Comment by potato3732842
20 days ago
The law enforcement agencies which behaved the way law enforcement agencies always behave and did what anyone with even the slightest familiarity with how law enforcement acts thought they would do with the data. This outcome was 1000% predictable even if the details were not.
If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set because they foolishly thought it would be used to combat mundane property crime or because perhaps they thought that subjecting motorists to an increased dragnet would be a good thing for alternative transportation, or some other cause, think that they have done no wrong despite warnings of the potential for something like this being raised way back when the cameras and the ALPRs were being put up.
These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
> These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
The root issue here is that the government is no longer able or willing to control and bind their own law enforcement agencies. Agreed that this program was a bad idea, but the wider issue that law enforcement agencies can and do wantonly disregard direct orders from the state. There's the direct issue of impact on people as a result, and the more intangible idea of the questionable legitimacy of a government that is not able to control its own enforcement agencies.
This needs to be met with swift repercussions for both the individuals that participated, as well as the agencies that allowed it. Lacking that, it seems a reasonable inference that enforcement agencies are no longer bound by the will of the people and are in fact the ruling government.
> The root issue here is that the government is no longer able or willing to control and bind their own law enforcement agencies.
You're correct, but the bigger picture here is: privacy violation rely on benevolence.
We're completely at the whim of parties more powerful than us, and we MUST trust that they will act in our best interests.
Now, we could just hope and cross our fingers that people are good people forever. Do you think that's going to be the case? Because I don't. So the only path forward that makes any sense is to simply not give bad actors the potential to even be bad. Meaning, we shouldn't even collect this data.
We have so many laws of this variety, which rely on our leaders remaining benevolent. This is in stark contrast to the US constitution, which explicitly says NOT to rely on benevolence, and rather construct systems so that we can dismantle our leadership should the time come.
> This needs to be met with swift repercussions for both the individuals that participated, as well as the agencies that allowed it.
That’s not going to happen. Cross out that sentence and reason as if we’ve already asked for that and it failed. We’ve heard this song too many times to pretend we don’t know the first verse.
Agree it's never going to happen. The last time people hit the streets for police accountability the political backlash got us a convict in the white house. Democrats are now fully cowed on the topic and Republicans cheer any police overreach.
For the powerful in both government and business there is no rule of law anymore. The "law and order" slogan only means a boot stamping on little people's face forever, the powerful can break the law with impunity.
1 reply →
Aren't those agencies doing exactly what the government is expecting them to do? So yes the government isn't willing to control - because the agencies are doing whatever the government isn't willing to say in the open because... elections and other technicalities. Thus, there's no repercussions swift or slow, because who should complain? Calling your representative only does so much, and if you do a mass protest you get labeled and possibly worse. Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit. Just a bit.
The US has a long history of agencies that decide by themselves to do things that are frequently illicit with the excuse that they're protecting the public. From police to 3 letter agencies, they're all operating illegal programs that should be stoped by the public. Whenever someone tries it, they protect their power using the excuse that they're doing this for the "benefit" of democracy or some similar BS.
It's a lesson people haven't learned in 80 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Amsterdam_civil_registry_...
For any dataset you collect, think about how it can be miss-used. Because in all likelihood it will. Maybe not by you. But maybe by your successor. Or the hacker.
Although it is interesting how inconsistently this principle of is applied to other areas. For example, if you come to HN and advocate against encryption or AI because they can amplify the dangers of bad actors, you are going to be met by fierce opposition. So why do these hypothetical bad actors only become valid concerns in certain conversations?
When it comes to encryption, it helps save actual lives. If you mandate getting rid of encryption, bad actors will still break the law and use encryption to carry on business as normal. Regular citizens lose, oppressive governments & criminals win.
14 replies →
Something that seems inherently different between GP's comment and encryption is that encryption is an algorithm / tool, not a dataset. Not creating literal tools because they might have bad use cases is clearly a bad idea (e.g., fire, knives, hammers, etc.).
I'd say that one thing inherently different about datasets is that they are continually used badly, including by well-meaning actors. Data is frequently misinterpreted, with good intent, to draw bad conclusions.
You might hit your thumb with a hammer. That hurts! People would be a lot more careful if misinterpreting data had such clear, immediate effects on them.
Also, there are many different groups with different passionate opinions in any community as large as this one.
