (The license plate readers in these cases were not Flock devices, and the company said its systems would have shown more accurate results...)
The Paradise Hills opponents were right to be skeptical about a local crime wave. According to Jefferson County sheriff's records shared with The Post, the only crime reports written up since September 2020 included two damaged mailboxes, a fraudulent unemployment claim and some stuff stolen out of three parked cars, two of which had been left unlocked. "I wouldn't exactly say it's a hot spot," patrol commander Dan Aten told The Post...
The cameras clicked on in August, a board member said. In the weeks since, the neighborhood hasn't seen any reports of crime. The local sheriff's office said it hasn't used the Flock data to crack any cases, nor has it found the need to ask.
Flock's founder, Garrett Langley, nonetheless tells the Washington Post, "There are 17,000 cities in America.
"Until we have them all, we're not done."
There's a name for those (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a name for those companies and the individuals that operate them, work with them and buy their products/services: "Privacy Rapists".
Re:There's a name for those (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a name for those companies and the individuals that operate them, work with them and buy their products/services: "Privacy Rapists".
Sooo, Tesla [cnn.com]?
Re: (Score:1)
Sooo, Tesla [cnn.com]?
Well, duh!
There's so much telemetry coming from those cars, they know every millimeter you've traveled, including what you've done inside and outside the car (including others being filmed, which they've never consented to).
Re: (Score:3)
(including others being filmed, which they've never consented to).
If you're in public, there is NO expectation of privacy.
That means that photographing anything visible from a public vantage point is completely legal, including minors, hospital patients, accident victims, police officers, etc etc etc.
If it's in public, it's fair game, period.
Re:There's a name for those (Score:4, Insightful)
(including others being filmed, which they've never consented to).
If you're in public, there is NO expectation of privacy.
That means that photographing anything visible from a public vantage point is completely legal, including minors, hospital patients, accident victims, police officers, etc etc etc.
If it's in public, it's fair game, period.
I'm pretty sure the cameras in a Tesla capture footage that isn't visible through the windows. Also, the logical conclusion to your reasoning is that somebody watching me via a camera placed in my house without my knowledge or consent, would get a free pass from law enforcement so long as I happened to have the drapes open so that passersby could see what the camera was capturing. I don't think that argument would get the camera owner very far with the cops or the courts, and I don't think the house and the car are any different in that context.
As for the argument you might make concerning TOS under which the car was purchased, I think the courts would take a dim view of that as well - especially with regard to passengers or people I might lend my car to.
I'm also getting tired of people trotting out the 'no expectation of privacy in a public place' trope as though it's either a holy tract or a law of nature. The framers of those principles couldn't have foreseen how deeply invasive and far-reaching surveillance technology would become; I'm sure that if they had foreseen it, the laws around public privacy would have been written with a lot more nuance and a long list of exceptions to protect us from Flock, Tesla, Amazon, and the rest of the raping-privacy-for-profit corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the logical conclusion to your reasoning is that somebody watching me via a camera placed in my house without my knowledge or consent, would get a free pass from law enforcement so long as I happened to have the drapes open so that passersby could see what the camera was capturing.
So, the terrible thing is - while I really agree with your sentiments, the sad fact is that there have been a LOT of cases that go something like this: "A child jumped a fence and peeked into a window that happened to have a chink in the curtains. The child saw two people in their bedroom doing adult things. The child told their parents. The parents brought charges and suddenly two adults who were doing adult things in their own home got charged with sex offenses".
Re: (Score:2)
What stupid kid ever told his parents he sneakily saw the goods?
Re: (Score:2)
consider.
now anyone can have a little big brother for their personal use.
would stalking laws apply here
Re: There's a name for those (Score:1)
The example of the camera in the house is invalid. The camera captures things not viewable from a public vantage point even if part of what it captures is. Everything needs to be viewable from a public vantage point. There are also some caveats but I do not know how they are defined legally. For one, up skirt pictures. In this regard, I think the definition is that the viewpoint must be from a reasonable height of adults. Drones can invalidate this a good bit but it's rather grey. Another is cameras on priv
Re: (Score:2)
Another is cameras on private property. a there was a UK case of a garage camera covering a side entrance to a house.
