319 pointsby SanjayMehta3 hours ago28 comments
  • tptacek3 hours ago
    Random people calling 911 on other people filming them is a staple of Youtube; banks, coffee store workers, hairdressers, most especially restaurant managers. I don't know why anyone would expect technicians from Flock to be different. It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.

    You'd think from the response that this was like the VP/Sales of Flock Safety. But it's just some installer dude probably making $65k/year to climb poles and fasten cameras. I guess that's praxis for you though.

    I think this is just a ragebait piece.

    • DrewADesign2 hours ago
      Well, when you’re on the clock, you’re an agent of that company. And when you’re installing an indiscriminate mass-surveillance camera, calling the police on someone that’s video recording you is kind of bananas. Perhaps you don’t find that to be an interesting event, but a lot of people who are rightfully angry at the non-consensual deployment of a mass surveillance network disagree.
      • tptacekan hour ago
        It's not bananas. It happens all the time. The police show up, check things out, and inform the caller that the person recording has a right to do so. In this case, it's even less bananas, because the people recording him were literally following him around, which is not what generally happens in these "audit" scenarios where someone parks themselves on the street outside a restaurant or bank.

        There's pretty clearly a vibe on this thread that calling 911 is itself a use of coercive force. It is not. 911 is how you're ordinarily supposed to reach the police. In my neighborhood, it's how you'd report a stolen bicycle. It's the job of the police to handle those calls appropriately, and I don't see any indication that the call was handled inappropriately here.

        The story doesn't want to give you that context because their goal isn't to inform you, it's to get your blood pumping.

        • taywrobelan hour ago
          Except that the reason that the YouTube “1A Auditors” get the attention that they do is that frequently it’s not a simple “check things out, and inform the caller that the person recording has the right to do so”, but the interactions often escalate to threats of unlawful arrest as police default to the side of the caller.

          Calling the police, especially in America, can 100% be a coercive use of force. That’s why people threaten to call the cops/DHS/ICE all the time during arguments, and why things like SWATing are as big of a problem as they are. When the behavior of many policy officers is escalate first, ask questions second if at all, it does become a genuine threat.

          • tptacekan hour ago
            I don't know what to tell you. I watch these videos all the time (it's one of my vices, bodycam footage in particular) and what I see every time --- when it's "auditors" harassing businesses, not when it's auditors confronting police at police departments --- is business owners being told to suck it up.

            I know that in Summer 2020 there was a fashion for saying any call to the police was ipso facto a deployment of coercive force, but I'm rejecting that argument out of hand while also pointing out that in many regions 911 is exactly the thing you're supposed to do when you have uncertainty. It is simply not a demand for violence; it's a demand to have a trained authority come and resolve a situation, rather than having two private citizens with no training at all in the law confront each other and hope for the best.

        • tanseydavidan hour ago
          TIL that 911 (Emergency Services) is how one should report a stolen bicycle.
          • tptacekan hour ago
            Happy to help. 911 is the primary "call for service" channel for most police departments.
    • giaour2 hours ago
      > It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.

      The technician was in public, bearing a company logo, performing an activity in which there is widespread public interest, and identified himself to law enforcement as an agent of Flock Safety. He is entitled to be unnerved but has no reasonable expectation of privacy here.

      • tptacekan hour ago
        Nobody disagrees, though "calling 911" is exactly what he's supposed to do if he thinks he's being followed.
    • hammock2 hours ago
      > it's just some installer dude probably making $65k/year to climb poles and fasten cameras

      I find it hard to be persuaded by the salary idea. A hitman who works for $100 is just as bad as one who works for $10,000.

      In fact other immoral activities work the opposite, bizarrely (a whore who works for $100 is worse than one who works for $10,000)

      • ExoticPearTree2 hours ago
        Most jobs are imoral. If we were to do only the moral ones… we’d have probably 75% unemployment or something like that.
        • dml2135an hour ago
          This is the kind of thing that someone knowing they are doing bad things at their job says to justify it to themselves.

          It’s not true. You can go find something worthwhile to do instead.

    • saghm2 hours ago
      The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work. The bar should be higher for a company that's ostensibly being trusted to provide a law enforcement tool that's prone to misuse than for providing beverages or cosmetology.
      • gruez2 hours ago
        >The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work.

        Should other law enforcement contractors also be subject to the same higher standard? For instance, should dell get extra flak if one of their contractors called 911, because they were installing PCs for a police department? If not, this just seems like a way of applying a double standard, just because you hate flock. It's fine to hate flock, but it should be actually justified reasons (eg. "they're enabling mass surveillance" or whatever), not spurious ones like "they did a bad that's vaguely common, but we're gonna admonish them extra hard for it because we hate them")

        • dylan6042 hours ago
          I don't buy into your premise. A hairdresser, barista, Dell installer, etc are not out in the open public. These people are in places open to the public but not considered public. These people can deny your "right" to be there, and impose rules/restrictions on what you can do in their open to the public space. Go against those rules/restrictions and you are no longer welcome.

          You are really trying to contort yourself into some very uninteresting twists.

        • throwaway77832 hours ago
          Do you think Flock is in the same category of installing PCs for police departments, when it comes to public impact?
        • saghm2 hours ago
          If they called 911 because they were worried about privacy when publically installing a privacy-violating tool, then yes, they 100% should be. Having higher standards for higher impact things isn't somehow hypocritical.
          • gruez2 hours ago
            >If they called 911 because they were worried about privacy when publically installing a privacy-violating tool, then yes, they 100% should be.

            Seems like the installer was calling because he thought he was being harassed?

            >As Keefe began to shoot video, the installer saw him and immediately packed up his equipment and drove away, so Keefe also returned to his car and followed several cars behind, hoping to document the next stop.

            >...

            >“I work with Flock Safety. And I called originally because I’m getting followed,” the installer can be heard telling a dispatcher after being transferred. “I was getting harassed, pretty much. Taking videos and pictures. And now, the same vehicle that pulled over where I was working at has been following me.”