10 replies →
>advocate against encryption
This is a good point. If people are willing to push back against giving law enforcement everybody’s data why would they also oppose giving law enforcement everybody’s data? It is inconsistent because if you think about it “giving law enforcement everybody’s data” and “not giving law enforcement everybody’s data” are basically the same th
Encryption is this same exact topic, and the prevailing technical viewpoint is the direct application of the principle of minimizing collected datasets.
Its noteworthy to me that it took till 1943 for the reality of the threat to be taken seriously for this outcome
People making parallels I feel have been inaccurate, as the parallels right now are much closer to Europe's 1933 happenings, and people act like 1945's happenings is what will happen the very next day
Not sure what to make of that, just noticing that these particular "resistances" didn't have a prior allegory to watch, and made these choices eventually, and still how late into the story we know that these things occurred
What can I say, it's hard to give up data. So I guess the situation must escalate until the bad outcome was undeniable.
And I don't want to make a point here about current political affairs. My point is that data collection has serious dangers, independent how good you think the current collectors are, how good the intentions of the data collection are, and how good the benefits of the data collection are. We should not pretend that at least some data collection has benefits. But we should also not pretend that any given data collection doesn't have the risk of misuse.
It's up to politics (in the end, us), to make sure that these risks are valued correctly, for example by making sure that data collectors take over some of the risk in a serious way. "The data was protected according to industry standards" is not enough.
A lot of that is because of the advent of computer systems built by IBM to maintain records.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
9 replies →
I think the whole timeline of WWII is broadly misunderstood in the US. I imagine it’s related to the fact the US entered quite late, and that much of what’s taught in school is fairly US centric.
It’d be very interesting to survey people and see how people’s mental models reflect reality. I imagine very few Americans would identify what was going on in 1933 at all, never mind that Hitler’s first attempt at a coup took place nearly 20 years before the US entered the war.
3 replies →
Interestingly, as a direct outcome of the Nazis misusing this data Germany did not have a census for the longest time.
Here is an article from 1987 on the German protests against the new census, that was also the last Germany-led census: https://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/10/world/germans-stand-up-no... (BUT Germany has fairly strict rules on registration of your place of living, so perhaps a census is now unnecessary)
Before the Nazi's invaded the main guy who advocated for the civil registry which allowed the Nazi's to easily find jewish people went to his grave believing he did nothing wrong in advocating for such a database.
Clearly we all need to be thinking much more deeply on these issues.
I think the hard counterpoint is - some ways that American government function are patently insane compared to other industrialized countries. Having moved from US to Nl just having one single source of truth about where I live and who I am for all sources of government is much less of a headache in day-to-day life. Mail forwarding, authentication for municipal governments, health insurance, etc, just takes 0% of my life (compared to the pain of authenticating myself separately to every part of the government, sometimes by answering questions about my life trawled from _private_ data aggregation companies - the lack of a central civil register does not seem to be particularly effective right now in stopping the Us government from terrorizing its citizens. Gathering this data for everyone is certainly more tedious but i think avoiding the dragnet completely for the average member of society is functionally impossible.
9 replies →
What can we even change? It's likely HN will also go to the grave demanding deregulation amidst a maelstrom of consumer protection malfunctions. We're already there in many respects; the DOJ's case against Google and Apple both seem to have stalled-out while the EU, Japan and South Korea all push forward with their investigations.
In many respects, the attitude of "we'll fix this one day" is exactly why we don't think deeply about these issues. Client-side scanning was proposed only a short while ago, and you can still read the insane amount of apologists on this site who think that unmitigated data collection can be a good thing if you trust the good Samaritan doing it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28068741
It will take an utter catastrophe before the deregulation bloc sees what's at stake. This is far from over, despite the unanimous desire to put security in the rearview mirror.
5 replies →
The Nazis didn't actually need the pre-occupation data from the civil registry to easily find Jewish people.
In January of 1941, the Nazis ordered all Jews in the Netherlands to register themselves and virtually all of them, some 160,000, provided their name, address and information on any Jewish grandparents to the government.
If the lesson one learns from the Holocaust is that one shouldn't collect data just in case some genocidal group comes to power, then I fear one has learned the wrong lesson.
Who was this guy?