And the UK law gets it wrong. If you live in an urban or suburban setting, chances are good the wide angle lenses typical of consumer security cameras are going to include some of your neighbors' property in the frame. You can usually customize the motion sensing features to avoid capturing footage of your neighbor(s), but they'll still see that a physical camera is pointed in their general direction. Having a law saying you don't have the right to secure your own property with a camera, if it would be p
Re: There's a name for those (Score:2)
This seems fair. I have no disagreement, we have to sacrifice some personal freedom to live in society. If you don't like it, I think you should move into the countryside.
Re: There's a name for those (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the logical conclusion to your reasoning is that somebody watching me via a camera placed in my house
Is the inside of your home a public place? Please read what I wrote again:
"That means that photographing anything visible from a public vantage point is completely legal, including minors, hospital patients, accident victims, police officers, etc etc etc."
If some puts a camera in your home without your permission, then they've violated your privacy and would be liable.
You may not like the law, but it is what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Most places have stalking laws. It's one thing to photograph stuff and get people etc in the image, it's another thing to follow someone around recording them full time. Try it, follow some cute woman around with a camera all the time, including parking on the public street in front of her house and recording it.
Re: (Score:2)
Please read what I wrote again:
"That means that photographing anything visible from a public vantage point is completely legal, including minors, hospital patients, accident victims, police officers, etc etc etc."
I now realize that I was confused by the wording you used. I understood what you wrote to be equivalent to "photographing anything which from a public vantage point is visible" - that doesn't specify that the photographing necessarily took place from a public vantage point. I now believe that what you were thinking of was "photographing, from a public vantage point, anything which is visible".
I'm not splitting hairs - I really misunderstood what you meant. Blame it on the vagaries of the English language.
Re: (Score:2)
No problem, my apologies if I was unclear (which happens more often than I care to admit).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also getting tired of people trotting out the 'no expectation of privacy in a public place' trope as though it's either a holy tract or a law of nature. The framers of those principles couldn't have foreseen how deeply invasive and far-reaching surveillance technology would become; I'm sure that if they had foreseen it, the laws around public privacy would have been written with a lot more nuance and a long list of exceptions to protect us from Flock, Tesla, Amazon, and the rest of the raping-privacy-for-profit corporations.
Then legislatures can remove the requirements for people to identify their vehicles, and thereby their movements in public. Until then, I look forward to a time when every government worker is tracked by the public in real time, with all of the inevitable consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the theory, but people still get upset if they know you are doing it without their permission just because they might be in the frame.
Well, too bad for them.
I've run into this quite a few times...for some reason people really think that you're not allowed to photograph them in public, so much so that sometimes they'll physically assault you.
I explain to them that they're mistaken, but they're usually too busy trying to rub the pepper spray out of their eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why there's a right to be forgotten. It's one thing to see naked people at the beach, it's very different to take a photograph and publish it somewhere.
A right to be forgotten addresses distribution and publication, much like the loosely-worded child-porn laws.
That's why stalking is a recent addition to the crime act but the law now recognizes that repeated watching (or talking at) someone can be abusive.
Re: (Score:2)
You used a lot of words but didn't say anything. So let me recap:
If you're in public, there is NO expectation of privacy. NONE.
That means that photographing anything visible from a public vantage point is completely legal, including minors, hospital patients, accident victims, police officers, etc etc etc.
If it's in public, it's fair game, period.
Re: (Score:2)
So I can make a reality show about your life. A couple of us follow you around every time you are in public recording you, park in front and behind your house and record it 24 hours a day and publicize all the recordings of you over a year or more.
