Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I don't understand how Flock can possibly be legal. Unlicensed, warrantless, mass surveillance is not legal. Surveilling before the warrant is not a reasonable work around for the legal threshold, neither is using a third party. In a fair universe, this company would be eradicated by legal challenge.
    by josefritzishere
  • I think the public outrage about Flock is well-deserved but – moving slightly off-topic – I wish it weren't the only privacy- and data harvesting-related issue the media are reporting about.

    (Context: I'm currently looking into renewing my US visa. I've been to the US many times before both for shorter and longer periods of time and on many different visa – so far without any problems whatsoever.)

    The Trump administration recently made it mandatory for all visa applicants to disclose any social media accounts (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, Reddit, LinkedIn, …) they have had in the last five years (EDIT: whether still existent or deleted). [0]

    I'm scared shitless and don't know what to do. (Not visiting the US is not an option, unfortunately.) I don't think I have ever posted anything controversial or of relevance through any of my social media accounts but I just don't want anyone in the world to have that kind of data about me, particularly my private messages. Who says that once they know all my social media accounts, CBP officers won't start checking my messages whenever I cross the border in the future? Who says they won't abuse that access at some point?

    Look, I am aware CBP officers can already search your phone without a warrant, and three-letter agencies probably get first-class access to all social networks, anyway, but consciously handing over your data as part of the application process is… a different level.

    Where's the outrage here? I know non-citizens basically don't enjoy any rights whatsoever at US borders, so I've long given up on hoping someone would fight this in court but still… where are the public campaigns, the diplomatic notes & retaliation?

    [0]: In fact, they require social media profiles to be made public for the duration of the application, apparently so that the State Department can access and review the accounts. (Which would be funny since we all know what the NSA can do – if it didn't also open up the social media accounts to crawlers and stalkers…)

    by throwawayway1
  • It's baffling to me how they can get away with such evident naming!
    by Insimwytim
  • > inb4 I have nothing to hide

    Every damn time you have an invasive system it gets abused this way. Every damn time.

    by gherkinnn
  • I’d like to see HIPAA-style audit log and review for surveillance products like Flock. An aspect of log reviews that I don’t have direct info about is contextual access alerts—the gist of it is that whatever record you access is evaluated for things like patients who live in your neighborhood, or are related to you and it pings the compliance office.

    Clearly Flock etc are keeping pretty good access records or these stories couldn’t get written. What is missing is PD compliance offices proactively addressing inappropriate accesss. In addition to access monitoring, another aspect of HIPAA is that a patient can find out who has accessed their record. It makes sense that a tremendously powerful data collection would have similar rules of the road.

    by adolph
  • seems like flock is a great honeypot to find bad cops
    by jeffchuber
  • The ironic, a democracy (or more like republic representation) democratised wanton abuse throughout whole country. And we demonized any countries not following our system even when their result is way better. We invent and paid for fake news to demonized them too. If you as citizen dont like it, you cant even vote against it as referendum bot allowed and voted rep no listen to you. They listen to the super rich that didnt vote for them, but paid their needs. Your only recourse is to sue or fight all the way to SCOTUS pretty much on your own effort and resources. And we all call this as the greatest nation on earth. Maybe what Nixon said is the precedence of lawful guidance, when he did it, is ok. Flock is just a symptom that we approved implicitly via doing anything but just grumble. We deserve this utopia. Nothing to see. Move on.
    by Haven880
  • news like this is only coming out because Flock very recently rolled out a system that tracks usage and flags possible abuses: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/trending/flock-updates-safeguards...

    the problem is that usage of this system with enforcement is not law. Police Departments opt-in and are the ones responsible for whether or not individuals are charged, fired, or simply disciplined, and they also choose whether or not to disclose this to the public. and the other problem is that it's not just Flock - other companies are stepping in like Axon and Motorola and are essentially eating the cake that is Flock's recent public infamy [0]

    and law enforcement skirting of accountability is essentially a legalized thing now under legal mechanisms like qualified immunity. not to mention the boy's club that are police unions - my FIL is a former sergeant and has many stories of how he was blackballed by his union because he wouldn't cover for bad cops to the extent that they were pursuing taking away his pension and insurance coverage until just a few years ago

    [0] https://www.atlasofsurveillance.org/search?location=&technol...

    by paimapi

Explore Birbla archives

Police officer used Flock cameras to track estranged wife 717 times · Birbla