1 reply →
The simple counterpoint is that lack of data didn't stop the nazis a single fucking bit, and ICE has no problem breaking down random doors and harassing legal establishments.
This absurd idea that all we have to do is "defang" the government and we can safely ignore it, as if the problems that these data sets are built to work towards fixing would magically go away, or magically mean that people who experience those problems wouldn't still try to get something done about them, except now outside of a legal framework of any sort.
Do you actually think people with broken governments are more free in their world of arbitrary penalties and non-existent solutions?
A blinded government isn't less dangerous when it gets hostile. It just makes it more random and less well targeted. But that won't STOP it.
The holocaust would have happened just the same even if we never made counting machines. The main difference with IBM helping the Nazis is that we have good data about who died in the camps and good documentation. Funny that doesn't seem to matter to morons who think it's a hoax though.
Or do you honestly believe Jews faced no oppression and extermination in the areas without good data on them?
The actual answer is, as always, the hard one: Suck it up and pay attention to your government, participate in democracy, advocate for good politicians, understand how our system is somewhat broken and non-representative, and vote for people who will make it more representative.
There's no option to disregard politics and stay safe. If enough people in your country want you dead, no government can protect you of that if you stay disengaged. Ask the native americans how safe they ended up without a comprehensive database of their existence. We nearly exterminated the buffalo to solve that "problem". Because it was popular. No IBM needed.
1 reply →
Fair enough, but it is also valid to be angry at your local law enforcement if they are acting against the community's preferences. Especially when local law enforcement is breaking state law in the process.
Maybe true, but at a certain point you're just getting angry at the wind for blowing. The system is a scorpion: It cannot, will not go against its nature.
They are a political force, not a force of nature. It is certainly reasonable to get angry at a political force even if their politics are predictable.
Yes, this is why the slogan was "Abolish the Police". The replacement "Defund the Police" was entirely astroturfed by Democratic politicians who thought it was better optics (it wasn't).
At this point it sounds like you have given up believing in checks and balances in politics.
ETA: It’s complicated, but having you give up actually weakens the rule of law even more.
Politics change, scorpions don't. Throw your hands up in and air and give up if you want, but don't pretend some poor analogy absolves you.
3 replies →
The greater community, i.e. the United States, may have different preferences than San Francisco.
Local governments are under no obligation to help the federal government enforce federal laws.
Those officers are employees of the City, County or State, not the United States.
But that would put them between federal law vs state law and federal law supersedes state law and state law supersedes local laws.
There are plenty of things Federal law can't do under the Tenth Amendment.
As an example, the Feds can round up marijuana users in California, if they like. They can't require California's law enforcement to help.
3 replies →
Why not be angry at all of them?
As someone who works with sensitive healthcare data, I can tell you that the mere existence of a dataset doesn't guarantee its misuse, nor it does it absolve anyone who interacts with that data of responsibility for proper stewardship.
Yes, you are right that we should think carefully before creating a sensitive dataset. If we insist on creating such a dataset, the people involved must put in place guardrails for stewardship of those datasets. But the stewards of that data, past, present, and future, also share responsibility.
Of course if the incentive structures don't line up with concern for mitigation of harm to vulnerable people as is the case with law enforcement in the US, then all of that is out the window.
Anyway, what you have written implies that we need not think about accountability for those who misuse of datasets after they are created, which is clearly absurd as I and anyone else familiar with healthcare data can tell you.
Also, be angry at those who didn't follow through with promises to severely reduce funding to their police departments in 2020. If an organization consistently behaves in a way we don't like, we should seek alternatives to that organization, not continuously act surprised when they act out and keep giving them more money.
> be angry at those who didn't follow through with promises to severely reduce funding to their police departments in 2020
This was tried. It generated a generational backlash against the left as petty crime and visible homelessness rose.
To the extent police reform has historically worked, it’s been by rebooting a police department. (Think: replacing the Mets with the NYPD.) Not replacing police with a hippie circle.
> This was tried. It generated a generational backlash against the left as petty crime and visible homelessness rose.
Crime has been on a downward trend for a generation, outside of a few areas. In San Francisco specifically, crime also increased due to police officers quietly going on strike against policies they disagreed with. Now that police officers are actually doing their jobs again, shockingly, crime is rapidly falling.