            Sure, you can try to equate "flock setting up a surveillance network" to "physically following flock employees", but what's the implication here? That anyone working for flock should be fair game as a stalking target? What about someone working for NSA? Should it be fine to look through their emails?

            • saghman hour ago
              The implication is "setting up public security cameras in a city should be fair game to document by journalists". If anything, the solution here seems like it would be a requirement that the date, time, and location of each camera being set up should be public information, so then no one needs to get followed to be able to document what's happening.
    • Someone12342 hours ago
      > It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.

      Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard.

      I actually agree it is unnerving, I just don't agree that one should be held to a different standard than the other.

      • chii2 hours ago
        > one should be held to a different standard than the other.

        harassing a worker is not the way to fix the problem. The worker has no agency to affect the changes desired by the harasser. It's an issue with the gov't, and needs civic procedures to change.

        This behaviour is the same as harassing hospitality staff for bad prices. Harassers would be considered borderline committing terrorism if they go further.

        • ndriscollan hour ago
          The worker does have agency. They did not have to take a job installing mass surveillance systems. They're directly doing the bad thing, and the "harassers" are literally doing the same thing the worker is doing, but back to the worker.
        • ricketycricketan hour ago
          It legally wasn't harassment. If it was, he would have not been let go. That word means a real thing and this was not it.
        • Hizonneran hour ago
          Filming them at work, or following them to the next job so you can film them at work, is not in any way, shape, or form "harassment".
    • hk13372 hours ago
      > technicians from Flock

      Do they even have their own technicians? I believe there have been Dish Network technicians seen working on and setting up flock cameras and even those technicians are contractors of Dish network.

      • kotaKat2 hours ago
        Mix of. Large metros they'll use their own staff to install, rural Americana they'll use Dish's OnTech division. Dish realized they have an entire 'trained' workforce of cable/dish techs that they can put to other technical use, so they pushed into more managed hands tech services.

        https://www.ontechsmartservices.com/

        I noticed a more prominently branded "OnTech" van roaming around my rural slice of life that had a smaller Dish brand logo on it that seemed to be more of that side of the business.

    • emsign2 hours ago
      Guy is not just a technician, he's a technician working for Flock installing surveillance tech to monitor the public. Wrong life choices have consequences like being filmed being complicit in establishing a surveillance regime.
    • cute_boi2 hours ago
      Well then everyone is innocent except CEO's or management lol.

      This isn't how world works.

    • EgregiousCube2 hours ago
      Especially when chances are that this camera installation was the result of local government asking and paying Flock to put it up. I'm not sure why the anger is directed at the company instead of local elected officials, and I understand the plight of the installer who's worried about being labeled as a bad guy for executing public works contracts.
      • michaelt2 hours ago
        > I understand the plight of the installer who's worried about being labeled as a bad guy for executing public works contracts.

        You do unpopular things, you gotta expect to be an unpopular person.

        Sophisticated, educated types might understand that parking wardens are just doing their jobs, and they didn't make the policy they're enforcing. But to 70% of the population, the person putting a ticket on their car is an asshole.

      • diath2 hours ago
        The company could have rejected the government deal if they cared about the moral aspect of spying on citizens instead of money; by accepting the deal and executing the contract they are complicit.
        • xp842 hours ago
          What? Is that not their whole business?
      • LeBit2 hours ago
        Well, politicians are to pay for the fact they have allowed something like Flock cameras to be put up and spy to egregiously on their constituents.

        But Flock itself should not be spared . They are building things that are going against widely accepted values.

        Since when Americans are okay with that level of erosion of their privacy?

        Same thing with Meta building pervert glasses.

  • jamesnorden3 hours ago
    Flock (YC 2017) missing from title.
    • Cider99862 hours ago
      We never see, "Flock (YC S17) Is Hiring an Engineer of Mass Surveillance" on the jobs.
  • hamburglar16 minutes ago
    I think the long term solution to the privacy problem is going to be to switch to a vehicle marking system which can only be usefully used by law enforcement. Example, if instead of license plates you had a transponder that sends out encrypted metadata about the vehicle in a way that only law enforcement could decrypt it. Obviously there are still problems of abuse of law enforcement keys but it raises the bar significantly and it prevents private companies from building a business out of collecting the data.

    You introduce a new problem, which is that eyewitness reports of crimes etc can’t identify the vehicles as easily, but that could be viewed as an acceptable loss. Or the problem could conceivably be solved with more technology if we can have dynamically changing license plates (which, again, require law enforcement keys to map back to a real identity for the vehicle).

    The only other way I see is that we change laws so that a company like flock collecting this data and then offering it to the government is treated the same as if the government collected it itself. But now that the cat is out of that bag and there is big money behind it, I don’t really see it going back.

  • driggs2 hours ago
    I love a good taste-of-their-own-medicine story like anyone else, but the headline is false.

    It seems that this is about a YouTuber stalking a Flock employee's vehicle through traffic for 10-15 minutes, which is why the police were called.

    • theoreticalmal2 hours ago
      Not illegal, and like all the other comments here, isn’t this exactly what Flock does? But they do it indiscriminately to all vehicles at all times?
      • an hour ago
        undefined
    • kstrauser2 hours ago
      That’s literally exactly what Flock does. I can’t find sympathy for the company on this.
      • whimsicalism2 hours ago
        Maybe I’m a radical but I am okay with the government having capabilities that are different from what a youtuber is allowed to do.
        • kstrauser2 hours ago
          In my opinion, yes, that makes you a radical. I don’t want an armed organization with a trillion dollar budget stalking me. That’s the common stance in America. We even put it in our constitution.
        • glaslongan hour ago
          A frequent argument made in Flock's favor is that if you are in public there isn't an expectation of privacy. That Flock can see where you go just like any other driver. Particularly since Flock is a private entity not the government. This is the Other Driver behaving antisocially towards one driver EXACTLY as Flock does to all drivers.
          • whimsicalisman hour ago
            I agree that that is not a good argument. I am perfectly fine with the government having access to things, for instance taxation or armed enforcers + bodycams, that are illegal for the youtuber.
        • giaouran hour ago
          Well, the government can use Flock camera footage, and YouTubers can film with personal devices on public property. So I guess their capabilities are already pretty different
        • Hizonneran hour ago
          Yes, they should be different. In almost all cases, they should be less.