Talk to a lawyer, you'd likely find that you could charge us with stalking or at least get a Judge to order us to stop. Courts put out restraining orders all the time, usually against ex's, ordering people to not do things like even be close to someones house, tal
Re: There's a name for those (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think even without legislation, most places have courts that would give an injunction against a stalker, though as you say, it varies on jurisdiction and there are countries that don't care too much about rights like privacy as it isn't listed somewhere.
Re: There's a name for those (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in public, there is NO expectation of privacy.
That means that photographing anything visible from a public vantage point is completely legal, including minors, hospital patients, accident victims, police officers, etc etc etc.
If it's in public, it's fair game, period.
Do you think law enforcement will buy that once enough public data becomes available to track them in real time, on the job and off? What about other government agents, prosecutors, judges, and legislators?
Turn about is fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
Sooo, Tesla [cnn.com]?
Well, duh!
There's so much telemetry coming from those cars, they know every millimeter you've traveled, including what you've done inside and outside the car (including others being filmed, which they've never consented to).
If I were making a robo car, I would film "out there", too, as you have grave concern over lawsuits as people get in the way deliberately in hopes of a payday.
(And you want it to fix mistakes the vehicle might make as well.)
Re:There's a name for those (Score:5, Insightful)
Then every neighborhood street watch is a rapist. Welcome to 2021 where emotional trigger words are abused to make things worse than they are. Were every man is a rapist because they have the equipment and everyone is a privacy rapist because they have the eyes.
Re: (Score:1)
Some men are birthing persons, dude. Get with the 2020s already!
Re:There's a name for those (Score:5, Insightful)
At a customer's business recently, a female employee I am familiar with extolled the benefits to their business of paying a subscription to a license plate reader compiler. They sell, or rather lease, high end rims and tires to folks who cannot afford to purchase them outright.
Like auto sales outfits that carry the note on self funded vehicle sales, it is in their interest to know where the vehicles are in the event of a necessary repossession.
Caveat: she knows the tracking info is also available to employees who might want to track girlfriends or crushes.
Bad all around.
Re: (Score:3)
Well "Safety as a Service" sounds suspiciously like a racketering scam.
You are safe as long as you keep paying..
Re: (Score:2)
There's a name for those companies and the individuals that operate them, work with them and buy their products/services: "Privacy Rapists".
He's not wrong though, it's definitely "America at its core..."
Re: (Score:2)
You mean your car's license plate has a right to remain private?
Sounds like a company with (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
These are tools for people with money like HOAS and other gated communities. Which already have private security.
Re: (Score:3)
Not all HOAs are the same. All mine has ever done is told people when their household maintenance is way overdue, but they've put that on hiatus since COVID-19 came along. They hire landscapers for common areas and snow plows for winter storms. They don't even contract for trash pickup, much less impose any kind of organized security or surveillance.
I don't even know of any gated communities in my county. People with a bit of money have higher priorities than buying into that kind of place. They first
Re: (Score:2)
These are tools for people with money like HOAS and other gated communities. Which already have private security.
Like dash cameras, these tools will quickly become inexpensive enough for so many civilians to use that everybody, including the residents of HOAS and other gated communities, to be tracked by anybody who is interested.
Just out of curiosity (Score:2, Interesting)
You could
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That problem has been solved. Just pass a law that metal recyclers have to photocopy a drivers license and write a check (no cash) for metal purchases.
I don't think that would solve the problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is why it’s usually drug addicts who commit these type of crimes. People who are down on their luck and starving simply shoplift food. I’ve seen it happen plenty of times, since I live in a relatively low-income area (and food stamps in Florida are a sad joke). Usually happens at stores like Aldi and Dollar Tree, where there’s really nobody to stop someone intent on walking out without paying.
Re: (Score:2)
A catalytic converter is worth close to a thousand dollars, so actually a pretty big reward for 10 minutes work.