What has actually increased is sensationalist coverage in the media, which you're right, has created a significant political backlash.
21 replies →
In Los Angeles, crime on the Metro public transportation system has fallen by almost 70% in the three months since the LAPD was booted off the job and replaced by...security guards.
This is pretty good evidence that high crime rates in cities with large police forces are directly related to the police force not actually doing the job it's already being paid to do.
(LA Metro was forced to use LAPD for security a few decades ago, at which point crime rates went from very low to skyrocketing. LAPD serviced the Metro contract exclusively with officers that were in overtime hours (1.5x pay) so at best could only provide 2/3rd of the contracted manpower. That changed earlier this year; the contract was terminated for cause and LAPD was replaced with contract security guards. The contract security guards make substantially less than LAPD officers, so Metro is currently able to field a security presence about 5x the size as the LAPD force. Metro reported this that crime has fallen dramatically in just 2 months.)
1 reply →
"Defund the police" was never actually tried. (This is not a defense of defunding -- I agree it would have similarly bad outcomes! But you can't just point at changes that weren't defunding the police and say it was tried.)
9 replies →
SF did not reduce police funding. They quiet quit anyway.
2 replies →
Where was it tried? My understanding is that even Minneapolis didn't follow through with it.
19 replies →
Crime did not rose, crime has been in a downward trajectory for decades, this is likely one of the reasons the crackdown on illegal immigrants is so bad, prison owners are noticing they might lose their cash cow and needs a new population to imprison.
12 replies →
It was not tried, and saying that it was is a fundamentally false claim that is actively pushing public opposition to the idea supported by lies. It’s as reasonable as saying don’t vote for democrats because they have a pedophile office under a pizza store. Are there a bunch of people who were convinced by this lie? Yes. Does that make it anything other than a manipulative lie to say? No.
> It generated a generational backlash against the left as petty crime and visible homelessness rose
With "the left" you mean the SF DA?
9 replies →
Don't speak bullshit. There was more media outrage hullabaloo around the idea of reducing cop funding than there was any actual reduction. Especially because the cops went on strike to ensure that no cuts would happen.
Police forces across the US have never seen higher funding rates.
These people were mostly defeated in elections and the ones promising to shovel even more money got elected, just look at Eric Adams in NYC.
I seriously hope what is happening right now finally radicalizes the rest of the population that law enforcement as it is right now does not work for the public interest.
I guess this depends on how one defines the public interest. Shielding data from federal authorities surely has both upsides and downsides.
They aren't even required to protect you according to the supreme court. The only point of cops is to protect private property, not people, and to harass people that conservatives don't like.
If you defund police, what do you think will be cut first? The control organs and oversight, or the thing they should oversee?
> If you defund police, what do you think will be cut first?
That's why you don't just go to the cops and say "find $1B in your budget to cut". You give specifics.
So you are saying that the police force is a extra-governmental organization that has full control over how they allocate funds?
All the more reason to reduce their funding!
1 reply →
"Defund the police" was and remains wildly unpopular with almost everyone, especially minorities (as a reminder to any of those out touch reading this: there are large racial disparities in who is affected by crime, particularly violent crime) . It was quintessential "progressives are out of touch" ammunition, not only used by republicans (obviously), but also establishment democrats in competitive districts.
As another commenter posted, its about not allowing the creation of the data set in the first place.
We really need everyone in this country to go read "Nothing to Hide" by Daniel Solove, because thats how this crazy shit gets through in the first place: innocuous citizens go "Sure, I got nothing to hide"
To be fair, systems like Flocksafety really help departments being squeezed for funding. It's one of the ways the system is sold. It's an effective tool.
I worked for Flock. I was sold during the recruiting process on high ethics and morals and an idealistic vision.
The reality was a surveillance state, and questionable policies on data sharing between agencies, and private installations (HOA, etc.), and a CEO with a weirdly literal belief on how Flock should "eliminate all crime". Not "visionary", but far more literal. Way too Minority Report for my liking.
They have a public "disclosure" site that supposedly shows the agencies using Flock that is absolutely inaccurate (there are three agencies in my County alone using it that are not listed there).
I'm not sure how to think about this. It doesn't make sense to me that the only alternative is one in which traffic laws get brazenly ignored, and shoplifting and property crime is endemic, to prevent any more data gathering by law enforcement.
