Comment by buran77
4 months ago
> I do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line.
It's an invasive surveillance technology that contributes to building the pervasive surveillance day to day reality.
You're muddying the waters asking "why are you against this" without even hinting at an argument why anyone should not be against this.
You can already see the progression. What was sold as "only listens to gunshots" now no longer listens only to gunshots. The deal constantly gets altered.
In rereading Thomas's comments on this post, I'm going to try to sum up how I've read his comments:
I'm about 98% certain understands why people are against this; other comments make this more clear, but even sentence right before the one you quoted to suggests this fact ("I understand people not being comfortable with Flock.").
By "I do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line" he seems to mean that, even if you ignore all authoritarians, there are plenty of smart people who believe the benefits (particularly when well regulated) outweigh the risks.
There are plenty of things that are wrong that are not "an obvious red line," so merely thinking that Flock is bad is not enough to make it "an obvious red line."
His argument for why people should not be against seems to be twofold:
1. If it could be made to work in such a way that isn't invasive, it could be a boon, particularly to the most disadvantaged[0].
2. If all of the places that regulate it well kick it out, then they lose political capital that could constructively be used to encourage their neighbors to also regulate it[1].
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475478
At the time of writing he has commented 16 times on this article and not a single time with a to-the-point answer when asked point blank what's his reasoning. I'd love to not have to guess his thoughts.
We have a technology that keeps evolving to encompass more and more "protections" for the people, that happen to come with more and more control for authorities. Every step in that direction is a red flag. The red flag is the direction in which things are moving. Don't we have enough chapters in the history books about why that is?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45475552
1 reply →
Thanks for summing up those arguments!
My snarky retorts:
1. "and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle"
2. "Let the bad actors do harm but keep an eye on them so others might do the same instead of prevent them from doing harm" is a wild approach to anything that has to ignore so many things it feels like intentional gaslighting. Even at face value it's absurd; why would only zero and partial regulation encourage similar behavior amongst neighbors but not full restriction? Imagine this suggestion for things we currently call crimes like rape and manslaughter and child abuse!
I'm in my "calling it like I see it era" and I'm calling this one. Shills gonna shill.
Who am I "shilling" for? Did you help get cameras removed from your municipality? I did in mine.
> 1. If it could be made to work in such a way that isn't invasive, it could be a boon, particularly to the most disadvantaged[0].
> 2. If all of the places that regulate it well kick it out, then they lose political capital that could constructively be used to encourage their neighbors to also regulate it[1].
I keep seeing that kind of thinking permeating tech. It is used often to hand-wave away any objections on the thesis that “well, we just have to get it right.”
Dr. Ian Malcolm is instructive here: “you were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you never thought whether or not you should.” (Paraphrased from memory.)
No I'm not. I actually do real political work on this issue, ran the commission process that restricted our cameras and created the only restrictive ALPR police General Orders in Chicagoland, and got us to pass an ACLU CCOPS ordinance --- the first municipality in Illinois to have one.
Whatever else I am, I'm not "muddying the waters". I'm commenting in good faith from actual experience. You're going to find my bona fides here are pretty strong.
> I actually do real political work on this issue
And Catholic priests preach. Some things aren't mutually exclusive and a lot of people are capable of holding conflicting ideas in their head.
> I'm commenting in good faith from actual experience.
All good but you didn't say anything. You muddy the water by saying repeatedly how progressive and experienced you are without providing the obvious reasoning that multiple commenters here are missing: why not be against it? This industry in general (and Flock in particular as per the article) have already been shown to continuously escalate things and change the deal to their benefit again and again. Any step they take forward always proved to be an irrecoverable step backward for civil liberties.
You cracked open the door and are looking at someone on the other side opening it wider and wider, and bringing their friends in, and still believe you can close that door whenever you want. Any history book will tell you that's hubris, not qualifications.
What are your bona fides on turkeys voting for Christmas? If you can put together an argument why this isn't a red line given this evidence of escalation, I'll tell you all about my bona fides.
I'm an ex-employee of Flock who left when I learned just how empty their words about ethics and morality of increased surveillance really were.
They will happily look the other way when agencies share data that Flock knows they're not meant to be sharing.
They will happily "massage" data when needed to shore up a case (particularly with their gunshot detection).
Their transparency report probably lists only about 2/3 (at most) of the agencies that are actually using the system.
I asked lots of questions about ethics and morality in the recruitment process, got in, and rapidly learned that it was openly mask-off, surveillance state, Minority Report-esque mission.
To me the most horrifying one here is “massaging” the data to help shore up a legal case.
Would whistleblower protections shield you? Or have you taken this to any reputable journalists?
1 reply →
Yikes. I can’t say it surprises me but my god that’s terrifying
The funny thing is you did the exact same thing in this comment as the last one! No arguments to be seen, just "I did all this stuff." Maybe we should call this sunken cost rather than muddying the waters?
Because the question was whether I'm commenting in good faith.
4 replies →
> I actually do real political work
I’m not even sure why but this sentiment rubs me the wrong way.
Perhaps it’s that what’s resonated most to me about democracy is the premise that it is all “for the people, of the people, by the people.”
There’s something exclusive about that statement.
Yes. The people are supposed to do work. Believe me: ordinary people who strongly disagree with a lot of what's being said on this thread are doing the work, showing up and complaining about "defund the police" people being behind any limitations on ALPRs at all. I had to argue with them! You are responsible for engaging on this, because, contrary to the claim at the top of the thread, this simply is not a "red line".
3 replies →
That's the "magic" of democracy. It makes states stable because the government is theoretically representative which adds a ton of friction to the usual "we'll just throw the kind and his court off a cliff because they don't represent us and install some lords who do" workflow.
Because “political work” is an oxymoron
You could comment about why the things listed in the article aren't a red line.
I've already done that.
1 reply →