Specific/nonspecific (Score:5, Funny)
what are you going to do? The cops aren't going to bother with a guy stealing car parts. Not because they're bleeding hearts but because there's not enough money to go after every criminal. So are you gonna hunt the guy down yourself? And if not what's the point of having the info? And if you are, well, what are you gonna do when you find the guy? If you kill him you're going to jail. And rightfully so, if you're willing to kill somebody for a car part you're the danger, not the petty thief...
You could sue him, but he's liable to just disappear when you do.
Seems to me it'd be better to make a world where folks didn't feel the need to spend their time stealing car parts for the metal inside (which is why they supposedly go after catalytic converters) would be the easier route. I can tell you they're not getting rich off that, and it's hard work. High risk too, since if you're caught somebody's liable to shoot them and to devil with the consequences.
I notice you're very specific in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs, but vague in the last one. Can you restate your position with more detail on how to make the better world?
Slashdot readers are composed of makers, economists, lawyers, and people with a lot of heart - people who would help out if they only knew what specific things they could do.
Can you give us an outline, a manifesto or something, that tells the steps we can take?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, no. He doesn't have any solutions. He just wants to signal his virtue, like this is fucking Reddit or something.
Sure (Score:2)
Basically the Scandinavian model of capitalism. The goal isn't equality it's comfort for everyone. Usually this means a bit more quality because otherwise the ultra wealth
Re: (Score:2)
Such an important point. How come when we are trying to raise taxes on the crazy rich "the economy is not a zero-sum game", but we still need to keep minimum wage so damn low and the deficit is the most important thing in the world when the Democrats are in the White House, trying to pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling to cover the last few years of Republican spending? If people think the economy of the mid-1900s was so damned great, it sure sounds reasonable to return to that tax strategy [tax-brackets.org], doesn't it? (
Re: (Score:2)
Your Scandinavian manifesto should start with this:
"Capitalism, being unparalleled in its ability to generate wealth and a rising standard of living for everyone, has some rough edges that taxation of its economic dynamo can ameliorate.
"Now that that's done, let's focus on increasing taxes further to increase the comfort."
Re: (Score:3)
First step: ranked choice voting to free us of the two party lock-in where you can't vote 3rd party because 'you are wasting your vote' https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
" ranked choice voting to free us of the two party lock-in" a joke right? Ranked choice voting is designed to guarantee a specific party stays in power. Most places in the US that use ranked choice voting are now a one party area. With everyone except the "Man" locked out.
I do not know that that is the case, but there are better options than ranked choice, like approval.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Who would you rather live next door to, the guy who steals catalytic converters, or the guy who shoots him?
I eagerly await your answer.
I'd much rather live next to the guy who steals (Score:2)
That was kind of what I was getting at, sorry I didn't think I had to spell it out in detail...
Re: (Score:1)
The guy who kills somebody over a Catalyic converter strikes me as a dangerous psychopath.
Context matters. If they’re hunting down the crook bounty hunter style and executing them, yes.
On the other hand, if the homeowner confronts the scumbag in the act of the theft, there really isn’t a whole lot of time for a heart-to-heart over what the criminal’s intentions are. Maybe you want to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has no respect for your property and the hard work you had to do to earn it - I wouldn’t.
That would only be true (Score:2)
No one's life is worth something as petty as property respect. You should consider what those words mean. If property has more value than life than gutting you like a fish for your organs is perfectly acceptable. That's not a slippery slope, that's the consequences of putting property before human life. Everything else at th
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that if someone has no respect for your property, how do you know they have any respect for your life? If you catch someone trying to steal parts from your car and approach them armed with nothing more than strong words, what assurances do you have that they won't also see you the same way they saw your car - as a opportunity to take something from someone?
Yes, in a courtroom, with the advantage of hindsight, a criminal can be punished in a manner befitting of the crime they committed. If the
Re: Just out of curiosity (Score:1)
The guy who shoots people might be an awful shot! That high velocity Armour piercing round might come through walls and through me!
If the guy next door steals my catalytic convertor... I'll run my (now noisey) car while he tries to sleep.. pretty sure he'll give it back after a night...