At some point it seems like we have to trust that governments can act responsibly, in the interest of voters -- in this case local voters, or we should all just pack it in.
The other thought: I get the thought that people will always care more about local concerns of car break ins, shoplifting, and quality of life than larger ideas like privacy and law enforcement abuse. It seems to convince people to care about the larger issues, the local things have to be solved, and not just ignored.
I've lived in San Francisco for over 10 years now, and it's been disappointing to see the lack on progress on basic quality of life issues.
> It doesn't make sense to me that the only alternative is one in which traffic laws get brazenly ignored, and shoplifting and property crime is endemic, to prevent any more data gathering by law enforcement.
The only reason either of these happen is because law enforcement is lazy and dangerous.
We pretty much gave up on most traffic enforcement because law enforcement officers can't help shooting people they pull over. That's a problem - if they would just start acting somewhat decent, the PD would stop losing a few hundred million a year in lawsuits.
To be frank, I have no idea what law enforcement even does these days. They don't speed trap, they barely respond to calls, they're not pulling people over. Are they just sitting on their asses and getting a check, petrified of public discourse?
> Are they just sitting on their asses and getting a check, petrified of public discourse?
All while patting themselves on the back and calling themselves heros.
> At some point it seems like we have to trust that governments can act responsibly
Respectfully, I believe you have it backwards.
This same argument is true for every bit of authority we give to law enforcement agencies (and really, the government in general). We expect they'll use those powers responsibly and within the limitations that we've ascribed, but it's always a risk that they're used irresponsibly and in situations we don't approve of.
Yes, this is an argument for not giving them more authority than necessary, but it's also an argument for holding them accountable when they do act out of bounds.
To this point, any law that gives power to government officials also needs to have explicit and painful consequences for abuse of those powers. Civilians who break the law face punishment and penalties, but government employees are almost never held to account. That needs to change.
There are mobile survalience cameras systems at my very family friendly park. Everyone has asked the city to tow them away but they refuse. There was no vote on this.
Spraypaint?
Yeah, this is for kids who can't go to prison :P
A tire and some gasoline seems to work for the Brits.
> These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
One or two cops locked up for it can also work wonders. But somehow the western world has come to believe that lots of pretty laws with no consequences for transgressions is a wonderful thing. I think not.
If you are a district attorney in a city, you depend on the help and cooperation of the police in your daily work. If you became unpopular with the police they can make your work very difficult and you could also become politically very unpopular. I think district attorneys and police want to do what they think is right but its very understandable to me why a DA does not want to prosecute police.
This is evidenced in Oakland, where the recall campaign for Pamela Price began before she took office.
Click through to the law in question. It's the Civil Code not Criminal Code, and states, "an individual who has been harmed by a violation of this title, including, but not limited to, unauthorized access or use of ALPR information or a breach of security of an ALPR system, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm."
So you have to prove actual harm. You have to identify the individual person who caused the harm. You have to prove they knowingly caused the harm. You have to quantify the harm in monetary terms. Then you can sue them for actual damages + attorneys' fees.
Yes. So yet another pretty law with no consequences for transgressions.
1 reply →
> somehow the western world
Excuse me. While a minority of rabid Anarchists might agree with you, the vast majority of people in Denmark happen to really like our police force.
This is largely an American problem. Don't blame it on "the western world".
I’m Swedish. We have plenty of toothless laws that no one follows. Plenty.
*no consequences for transgressions by anyone in law enforcement. Qualified immunity has snowballed into some serious bullshit.
> The law enforcement agencies which behaved the way law enforcement agencies always behave and did what anyone with even the slightest familiarity with how law enforcement acts thought they would do with the data. This outcome was 1000% predictable even if the details were not.
It was predictable that law enforcement agencies would... try to enforce the law?
In sharing the license plate data, how was the OPD enforcing the law? Which laws, exactly which laws, was the OPD enforcing?
The use was audited and is now being investigated. The claims were for various local and federal investigations. ICE also contains HSI, the second largest federal law enforcement agency, which prior to their recent mandate has been tasked to solve sex trafficking, import fraud etc. SF has multiple large inter-agency task forces that run multi-year long investigations into all types of crimes. HSI is part of those investigations. Querying flock to establish a suspect’s presence during the commission of a crime seems like it’s within the bounds of reasonable use.