          But what I really wanted to mention is that flock is not the government, and flock's services are not exclusively available to governments.

          Same goes for their competitors.

          • whimsicalisman hour ago
            The government represents the public will of the people and has democratic legitimacy. The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd. I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will.
        • an hour ago
          undefined
      • cm2012an hour ago
        ...no. flock doesnt have robot cars weaving through traffic. Its not the same thing literally or figuratively.
        • kstrauseran hour ago
          So their tracking is OK because it's immobile. That's an interesting and novel defense of a surveillance state which I hadn't heard before.
    • emdash2 hours ago
      Flock cameras do the same thing to me so I guess I'd better call the cops.
    • jLaForestan hour ago
      Not a YouTuber, a local reporter in Atlanta
    • giaouran hour ago
      Yeah! Nobody should be able to track your movements along public roads.
    • morkalork2 hours ago
      Watching and following everywhere someone drives is stalking? Damn, that's crazy.
  • delichon2 hours ago
    If someone were following around and filming someone who was posting anti-Flock fliers, I would also feel that crosses into harassment after a certain amount of time.

    A TV news crew filmed me when I was a freshman setting up my old travel trailer in a new university trailer park. I hated it, but it didn't last long. If they had continued following and filming indefinitely despite my protests, I would have wanted some kind of legal protection from them.

    • onesociety2022an hour ago
      Why do you think you can get legal protection just because the filming lasts longer? AFAIK you can film anyone however long you want as long as you do it exclusively on public property where there's no expectation of privacy and you don't harass them in anyway (maintain a safe distance). Isn't that what happens to celebrities & politicians? AOC doesn't get to complain that the press is following her with cameras everywhere she goes all day long.
    • nbvgjhk2 hours ago
      flock's business model is recording people. they do not get to complain about being recorded.
    • jeroenhdan hour ago
      I would feel the same way if these people weren't installing a permanent surveillance camera.

      I don't think it's fair to cry harassment if you're getting filmed setting up the harassment machine.

      If anything, Americans are being too nice to Flock. We're watching the villain and setup of a 1980s dystopian scifi horror, except there's no unlikely hero who can save the world by shooting a single weirdo in a suit on top of a skyscraper.

  • Zeetah3 hours ago
    Privacy for me but not for thee - Flock
    • simpaticoder2 hours ago
      A really interesting experiment would be to give the public access to all of Flock's data, in real time. I say we try it and see how that goes.
      • hammock2 hours ago
        There was an organization I came across that was working with private property owners to set up cameras outside/pointed at politicians, etc and sharing the footage. I can’t recall the name though
    • cute_boi2 hours ago
      yea it is similar to robot mark zuckerburg who purchased everything near his house to protect privacy, but his app is the biggest privacy nightmares, especially rayban glasses.
  • jh00ker29 minutes ago
    This post was #1 on HN and I clicked the link, watched the video, and then it was bumped down to #98 within that time. I've never seen that happen on HN before, but maybe I just didn't notice?
  • rfreyan hour ago
    I think if you're worried about being harassed by your neighbours if they find out what you do during the day, you should be thinking hard about what you do during the day.
    • madaxe_againan hour ago
      Yeah! If you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear!

      looks at you suspiciously

      Are those… curtains?

  • quaintdev2 hours ago
    It's kind of ironic that US built the infrastructure(adtech, social media) to track people around the world on the Internet and now their own people are getting tracked in real life.
  • aeroscissorz1an hour ago
    “Just an employee” isn’t trained to not say full name on 911 so you can’t be identified in future publishing. That’s a member.
  • 2 hours ago
    undefined
  • juiceland3 hours ago
    >The officer said the installer was also concerned about privacy. "And his worry more than anything is that, you know, he's just an employee. Anybody like you and me. And now he's going to be in the news and he doesn't know if it's going to be targeted at him or his family."

    Don’t you understand? He was just following orders.

    • ryandrake2 hours ago
      Totally wild that someone installing a surveillance camera is "concerned about privacy." Only his privacy is important I guess.
    • bobim3 hours ago
      Milgram agrees
    • close042 hours ago
      Too bad somehow the face that ends up out there as the face of surveillance isn’t the CEO of Flock, not their coders, not the YC people who gave them money to do exactly what they’re doing. It’s the lowest of the low in the chain, the guy sitting in the sun to install the cameras on a post.
      • juiceland36 minutes ago
        No empathy for fascists or fascist collaborators.
    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
  • Tostino2 hours ago
    I've gotta mention it because everyone seems to have a learned helplessness with this type of thing. I went and spoke at my county commissioners meeting a couple times after the initial flock roll out (voted on with no discussion a couple years prior) started becoming apparent. The first meeting, the group of me and two other people were half of the people making public comment. Every single person was against it unless they worked for the county. At the second meeting there were a whole lot more people. Again, every single person who spoke who didn't work for the county was against it, this time they had eight+ police officers speak in favor of it.

    We managed to swing a couple of the county commissioners who were in favor of it before and were not in favor of it after hearing about the constitutional issues as well as the cyber security issues that flock doesn't really care about.

    Pasco county Florida is now removing all the cameras on the public right of ways at the end of this month.

    • Denzelan hour ago
      I don’t understand your point.

      > We managed to swing a couple of the county commissioners who were in favor of it before and were not in favor of it after hearing about the constitutional issues as well as the cyber security issues that flock doesn't really care about.

      Do you not see the problem here?