Re: (Score:2)
So are you gonna hunt the guy down yourself?
Some have.
And if you are, well, what are you gonna do when you find the guy?
Instigate an altercation, then call the cops.
If you kill him you're going to jail.
Only if he doesn't attack me when I confront him.
Seems to me it'd be better to make a world where folks didn't feel the need to spend their time stealing car parts for the metal inside (which is why they supposedly go after catalytic converters) would be the easier route.
If you think the cops are uninterested in catching thieves, just try to imagine how uninterested they are in making a better world.
Re: (Score:1)
The idea is that these technological measures are supposed to be a deterrence. Ideally, the crime is avoided (or more likely, the crook chooses a different neighborhood) and the homeowner doesn’t have to grab a gun and chase off the scumbag.
As far as pity for criminals goes, if they were shoplifting their next meal from Walmart to avoid starving to death, you might have a point. But there’s no way to justify theft from other individuals - that is someone who should definitely receive a “
Re: (Score:2)
That is hitting the nail on the head. When politicians and courts give up on enforcing the law, then residents take action. It's high-tech vigilantism, and all the bitching and moaning from privacy advocates wo
Re: (Score:2)
That happens if there is a perception of crime, even if there is no actual crime. Crime rates in the US have been on a steady downward trend for decades, while public perception of crime remains high on surveys - because with the 24 hour new coverage and so many networks competing for ratings, not a week goes by without a few murders in the headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me again what the police do to prevent crime?
Re:Sounds like a company with (Score:4, Funny)
I had the catalytic converter cut off my Prius while it sat in my driveway.
A Tesla owner would have had video of it happening, just sayin'.
turn (Score:1, Funny)
Spies are watching everyone on the internet, even on slashdot. With this system, we could know who the spies are, where they live, and who else they're watching.
Re: (Score:3)
If panopticon is inevitable, the only hope for freedom is access for everyone, warts and all, so we can keep an eye on our politicians.
Let all sides see who they contact for support. Let all sides see who they have dinner with, consult, plan. Do not allow those currently in power, and only them, to have this knowledge about their political opponents.
Good (Score:2)
I'd rather have individuals doing the surveillance than the police.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe not [schneier.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I get that there are problems with surveillance by normal people. But when police surveil, they shoot and don't get punished [nytimes.com].
Basically, any power we can take away from the police without our country falling into chaos, we should take it away.
Re: (Score:2)
But this adds to the police. They are the first ones called when people panic
Sounds peachy (Score:3)
Flock's founder, Garrett Langley, nonetheless tells the Washington Post, "There are 17,000 cities in America. Until we have them all, we're not done."
Nothing creepy or dystopian about that, nosiree.
I mean who isn't eager to have a privately-owned corporate entity running a nationwide surveillance system that's able to watch your every move?
Re: Sounds peachy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Between all the existing sources both legit and illegal privacy is now a fallacy.
Privacy of any meaningful type has been gone for quite a while.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean who isn't eager to have a privately-owned corporate entity running a nationwide surveillance system that's able to watch your every move?
Are you talking about Google, Apple, or Amazon?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about Google, Apple, or Amazon?
Yes.
Privacy? (Score:3)
What's that?
Your protection from surveillance is a protection from government. Not private parties. Just like protection against censorship is a protection from the government. If Zuckerberg wants to shut you up or watch you while you walk down the street, that's his right.
Don't like it? Fix both problems. Or neither.
What's worse than a Big Brother government (Score:5, Insightful)
is numerous Big Brother companies and individuals, all colluding to collect and trade your privacy for profit.
Want to stalk, rob or kidnap somebody? No problem, most recent 6 months worth of surveillance footage of the target's daily routine can be bought easily in the black market.
You saw your business competitor sitting by the window in Starbucks working with his laptop? High-def surveillance footage from the camera across the street letting you zoom into his screen is available for just $19.99.