1 reply →
> In sharing the license plate data, how was the OPD enforcing the law?
... the immigration laws? Folks should read the immigration laws. They're actually quite draconian against not only illegal immigration, but anyone who aids and abets illegal immigration. We've just had decades of non-enforcement.
8 replies →
> It was predictable that law enforcement agencies would... try to enforce the law?
By breaking a different one?
I mean, yeah, it's predictable. But it's not great.
If you think that's bad, you should dig into state agency violations of PRWORA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Wo.... Lot's of illegal conduct going on in blue states.
3 replies →
[flagged]
> For example, a cop cannot just steal a 3rd party's database to get the evidence they are after.
Except we're talking about the state's own license plate data, not stealing someone else's data. Since it is California's data, California can complain that Oakland police shared it impermissibly. (Good luck with that!) But that doesn't create a constitutional issue.
> If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set because they foolishly thought it would be used to combat mundane property crime or because perhaps they thought that subjecting motorists to an increased dragnet would be a good thing
Nah, be mad at both the people who enabled the data collection and the agency that abused that data.
This should be grounds for laws that limit or eliminate the use of Flock Safety in the state, and laws that meaningfully punish agencies that use that data inappropriately as well as the individuals who authorized it.
> be angry at [...] the people among us [who] foolishly thought it [...] would be a good thing for alternative transportation
Yikes. That is one tortuous sentence you needed to construct just to blame this on leftists. I applaud your wordcraft. But no, that's ridiculous. Urban transit hippies are very much not to blame for ICE overreach. Just for the record.
>If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set
Perhaps I am gifted, but I contain enough anger within for both guilty parties. However, the bulk of is aimed at the police who unambiguously broke the law and will face no consequences for doing so.
The opposite of this.
Do be angry at the people misusing the systems. Don't be angry at the people building them for good.
If someone points out that the system you're building can be abused, and you don't stop and come up with a solid plan to prevent abuse then you're just building the system for abuse.
It's practically impossible to build a system that "can't be abused". If you set the bar there, then you can block any policy forever by simply enumerating increasingly unlikely ways for it to be abused. It's like a child's version of politics.
I could go into my car right now and plow through a bunch of people. I'm still allowed to own a car. We've made the actual harmful act illegal, not the thing that theoretically made it possible.
12 replies →
There is zero "solid plan" you can produce that prevents a popular thing in a democratic country from happening. Like, sure, there are supposed to be some amount of base rules to prevent you from gulaging people as soon as you get a 51% vote share, but if you have enough popularity for long enough, as designed, you can change those rules and eventually do whatever you want.
You can bet the shit the Nazis did wasn't "allowed" by the Weimar Republic's constitution, but that didn't matter one bit as soon as the brownshirts murdered enough people. Hitler wasn't even that popular at any point. The holocaust didn't happen because Germany didn't have enough "don't do holocausts" rules, it happened because millions of Germans just let it, because they didn't want to die under a brownshirt's boot.
Meanwhile we've had tens of examples of full blown genocides that did not use any database at all. It has never seemed to actually stop a genocide.
The answer, as always, is that it takes hard work to defend your rights, and you can never ignore your government, and you should stop trying to ignore your government. You cannot "defang" a government. If enough people are working to build an authoritarian shithole state, they will get it, and no paper will stop them, because "having enough people who want something" is literally what a government is.
We have thousands and thousands of years of history showing that if you want rights you have to fight for them.
>If someone points out that the system you're building can be abused
Any system of authority can be abused. No paper can fix that. The only thing that can fix that is a popular, credible threat to the people trying to abuse it.
If you build the system in a way that enables such highly predictable misuse, you do get to share part of the blame.
This isn’t even misuse. Sharing with other agencies is an intended feature.
Edit for clarity this is not a misuse of Flock.
6 replies →
> Don't be angry at the people building them for good.
I am angry because the same people who've argued for years against the kinds of education systems that teach actual social systemic thinking and who've called me naive and cynical for suggesting their pretty toy is going to get people killed are now throwing up their hands and saying "how could we have known?"
Because we fucking told you, that's how.
The same people? Really? Who?