      Pasco County has a $2.2B annual budget. These county commissioners have the financial resources, organizational access to expertise, and time to focus on these problems.

      Do they really need an under-resourced citizen to inform them about the constitutional issues after deployment? And then they just say “Aw shucks, whoopsies, now I see the light.”

      I don’t think it’s fair to call this learned helplessness (a lingering belief after the threat has vanished) when we’re facing off against an active, persistent adversarial threat.

      Your county commissioners didn’t make a “whoopsies” when they took a deliberate, informed action against your interests.

      Furthermore, it’s unsustainable to require citizens to pour significant time and energy into forcing their representatives to faithfully represent them. That quite literally defeats the purpose of a representative governing body.

      • Tostinoan hour ago
        Oh I absolutely see the issue. These people are honestly beneath contempt after talking to them and seeing their responses.

        Regardless, I'd rather tailor my message to people who I fundamentally disagree with, and make a little bit of progress.

        Edit: anyways, the point is that a group of less than 15 or 20 people can sway decisions.

    • Simulacraan hour ago
      The real trick, is to stop going to these meetings, and start running against these politicians. Get the forms, stand out in front of your local post office, collect the signatures, and primary them. Run against them. That's the only thing they listen to
  • slopinthebagan hour ago
    It’s a smart tactic for governments to use private corporations to do stuff like this. Flock takes all the heat and the government can even make themselves look good by ditching Flock. 2 seconds later they’ll use a different company.

    There is no practical difference between the government hiring people to do something and the government hiring a corporation to do the same thing, and if you find yourself blaming Flock instead of the government who funds them, you’re being manipulated by this tactic.

  • spiderfarmer3 hours ago
    US citizens are bad at protesting. In my area these cameras would be on fire weekly.
    • mikeodds3 hours ago
      French? I was impressed by:

      Yellow vests knock out 60% of all speed cameras in France

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46822472

      • andwhatisthis3 hours ago
        Would be nice, but we (in France) have plenty of cameras already. They may not be branded Flock, but they're there nonetheless. And as far as I'm aware, none of them are ablaze.
      • tekla3 hours ago
        This story isn't related this issue at all. This was about a fuel tax, not actually about the cameras themselves
    • whimsicalism2 hours ago
      What country?
    • greenchair2 hours ago
      na, we are just more civilized.
    • k33n2 hours ago
      In Florida, we just talked to our reps and got them banned from the entire state. It was easy and didn’t require protests at all.
      • snypher2 hours ago
        Florida is a model democracy that all states should look up to.
        • k33n2 hours ago
          Yes, it really is. Florida is a cultural punching bag, and we take that in stride too. We have a balanced budget, no state income tax, and no flock cameras. We are close to abolishing property taxes as well. Our natural disaster response is some of the most robust anywhere in the world as well.
          • rwjan hour ago
            This is misleading. I'm not sure replacing income tax with sales tax is a positive change. The state is still collecting taxes, but the tools are pretty regressive.
      • aftbit2 hours ago
        Did they switch to Axon?
        • k33n2 hours ago
          Nope. Florida simply led the way and calmly banned Flock cameras from the entire state. Every other state that cares about individual liberty should follow suit.
          • jasonlotito2 hours ago
            I mean, let's not get carried away. Florida still has very oppressive anti-second-amendment legislation and laws on the books, and until they get rid of that, I wouldn't call them anywhere close to having individual liberty.
            • y1n02 hours ago
              When I lived in FLA and it was super easy to get a concealed weapon permit. I carried a gun not infrequently just to exercise that right. I was serious about training with it as well.

              The other states I’ve lived in haven’t been so straight forward.

            • k33n2 hours ago
              Florida has permit-less, constitutional open-carry. Not sure what more you could ask for from a 2A perspective.
      • righthand2 hours ago
        Florida is also ironically how we may get cookie banners in line and to actually opt users out as they prosecute websites there as illegal wire taps if you still put cookies on the page after or before the opt out happens.
    • bdangubic3 hours ago
      US Citizens have been tamed by “social” and other media propaganda by the people in power. But we got 2A handy to you know, hunt for rabbits and shit
      • 2 hours ago
        undefined
    • Simulacraan hour ago
      Absolutely horrible. They show up on Saturday's yelling at empty buildings. Very rarely does an American protest against a government body change policy. If you want to really do something, show up on a Tuesday morning, stop traffic, flood the phone lines, and the email systems, relentlessly day after day. Americans are far too comfortable to truly protest.
  • chinathrow2 hours ago
    The audacity.
  • trs832 hours ago
    Irony is dead.
  • Hasz2 hours ago
    man, these guys bungled their PR so, so hard. What they should have done is pre-seeded a ton of stories about flock catching some notorious criminal, helping solve xyz serious crimes, helping solve abc minor nuisance issue crimes, and maybe some lines about reducing direct law enforcement interactions.

    On the flip side, let Axon, Motorola take some of the heat, paint your enemies as "defund the police", and stop being so obviously branded. Take a page out of Phillip Morris/Altria playbook and keep a lower profile.

    Instead, they've managed to unite left and right in hatred. Clown show.

    • slopinthebagan hour ago
      Nah, what they should have done is called themselves the UK government and then all of HN would be praising them instead
    • cucumber37328422 hours ago
      Their problem is they believed their own bullshit and thought they were offering people a good deal that basically amounted to "the government 1984s you more than they already do but your package thief gets arrested, maybe".

      Ignoring the fact that that deal is not necessarily good, if they had been slightly scummier, not given two shits about actually reducing petty crimes against the people and instead set out to help municipalities collect civil fines (which have basically no 4th-8th amendment protections these days) they probably could have gotten away without scrutiny for a very long time and gotten their systems deeply entrenched. The useful idiots would've eaten it right up with the flimsiest of pretexts so long as each segment of useful idiots was peddled to individually.