You wonder where your girlfriend or SO went last weekend? Camera footage of her for that day is available for $99.99.
Of course the Congress will make law banning the sales of such footage for lawmakers and their family. Enjoy having your life transparent to all.
Criminals don't care about cameras (Score:3)
I live in a US city where you're on camera as soon as you step out of your apartment and go anywhere. Every building has a camera outside and inside. Every bus and train car has a camera. Criminal activity is caught on these cameras all the time, every day. Criminals don't care anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't care about cameras because they know that in most big cities they won't actually be meaningfully prosecuted anymore, even if they get caught.
Public truth is public (Score:2)
I'd use that tech in a hearbeat if I lived where crime was a serious issue.
I'm free to stand on a street corner taking notes then use conventional investigative techniques.
Tech to collect and process more "public truth" is democratizing when the public can use it. The public can use it to watch the watchers (police vehicles have license tags too). The democratic solution to the end of privacy is destroy government privacy too then adapt to a non-private world. That includes customs and courtesies. For examp
Re: Public truth is public (Score:3)
Neighbors Spying on Neighbors (Score:2)
is the new national passtime.
Re: (Score:1)
is the new national passtime.
There is nothing new about that. There have always been gossips in neighborhoods.
Back when there was nothing but 3 TV channels and nothing to watch.
This sounds good. Maybe we can set it up.
What a mean world we live in (Score:3, Interesting)
This could cut both ways (Score:2)
Maybe a product like this could help maintain the balance of power between civilians, local communities, and the government. As it stand
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I'm not a fan of ubiquitous surveillance, but it is looking increasingly unavoidable.
I think radical transparency might be the only realistic freedom-respecting option. Record everything, and make it all publicly available. Then we'd be right back to the utter lack of privacy that was a characteristic of almost the entire history of the human species.
I think David Brin made some good arguments in his essays on radical transparency that information asymmetry is the real threat, and if ubiquitous surv
Re: (Score:2)
Literally the only problem with all cameras all the time is that the ultra-wealthy won't be under the same level of surveillance. Their crimes won't be caught and because of witness bias (I don't think that's what that's actually called, but anyway) people will think that means that it didn't happen.
The solution is to eat the rich
Remind me not to piss off anyone at Flock (Score:2)
To hell with which neighbors can access the records under what conditions.
I don't want Flock, or anyone else, to be holding nationwide surveillance records. Records which I might point out will include evidence of many... indiscretions by many a politician. That puts them in a position *way* too easy to abuse for any democracy to tolerate, with no realistic political recourse against them.
How to beat tracking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To beat tracking you only have to die
Don't be silly. They'll track you to the cemetery after you're dead.
Then there could be the Cemetery cam in case you rise from the dead.
I ran into a macabre youtube channel somehow recently. Dude goes around sticking a drain camera into crypts. I was thinking - really? Someone should prank him. Set up a little scene in a crypt. Devil, minions all having lunch or something.
Re: (Score:1)
My old HOA has these now (Score:2, Interesting)
My old HOA made traffic rules part of its covenants, to include automated enforcement of speed limits and stop signs. They have speed and stop sign cameras everywhere. Anyone who becomes subject to the new covenants agrees to pay $150 for each traffic infraction captured by the cameras, and there was added a $50/year fee to the HOA dues to pay for maintaining the hardware. And it's all "contract law" and perfectly legal for them to do it.
This is the kind of sick bullshit this country is getting too deep int
Asimov (Score:3)
Big brother (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
noise and speed (Score:2)
"Machine-learning software categorizes each vehicle based on two dozen attributes, including its color, make and model; what state its plates came from; and whether it had bumper stickers or a roof rack." I'm not in general in favor of neighborhoods doing their own policing, but if this app collected two additional pieces of information, I might be more prone to want it: Noise, and speed.
Noise, because there are a few cars that drive by backfiring and with no apparent mufflers. Speed, because there are sp
Re: (Score:2)