Discussion summary
The discussion centers on Flock's surveillance technology and privacy concerns, with some arguing for its utility in law enforcement and others emphasizing privacy rights.
What the discussion says
- Some support using Flock for law enforcement, citing practical benefits.
- Many express concern over continuous surveillance and privacy violations.
- Critics argue that default tracking infringes on personal privacy rights.
- There is debate over legal and ethical implications of surveillance systems.
“There are people here who are very proud of the system they built.”
“No person should be tracked by default. There should not be any system that allows continuous tracking.”
Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Imagine the uproar if flock were used for automatic speeding tickets.
(which... we should, if we have the data to do it, why not actually enforce traffic laws?)
by cozzyd - I'm infuriated with this narrative because I can then be in my own private backyard with a fence and still be susceptible to surveillance. What the people who own the surveillance narrative really mean is that if they can record you, whether in private or not, you have no expectation of privacy.by kittikitti
- Never forget, There are people here who are very proud of the system they built.by mmmlinux
- No person should be tracked by default.
There should not be any system that allows a person to be continuously tracked at all times short of as a consequence of criminal activity with a judge signing off on it.
It's so basic that a 3rd grader gets it.
by BizarroLand - Despite the references to recent cases like Carpenter, this isn’t a cogent legal analysis. These recent cases have been focused on the question as to whether law enforcement activity involving cameras, cell phone locations, etc. constitutes a “search” and therefore must satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. In the challenged cases, the Government didn’t obtain a warrant and the defense was trying to suppress the introduction of evidence.
But it says nothing as to what the Government can do when they do have a warrant. If they get a judge to sign one, provided the warrant meets the particularity requirement, they can go obtain what they need.
As far as Flock is concerned, it’s mainly a process thing. Right now they might be able to share their data with law enforcement without a warrant. If the law changes, the data will still be there, except henceforth, law enforcement will need to obtain a warrant before getting it. So there will be that safety mechanism, although security vulnerabilities could make it available to hackers.
The bigger question in my mind is “should such systems even exist in free states,” but as written, our Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid them.
by otterley - If Flock feels this way the executive team should record the entrances and exits of their homes and stream them live online 24/7.by everdrive
- It's commercialized stalking. A group of people who physically stood in each park every day photographing children playing and sharing those images between each other would be run out of town so quick. Laws would be invented in a heartbeat to stop this.by jvanderbot