      "The truck we saw carrying 2-tons of waste tires away from your tire shop is not owned by an entity on the state approved list, pay up"

      "We saw you leaving home depot with a water heater but you didn't pull a permit, prove it didn't go into your house or pay the fine"

      "we saw your 2004 Altima emit a puff of blue leaving a light. Per vehicle code XYZ any vehicle that emmits a visible cloud cannot pass emissions inspection, submit proof of passing withing 30d or your resigstration is revoked"

      If they had done that a lot of people would have eaten it up and asked for more. But nope, they believed their own BS and built a system for "real" law enforcement. And of course that leads to a bunch of bad interactions with cops and the public doesn't like that.

  • gessha2 hours ago
    Alternative title: “Torment Nexus technician complains about local mass surveillance resistance”.
  • ck22 hours ago
    the weird thing about anti-flock is they are just replaced with another brand

    also they are just putting 24/7 recorders now in police vehicles and even delivery services

    so you can't just be anti-flock, you have to be anti-recording without policy for use and retention

    your phone and even your watch may be recording your audio right now

    • blueoranges35 minutes ago
      > anti-recording without policy for use and retention

      Not recording on its own, but the linking of data with other cities and making it all searchable by those with access is where it becomes unprecedented mass surveillance.

      You’re right that we have to be specific.

      > your phone may be recording

      They are able to dodge these accusations by just selling voice command logs. “No we don’t record you or sell your audio data” and yet Siri’s AUL reads:

          [PhraseSpotter] Detected wake word “Pepsi” with a score 0.942.
      
          [com.apple.voiceactivation] Proceeding with full wake. 
      
      
      A lot of people don’t know there is a low power “always on” processor (AOP) that monitors a small audio buffer on-device.

      So no need to sell the audio, just the unrelated logs of some app that uses the AOP.

  • classified2 hours ago
    Outfits like TSA, ICE, Flock attract all the wrong people.
    • dofm2 hours ago
      To be fair to people, TSA attracts people who live near airports and need jobs, doesn't it?

      ICE, yes. At this point you cannot make an argument at all that you are going to join a fair-minded organisation that treats people decently while upholding a lawful function.

      People who work for Flock should be considering their futures, but I suspect people who install Flock cameras are more in the TSA bracket: it is a job that will be near them that pays.

    • zetanor2 hours ago
      Government jobs attract all the wrong people.
      • jasonlotito2 hours ago
        To be clear, that doesn't mean everyone working for the government is the wrong people.
  • croes3 hours ago
    Oh the irony
  • orangeberrytea3 hours ago
    [dead]
    • arionhardison2 hours ago
      I said this a few days ago and got down voted to hell. It amazes me how HN likes to abdicate YC of all wrong doing or negative outcomes from the companies they fund. YC/PG is also the reason that @sama is where he is.
      • singleshot_an hour ago
        > HN likes to abdicate YC of all wrong doing or negative outcomes

        My take is that we like to hang out on PG's blog and make fun of his avarice. Is there a better place to do this?

        • arionhardisonan hour ago
          Short answer, IRL.

          Aside from "PG's blog" this is a community. People wish each other happy holidays, offer support to one another, challenge each other etc... In that sense it transcends both PG and YC. The internet is not what it used to be but HN is a real community to me and I am truly grateful for that. As such, I would like to make an effort to meet more people and hang out in real life.

      • gleezard2 hours ago
        Wait til you find out what money does to people.
        • Toorkit2 hours ago
          I'd love to have some first hand experience.
          • cristoperban hour ago
            ethnographies of the rich and the famous
          • xattt2 hours ago
            Back of the line, buddy!
        • dudefeliciano2 hours ago
          And this is the ideology that got us to where we are now. There is no problem with making money but bending politics/society to your will, and even voting for destructive parties, only for the good of personal interest is abhorrent, antisocial behavior.

          One would think that these "geniuses" would understand that living in a society where lower class people do not live with constant existential threats would be a positive for them too...but I guess they find it easier to be hated by everyone and be forced to hire bodyguards, private armies, and live in gated communities and bunkers in fear of getting in touch with the real world.

          • Avicebron2 hours ago
            I don't particularly agree with Ezra Klein or Francis Fukuyama, often vehemently disagree. But on the latest episode of Klein's NYT show it was interesting to hear Francis mention this coupling of wealth and political power being one of the core problems the US is grappling with.

            Separate the nouveau robber barons from political power like we did the clergy?

            • rawgabbitan hour ago
              In the United States, clergy never had formal political power. Religious movements did play major roles in the abolition of slavery and Prohibition of alcohol.

              The United States had campaign-finance laws to limit the political influence money can buy. The McCain–Feingold Act restricted “dark money”. The Supreme Court struck it down in Citizens United v. FEC.

              • dasil00337 minutes ago
                I think he’s referring to the separation of church and state that was codified at the founding of the US based on experience of how things went in Europe prior to that
          • seanp2k237 minutes ago
            It won’t be the first or hundredth society to falter due to the hubris of leaders. At this point it’s just a race to see if AI or climate disaster gets us first, with the former accelerating the latter.
        • stickfigure2 hours ago
          [flagged]
          • simpaticoder2 hours ago
            I don't think that's true. The anti-flock sentiment ranges, of course, but it's pretty widespread. The idea of living in a society that is highly surveilled at all times, where that data is processed by AI to determine suspicious behavior, when the panopticon is abused by those with access to it -- this is not an idea with widespread appeal.
          • esalman2 hours ago
            Even normies are anti-flock, along with lots of tech savvy people who care about privacy.

            These are dark days, but Flock and data centers are a couple of things that actually bring people together and take a united stand against something.

          • Avicebron2 hours ago
            Not even remotely true. People loathe the surveillance state, it takes a special kind of evil to support a panopticon.
          • Eufrat2 hours ago
            Based on what evidence?
          • functionmouse2 hours ago
            It seems like it comes down to whether or not you're addicted to Fox News. My grandmother likes Flock, but nobody else I know does.
          • itsanaccount2 hours ago
            Here in rural Michigan its bipartisan against flock. Sheriff rolled it out on Monday and ended the 90 day trial on Friday. Next weeks road commissioner meeting revoked the permit for em on the right of way.