Nope. If you're one of them, as a practitioner you should damn well be able to reasonably foresee the pathological use case. Hell, I only cut myself minimal slack for having grown up believing constant exhortations by Oldtimers that "Kid, no one in their right mind would do that," only to see my peer group replacing them do exactly what the Oldtimers were insistent that common sense dictated wouldn't be done.
It is on us to be realistic about how the systems we create will actually be used. I think we lost sight of that in the last couple decades, or figured it wasn't our problem. And the chickens have come home to roost.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
A lot of people raised similar objections to dna databases, and later when those same databases was used by law enforcement. It did not take very long until law makers and law enforcement made i praxis that such data bases are up to grab for trawling through. Any objection is meet with the handful of cold cases that was closed because that trawling of data.
Sadly I dont see a realistic stop to the databases. If there are none, law makers will just dictate the creation of it. If there is one, they will argue terrorism or cold cases to start the process of getting access. If car manufacturers get gps logs, those will sooner or later end up being available to law enforcement. They currently have access to every call, when where and to whom. Every internet use. Every movement mobile phones does. Every payment through a credit card, where and to whom. Mass transports get more and more into personal tickets, and those get logged.
I hope we will see unreasonable searches to be expanded/enforcement against trawling of data, but i dont have any hope left to the idea that databases wont be created. Not even gdpr in eu stops law makers from dictating that databases must be created, or stopping law makers from trawling it.
Yeah, I think both things can be true: one is that it is absolutely utterly unacceptable to be in the year 2025 advocating for new data collection programs in the name of "fighting crime" - it should be absolutely abundantly clear to even the most naive of us now that A) the cops have absolutely zero interest in pursuing the kinds of crime we're actually interested in - the closure rate on shoplifting, car and package theft, and other property crime is basically zero, and that's not because the cops don't have enough resources, and B) any of these systems will be abused immediately to target whoever it is the feds have decided are the bad guy this week, be it palestine protestors, trans people, immigrants, ex-girlfriends, or whoever else we've decided is outside the circle of protection today.
At the same time, it's also absolutely goddamn unnacceptable that we've come to just accept that our LEOs are just going to act like unaccountable criminal gangs, and that that mentality has crept so far into the police forces that a thin blue line punisher sticker is an acceptable bit of kit for a cruiser. There are systems that are intended to hold these groups accountable, and we need to keep pressing until they do, because throwing up our hands and just saying "Boys will be boys" ain't cutting it.
> LEOs are just going to act like unaccountable criminal gangs, and that that mentality has crept so far into the police forces that a thin blue line punisher sticker is an acceptable bit of kit for a cruiser.
Well, they are unaccountable state-sanctioned gangs.
They can legally steal (forfeiture).
They can 'smell something' and legally trespass.
They can shoot and kill you for basically any reason. But they can fall back and say 'I thought they were reaching for a weapon'.
SCOTUS, even with more liberal justices, have repeatedly said they are shielded from 'official capacities', and that they have absolutely no requirement of protecting and serving.
And some of them have actual, non state-sanctioned gangs in their midst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs
https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history...
> it is absolutely utterly unacceptable to be in the year 2025 advocating for new data collection programs in the name of "fighting crime"
I’m genuinely curious for data on whether these data have been helpful with property crime in San Francisco and Oakland.
You think the police have adequate resources to solve package theft? I’m sorry, what? That’s ridiculous. Here’s the 2023 stats for SF:
Porch thefts: 25,000 Cops: 2000
Obviously not all of those cops are on duty simultaneously, let’s assume they do a 12 hour shift every single day: they would have 25 porch thefts each to solve!
This isn’t a US centric phenomenon either: 70,000 cell phones were stolen in London last year.
Surely you don't think all 25k porch thefts are performed by 25k individual people?
2 replies →
I think the frog and the scorpion were both wrong
> If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set
I think it's okay to be angry at public servants for "following orders" too.
We didn't let the Nazis get away with that bullshit for a good reason.
Sending people back to their home country, especially when 50% are criminals, is not the same as the holocaust. Comparing it to such is disgusting and insulting to the actual victims of Nazi violence.
ICE is often operating in a racist and dehumanizing way, but it is nowhere near the level of organized atrocity that it is regularly compared to.
I agree that it this comparison is overblown, and do not believe in general that this kind of overstatements do any good to the cause of those who make them.
