Comment by starkrights
1 day ago
I mean, yeah? I dont understand your lack of perceived separation. It’s seems pretty plain that there is no interconnected network of doorbell cameras that anyone can use to track someone across every possibly doorbell camera that filmed them[1]. A doorbell camera is for an individual to see what’s happening immediately on their property.
A flock camera is connected to every other flock camera, ever, period. It’d be bad enough if a whole town were tracking the movements of all of their citizens constantly and storing that data forever to be searchable without a warrant (because of the extremely obvious flashing abuse vector that has been shown to be taken advantage of multiple times- give the old google a search for police officers stalking exes and their partners via flock, or flock employee spying on children’s gymnastics gym)
BUT, it’s not even just that! You can track people everywhere that there are flock cameras if you are a part of the flock network! So you can stalk people everywhere in the country with 0 oversight. It is an insanely massive privacy issue.
It’s universal persisted tracking of literally everyone’s movements 24/7 everywhere there is a flock camera, persisted presumably forever, and currently accessible to an extremely large amount of people without any authorization or judicial check required. (Many would go to comment on the police demographic being unstable and/or uniquely situated to abuse this, but arguments about that may or may not be moot to you depending on your opinion of the police)
I feel like it’s plainly clear that any doorbell camera does not do that. Even if most doorbell cams are cloud enabled, I’d imagine it’s significantly harder to subpoena a doorbell company for “every camera you have on exactly this street that could’ve done this thing”, and infinitely more so to force them to give you all of their data history and continue to do so forever. Flock just does that as their business.
Doorbell cameras are also not particularly capable of tracking you on every major travel route you take, as they’re primarily on, well, residential doors. Maybe some businesses have them? But they certainly aren’t able to resolve every license plate that travels through a segment of highway. Not to mention that they just don’t do that at present at all anyways, even in the places they’re installed- they just record motion, and sometimes use AI to point out “a car drove by” or “a person walked up to the door.” Not “license plate XYZ1234 drove through highway 12 at 8:34 pm”.
I feel like your statement just kinda ignores all of this and is saying “well yeah, but besides all the mass movement tracking and data storage and correlation, it’s basically like a doorbell camera because they both record people/cars and store them somehow, right?”
Which, I mean yeah I guess? But the “besides” part is kind of entirely the massive problem.
[1] well, not yet.
> It’s seems pretty plain that there is no interconnected network of doorbell cameras that anyone can use to track someone across every possibly doorbell camera that filmed them
That doesn't seem clear to me at all. It may not be one interconnected network but if a crime occurs say, at 100 Main Street the police can see doorbell cameras, identify the model, and ask the home owner for the tape and if necessary get a warrant. It's certainly not as easy to obtain the data but it's certainly possible to achieve the same goal.
Look, I'm not trying to defend Flock here or anything, just trying to understand what the specific concern is whether that is hyper-efficient tracking, a privacy violation, a constitutional violation, or maybe even something different altogether.
> certainly possible to achieve the same goal.
The barrier to entry is infinitely lower with flock than through that process though, and the scope of data collection is infinitely wider. If a police chief wants to stalk their ex or their boyfriend, they login to their floxk and search <my ex girlfriends license plate>, and acquire their entire travel history for the entirety of the time flock has existed, through highways, through non residential thoroughfares, etc.
If they want to do that via ring doorbells, they have to go ask every single person in a neighborhood to hand that over under the pretense of a law enforcement operation. And, again, those doorbells are not covering highways or large residential thoroughfares, and they’re not connected enough, nor equipped with the technology to automatically read and store license plate data forever. The LEO would have to go through every single doorbell, manually document every single car/plate that passes through, and cross reference their own markings of location-to-timestamp documentation to determine whatever path the person they wanted to track. I think it’s obvious that this is an arduous task- one that could absolutely be undertaken to pursue serious crime! But one that would be pretty damned hard to abuse due to the work involved. And also, again, is only residential!! Because ring doorbells are not posted on the side of every major interstate highway and city main road!!!
Flock automates every ounce of that completely, and with an insanely larger scope! It’s not hard to imagine that a police officer going around asking every owner of a doorbell cam for their footage would generate some hubub amongst the community about “what is this for?”, and if the what-for was invalid, generate some backlash!
Instead, a person with access to flock faces absolutely 0 friction tracking anyone, (basically) anywhere at any time in the last X years since flock has existed, **and not just residentially**! I want to point out that your own point, “police can ask the home owner”, is restricted to a very specific locale, places with doorbell cameras! These things are being installed with such frequency on so many major thoroughfares that is possible to track far, far beyond “someone left home / someone came home”, or “someone was infront of these houses or in this neighborhood.” That is an extremely significant difference.
I do want to say, I respect your inquisivity, and your willingness to ask and explore the issue. My genuine apologies for the dismissiveness present in some of my remarks. That’s not really the spirit of HN discussion, and I apologize for that.
Thanks and no sweat. Most folks, most of the time including me are ready to pick a fight! :-)