            Which is to say our cops are pro-flock but they've gotten too much heat from them from a largely uneducated public.

            Meanwhile I've recently seen a rural Tennessee sheriff drop their contract when they found they were lied to about the data sharing.

          • 2 hours ago
            undefined
          • HNhelpsFlock2 hours ago
            [flagged]
    • millerm2 hours ago
      I was literally not aware of this. I don't know if I'm going to be coming back to this site anymore. I've got some thinking to do. I am so ridiculously anti-Flock that I am not willing to discuss it, because it would be a pointless conversation.
      • arionhardison2 hours ago
        I understand what you mean but I do not think the answer is to disengage. They will not stop. HN is an amazing place with brilliant people. I have been wrong so many times here and I own it; the amazing thing is the grace I have been shown, the support and all of the ways the community here has made me a better, more knowledgable person.
        • porkshoean hour ago
          HN is not an amazing place with brilliant people.

          It's an echo chamber full of self-important piles of dogshit.

          The real world is amazing... but this is a place for self-centered douche canoes like yourself to masturbate to your own imagined greatness. It's a place for assholes. It's a place for people whose fathers fucked up badly.

          • Syntaf8 minutes ago
            > It's a place for assholes

            Sounds like you're contributing to your own narrative here. The only self-centered douche canoe of a comment I see in this thread is from you.

            HN has its share of good & bad, but I've generally enjoyed talking to some of the people on this site; much more than sites like Reddit which imo fit your description much much better.

            Also.... who hurt you?

        • tsunamifury2 hours ago
          Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio has become too much work than worth.

          New people who come here as novices now are given horribly bad to wrong advice constantly and even technically wrong examinations. And beyond that, now the same larping types here downvote real expertise.

          It’s normal for forums so I can’t complain too much, but be aware as nice as this place is, it’s wildly uninformed.

      • 2 hours ago
        undefined
    • arcfour2 hours ago
      So the governments that install them aren't somehow complicit?

      Two things can be true at once.

      • orangeberrytea2 hours ago
        [dead]
        • Matl2 hours ago
          Beware of cities 'ditching Flock' only to immediately replace them with Axon, which is the same thing.
          • orangeberryteaan hour ago
            [dead]
            • caymanjiman hour ago
              If there's anything Flock does that Axon doesn't, it's only because Axon doesn't have people smart enough to do it yet. Once the funding shifts from Flock to Axon, they'll hire the people who can make it happen, especially if enough money shifts that they can pilfer the exact same engineers.

              The police want the capability. Flock just happens to temporarily have the better technology.

            • Matlan hour ago
              Axon Fusus AI is very much similar to what Flock offers. Why are you talking about body cameras to make it seem like I am comparing Flock with simple body cameras?
            • Mountain_Skiesan hour ago
              Does Axon retain the data it is collecting? If so, even if they have no plans to use it like Flock does, those plans can change, sometimes even without the company's blessing. They sound like the lesser evil right now, but the core issue that goes well beyond Flock, Axon, and similar companies is that if data is collected and retained, someone will find leverage to use it for their own purposes.
              • AppleMeetOrangean hour ago
                [dead]
                • Matlan hour ago
                  Axon Fusus AI is very much the same thing to me, yes.
        • tsunamifury2 hours ago
          What’s worse is flock is actively suing those local governments hoping to override democratic process.
    • tptacek19 minutes ago
      Flock is on the front page of the Y Combinator site. Nobody is hiding anything.
    • saghm2 hours ago
      Personally I think that having funding from investors rather than taxes doesn't preclude evil from being called out (although in this case a lot of revenue certainly comes from tax money)
    • an hour ago
      undefined
    • danny_codesan hour ago
      OFC, YC is in the business of making money and simply doesn’t care or consider ethics whatsoever. They just don’t care.

      But this is pretty standard for this class of people. To get super rich you have to fuck people over, there’s simply no way to amass a billion ethically.

    • SecretDreams2 hours ago
      It's really both. And that applies to a lot of HN darlings. Sadly, people's perspective can get cloudy when a positive perspective is tied to their financial well-being.
    • rotringlvr3 hours ago
      [dead]
    • HNhelpsFlock2 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • gruez2 hours ago
        >look at all the high rep accounts that immediately defend it

        As opposed to all the new accounts (uncharitably: sockpuppet accounts) that are criticizing it?

        • jasonlotito2 hours ago
          Old accounts criticize it too and are opposed to it as well. Accounts like yours, I don't know where they stand, but old accounts definitely don't like Flock.
        • gen6acd60af2 hours ago
          >sockpuppet accounts

          10+ years of posting doesn't give you a pass to skirt the HN guidelines.

              Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
          
          Them's the... guidelines.

          Please do better.

          • gruez2 hours ago
            I'm well aware of the guidelines. The point isn't to actually accuse OP of being a sockpuppet, it's to point out the hypocrisy. That's why specifically enclosed the accusation with "uncharitably: ...".
    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
    • b1123 hours ago
      Flock was seed round funded by YC, not "a YC company".

      It's not like they control it, manage it, and what was pitched may be significantly different than what happened since then.

      YC isn't perfect, but what words you use, and their order is important. And the way you're phrasing it, you make it sound as if they are a subsidiary of YC. Or as if YC is on the board.

      If any of these things are true, you should plainly state them. Otherwise, what you're saying is incorrect.