There is something in common though: that very dangerous belief that lying and ignoring the law is justified by the end goal. Speaking of lies, where did you get this statistics that 50% of expulsed immigrants are criminals? Even their own statistics (https://www.ice.gov/statistics) show that a small minority have ever been convicted (and I would assume that most of those convictions would not be very serious crimes)
was posted on HN within the last week
https://www.openice.org/
1 reply →
50% are criminals? Do you have a source for that?
was posted on HN within the last week https://www.openice.org/
[flagged]
4 replies →
The Nazis actually openly considered deportation before settling on the Final Solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
The Holocaust involved quite a bit of large-scale deportation to concentration camps.
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/how-and-why/how/deport...
> In the autumn of 1941, approximately 338,000 Jews remained in Greater Germany. Until this point, Hitler had been reluctant to deport Jews in the German Reich until the war was over because of a fear of resistance and retaliation from the German population. But, in the autumn of 1941, key Nazi figures contributed to mounting pressure on Hitler to deport the German Jews. This pressure culminated in Hitler ordering the deportation of all Jews still in the Greater German Reich and Protectorate between 15-17 September 1941.
Nah, I think as a society we should be able to set up speed cameras to crack down on speeding, without worrying about how it could be misused maliciously against law abiding motorists. Get angry at the people doing bad things. Otherwise we shouldn't build anything that could potentially be misused.
if you read the article, this didn't happen.
Voters will nearly always fall for "Think of the children!" Trying to point out how bad of an argument that is has only earned me screaming arguments from my wife. Some people do not prioritize liberty, and so, get less as result of their choices.
Can't they sue the bejeesus out of them?
I heard CA built up a large amount of money anticipating a lot of litigation against Trump 2.0.
But, but, but, "I have nothing to hide.........."
[flagged]
I was going to call you out for hyperbole, especially since the (AI) search overview had pedestrian deaths for 2025 at only 4, but previous years at around 10-15, which is pretty bad.
https://www.oaklandca.gov/Public-Safety-Streets/Traffic-Safe...
The numbers would be much higher if the city had any foot traffic [1]. It's dead, small businesses are dead, it's just not safe to walk around too much, everyone keeps it to a minimum and drives between parking lots in 5000lb tanks.
[1]: https://www.unacast.com/foot-traffic-data/oakland
I live in Oakland too, and I hate hate hate that we're enabling masked, unnamed government enforcers to kidnap people off the streets and potentially deport them without even verifying they are who they are thought to be.
I also know that we cannot afford to keep letting criminals run this town and destroy public property and kill people on the roads and get away with it
"and I hate hate hate that we're enabling masked, unnamed government"
Sidenote: As per the article, this is already illegal and was a mis-step on the part of SFPD and CHP searching OPD's database (OPD didn't give ICE anything). It sounds like whoever did it will be prosecuted.
I live in Oakland too, and was taken aback at first by calling it a killing field... until I actually admitted to myself that my greatest safety fear here is getting wiped out on foot or bike by some of the most atrocious drivers in the entire bay area with near-zero traffic enforcement.
[flagged]
The post you're responding to isn't arguing shifting blame. They're arguing that instrumental actions should be included. If you think expanding the scope of accountability dilutes the pool, that's another argument. But at least have good faith. They're not your enemy.
Drawing this line gets tough.
If I build a sidewalk curb, there's a perfectly legitimate use case for it. It can also be used to curb-stomp someone to death.
Can't we build the curb and forbid curb-stomping at the same time? Shouldn't that be our right?
9 replies →
> If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set
You're right, they're not shifting blame, they're straight up telling you who is to blame. And apparently, it is not the people who came up with this idea, nor the people carrying out the actions, nor the people supporting them.
These two things are one in the same. Every data broker knows exactly who their ultimate clients are. That's why Palantir never broke a sweat losing bazillions of dollars for years and years and years. Their final goal is to be essentially an indispensable arm of the police surveillance state.
[flagged]
Subsistence farming isn't a great life.
That’s not my point. My point is we have no leverage.
A populace with deep and wide skills can be a collective action threat.
A bunch of dead eyed screen addicts are just Wall-E background characters.
We’ll end up manual workers for the rich through state violence (happening right now to Latinos to free up jobs). Because we can’t threaten to walk away and undermine wall streets grip on agency.