      • weird-eye-issue2 hours ago
        YC funds companies and we are all aware of that so by saying it's a YC company because they gave them seed money is already exactly the correct wording
        • card_zero2 hours ago
          How about the "it’s them" part?
          • HNhelpsFlock2 hours ago
            [flagged]
            • josfredo2 hours ago
              Holy conspiracy theorists. I surely was not expecting this amount of paranoia from a sound place like HN. Either way, drama is always welcome, for it is ultimately unavoidable, in one form or another.
            • card_zero2 hours ago
              I just don't like moral distortions. Is YC in control of Flock or responsible for their choices? Who are "them", what are we ignorant about and why is it Marxism?
              • HNhelpsFlock2 hours ago
                [flagged]
                • card_zero2 hours ago
                  But what are you saying? YC are to blame for the unsavory future directions of the companies they fund. Counterargument, no they're not, what are you banging on about.
                  • WarmWash2 hours ago
                    Classic ideologue behavior of no-nuance blind rage to stoke as much support as possible for their cause.

                    "My cause is more important than honesty, and honesty could detract from the rage energy I need"

                    You see this is everywhere, and it (lack of rational discussion/reasoning) is soooo incredibly destructive to society.

                    We can stop Flock without having to make up lies. They do enough bad stuff that their is no need for deceit and conspiracy...

        • b1122 hours ago
          No, no it isn't.
      • jazzypants2 hours ago
        Would you balk similarly at someone calling reddit or airbnb a "YC company"?
        • malfist2 hours ago
          Me personally? No. Label fits.
      • LastTrain2 hours ago
        If the they didn't pitch the massive surveillance and data capturing aspects they wouldn’t have got the funding.
        • WarmWash2 hours ago
          Blantantly making stuff up is a bad look, they were founded as an HOA (private neighborhood) security service.

          >Flock’s camera and accompanying software is geared towards private neighborhoods and neighborhood associations looking to decrease petty crime.[1]

          [1]https://www.hypepotamus.com/flock-safety-funding-round-growt...

          • thejazzman2 hours ago
            YC won’t invest unless you convince them you’re potentially $100B company.

            The scope is always the largest possible audience…

            • WarmWash2 hours ago
              Well until there is solid evidence of them wanting a government mass surveillance apperatus, I'm not gonna grab a pitchfork.

              I've been on the internet too long to give credence to people who resort to conspiracy when data doesn't fit their desired narrative.

              • tekla2 hours ago
                • WarmWash2 hours ago
                  From 2017 please...

                  Unfortunately Google seems to have removed the ability to search only in specific time frames, but the original pitch I'm sure does exist out there.

                  There are over 350K HOAs in the US, so scaling to just HOAs would still be an undertaking

          • dkarl2 hours ago
            Same thing on a smaller scale, and they never would have got venture capital funding if they didn't have an upward trajectory from HOAs. There's only one path upward from private HOA surveillance, and that's government surveillance.
          • LastTrainan hour ago
            I’m not making anything up any more than you are. Neither of us was there. My point: you don’t get YC funding unless you have a disruptive business idea. “Cameras, but to a niche HOA market” is not that.
            • WarmWashan hour ago
              The 350K HOAs are hardly "niche".
          • tekla2 hours ago
            Doesn't seem to be what their YC Pitch was

            https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety

            > From the moment we started Flock Safety, we had an incredibly clear, boldly audacious mission ... We provide a life-or-death product, a mission-critical system for cities

            • WarmWash2 hours ago
              Links from 2017 would be the best way to see what YC invested in, no?
          • orangeberrytea2 hours ago
            [dead]
            • WarmWash2 hours ago
              I'm pretty sure HOAs would honestly want that, and I don't think the anyone would care about pocket networks in private communities.
              • HNhelpsFlock2 hours ago
                [flagged]
                • WarmWash2 hours ago
                  Let me rephrase my comment you are replying to for clarity

                  "Yes, HOAs would honestly want plate readers.."

                  • orangeberrytea2 hours ago
                    [dead]
                    • WarmWashan hour ago
                      I don't think private HOA networks count as "mass surveillance".
                      • throwaway173738an hour ago
                        An HOA has a lot more leeway to do whatever it wants than other local governments. They get to act as government sometimes, then as a corporation sometimes, and then as a group of amateur lawyers sometimes. They can both pass laws and try you for violating them without recourse. And IME only the most toxic people stay on the board for very long.
                        • WarmWashan hour ago
                          Ok cool.

                          Wake me up when HOAs are nationally detaining people.

                      • blueorangesan hour ago
                        Nobody is saying HOA except you.

                        It started as license plate readers and expanded to include identifying people by clothing, body type, etc. storing it in a database that communicates with surveillance networks in other cities.

                        That is literally mass surveillance.

                        • WarmWashan hour ago
                          >Nobody is saying HOA except you.

                          Me and the founding mission of flock when it got seed funding from HN in 2017.

                          Flocks original goal was private security for HOAs, nothing to do with police/government. Hence this whole debacle here in the comments.

      • sobellian2 hours ago
        I don't really have a strong opinion either way on Flock but this is a strange objection. YC is a well-known startup accelerator that makes (pre-seed!) investments. I don't know if anyone has ever sincerely taken "YC company" to mean a subsidiary of YC. That's like confusing "a Sequoia company" as a subsidiary of Sequoia.
      • plorkyeran2 hours ago
        Having your seed round funded by YC is what being a "YC company" means. That is exactly what people are referring to every time they say that phrase.
      • WarmWash3 hours ago
        Using misleading language is the best way to get up votes though!
      • tekla2 hours ago
        https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety

        > When Demo Day was over, after we had booked meetings with investors and were well on our way to our first fundraising round, YC set the tone for scaling Flock doggedly, purposefully, and with consistent velocity, for years to come.

        Damn, its almost like YC really set the stage for mass AI surveillance from the founders own mouth

        • topato2 hours ago
          That’s such a damning quote, that it makes all other comments ITT obsolete lol
  • blueoranges3 hours ago
    Flock is YC
  • kappi3 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • jamesnorden3 hours ago
      Really, with all the AI submissions, that's what you think the website is full of?
    • LeBit2 hours ago
      That sounds like what a flock bot would say.
      • perching_aix2 hours ago
        literally. ran the numbers quickly, it's a ridiculous claim. they barely register even when considering thread popularity:

        https://imgur.com/a/dqsFkTb

        needs log scale to even see anything, really:

        https://imgur.com/a/jNtbuwE

        the claim having been the following, before it got flagged to nothingness:

        > this site has become flocknews.com!

        guy kept seeing some posts every now and then for the past few weeks == site is like, literally flock news only man!!!!

        gotta love these reliable narrators

    • nixosbestos3 hours ago
      No, it hasn't. And yeah, man, I hope hackers give a shit about YC and Flock enabling the dismantlement of any semblance of privacy, and normalizing total surveillance culture.
    • mulemisterX3 hours ago
      No, it hasn't. And if it did, so what?
    • tekla3 hours ago
      The site owners are the ones that helped fund this evil shit.
    • orangeberrytea3 hours ago
      [dead]
  • howmayiannoyyou2 hours ago
    Flock has solved crimes in my state, including a few horrendous violent crimes.

    We forget US society was configured (imperfectly) to allow families to raise their children in stability and safety, with guardrails around both sides of liberty. Surveillance has a legit role in protecting communities and their families - especially the most vulnerable.

    Willing to be most of the Flock hate crowd doesn't have kids walking to school in areas where bad things happen - many probably don't have kids.

    • Jcampuzano22 hours ago
      I tend to agree that when used correctly, a surveillance system like this could have benefits at a societal level.

      The problem is the many stories we already have of misuses of this equipment, showing that people in power are not mentally capable of actually managing a surveillance system like this in a societally beneficial way.

      If the use of the system was designated as only being allowed to stop heinous crimes and we had a track record and way to prove this was always the case, then I would be 100% in support. But given it has already proven to not be possible is likely why most people are against it.

      I simply don't think Humans are capable of proper use of a system like this.

      • snarf212 hours ago
        The problem is that these system are setup specifically to be able to be used incorrectly. Flock is getting all the rage right now but they aren't the only vendor. An acquisition and rename later and everyone will have forgotten this all. Police (others?) are setting up stingrays. Stalin's secret police had a maxim: "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime." Remember, everyone who installed a Ring doorbell camera paid to help set up these kinds of networks. (all so that a porch pirate might get caught even though Amazon will reship for free). These systems also set up a huge target for bad actors to hack outside of the law.

        If these things were only ever used with the a valid search warrant, that would be a great step forward. But even that will only stop "honest" people from abusing the system.

    • HeWhoLurksLate2 hours ago
      There is also a large difference between local surveillance (home/business/area CCTV), public surveillance (openly accessible cameras like traffic cams), and dragnet surveillance- I generally trust my local police precincts but don't like the fact that the alphabet soup of federal agencies has warrantless access to track me on the way to and from church or work or Facebook marketplace deals
    • nkrisc2 hours ago
      We could solve even more crimes if the police were allowed to install cameras in everyone's homes.
    • edot2 hours ago
      Sum up the number of kids harmed or murdered by the state (pick the top n dictators in the last 100 years for example).

      Sum up the number of kids harmed or murdered by random people (remember that, for example, non-family abductions are 1% of abductions).

      Compare.

      I guarantee you that an empowered state is worse for child welfare than random criminals.

    • jamesnorden2 hours ago
      Oh, yes, "think of the children", nobody has ever explored this angle to push unpopular things before.
    • stego-tech2 hours ago
      Except there was literally just a piece a few days back here on HN where a Mom was arrested for letting her kid walk half a mile alone in a gated community with active security patrols. The guardrails you describe aren’t for child safety so much as adult persecution. Surveillance may help solve some crimes, but its goal isn’t safety of the people surveilled as much as protecting the power of those doing the surveilling. Research continues pointing out that cameras don’t do shit to deter crime, and its actual ability to solve crimes is limited to the humans using said tools - and with a longer history of abuses than successes, it’s a fairly safe conclusion that mass surveillance does fuck all to actually protect the populace.
      • pwython2 hours ago
        "This technology can be abused" and "this technology provides no public-safety value" are two entirely different claims.

        Saying their ability to solve crimes is "limited to the humans using the tools" isn't much of an argument against the technology. That's true of fingerprints, DNA databases, radios, firearms databases, and virtually every other investigative tool.

        A police officer can misuse a DMV database to stalk an ex. That means the officer should be prosecuted and access to the database tightly controlled. It doesn't demonstrate that DMV records have no legitimate investigative purpose. The same reasoning applies to LPRs.

        By the way, that mom that was arrested? The kid was 5 years old, and was intentionally sent to a pond.

    • pwython2 hours ago
      I'm 100% in favor of LPR cameras. Any technology can be abused. The handful of corrupt officers that were caught using the cameras for nefarious reasons shouldn't overshadow the incredible benefit these are.

      > Willing to [bet] most of the Flock hate crowd doesn't...

      ...have a reason at all to worry about LPR cameras tracking their car. Just "something something government."

  • hermannj3142 hours ago
    If someone came up to me and started filming me while I was in public, and then when I got in my car they followed me, I would also call the police.

    The double standard demonstrated by Flock isn't the issue, they are the pieces of shit and of course they have no moral consistency.

    But "He who fights with monsters should be careful, lest he thereby become a monster." I thought we were united that people have a reasonable sense of temporal privacy in public - that being in public is ephemeral and not some permanent record to be analyzed in perpetuity. We should not be fine stalking people and making them feel threatened, even those that want to build the panopticon state.

    • emsign2 hours ago
      But you're not working for Flock, are you? We could go on much further until we reach the what Popper called the Tolerance Paradox: "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

      The point is that total surveillance is like the destruction of tolerance or in thie case privacy, and it makes watching the watchmen impossible. There's a point of no return and before that one is reached resistance IS allowed or else you lose everything.

    • iwontberude2 hours ago
      [dead]