Keep in mind that the general public's sentiment on Flock is nowhere near that of the Twitterati. My HOA wants to pay for a camera. All the old folks that attend the meetings are excited and think the technology is cool. The only "crime" we get is a bunch of teenagers sneaking into the pool after hours.
At the same time though, if a car that's obviously "not from around here" were to do a drive-by looking for open garages to grab some tools or a bike - I'd want that to be recorded and flagged.
I'd get lynched for sharing a thought like this from a non-throwaway account, but: I don't get the ultra-liberal folks obsession with the skid row. For whatever reason they seem to think that low rank criminals should be allowed to continue living however they please. An attempt to clean up crime in Oakland - for example - is met with cries of gentrification! Think of the families! Somehow everyone focuses on the family of the drug dealer and not of the hard working single mom who doesn't want her kids to join a gang. Is seems that only those involved in petty crime are considered to be the valuable members of the local community, and only their values need protecting.
Do you really need flock cameras to catch low rank criminals in skid row or kids sneaking into the pool after hours? This seems like a massively imbalanced transaction. Moreover, who really cares about these kids doing that? Our justice system is completely overloaded, and the tools it has to deal with one of those kids in the wrong jurisdiction runs an extremely high risk of ruining their life rather than scaring them straight. One of those old people could probably accomplish the same thing by spending a couple of late evenings at the pool with a very bright flashlight if it’s that big of a deal.
Finally, I’m really worried about the parental surveillance we’re sticking everywhere. You are absolutely training your children to never take risks and wondering why they’re an anxious mess. There is a wide gulf between cutting through private property and vandalizing it, and I’m not convinced our current system is properly equipped to handle the nuances of that.
> I'd get lynched for sharing a thought like this from a non-throwaway account, but: I don't get the ultra-liberal folks obsession with the skid row. For whatever reason they seem to think that low rank criminals should be allowed to continue living however they please. An attempt to clean up crime in Oakland - for example - is met with cries of gentrification! Think of the families!
You fail to demonstrate that you are capable of thinking in terms of policies that are pragmatic and enduring. Where is your rage when time and again corporations are give multi-million dollars of incentives when they promise jobs, economic boom to the cities which has been repeatedly shown to never materialize and taxpayers are left footing the bill. taxpayer money keeps flowing to other avoidable things like settlements for police brutality, cleaning up the mess left by many bad ideas, etc.
I am no liberal, but what seems to be the problem in spending some money to build low cost housing so removal does not seem forced? why would that thought not come to your mind? for every ultra-liberal, there are 4x the corporate boot-lickers, and that seems to be the source of the problem.
You seem like the kind of person that is perfectly ok with stolen goods as long as they are are kept in nice display cases in a museum and even an entry fee is even charged for it.
Flock won't help protect your shovel. No one is getting flagged for being in an area they don't live when you report missing lawn art. Its used for more serious crimes and to build a map that tracks where everyone goes, when and combined with your cell data who you are.
You personal benefit nothing and lose privacy of movement.
I live in Oakland and this resonates true from what I’ve seen, where Flock is a deeply divided issue in Alameda county compared to the overall negative sentiment you find on HN.
Listening in on city council meetings or even just perusing Nextdoor posts you’ll find there are many proponents for more cameras generally from folks tired of crime.
This entire post seems like a strawman? What do Oakland or Skid Row have to do with people not wanting Flock cameras installed in their communities tracking all of their movements?
I don't care about Flock tracking petty criminals, I care about Flock tracking _me_.
But why? For most people all they'll find out is "this guy commutes to work, goes to Costco, and has an affair". Big tech knows about the affair from text messages already.
There are already numerous examples of law enforcement abusing data from Flock to track and stalk citizens who have done nothing wrong.
There are already numerous examples of Flock misidentifying citizens as suspects of crimes and them being arrested or otherwise harassed by law enforcement.
You can say that these are individual problems rather than systemic problems, but with the US' gradual descent towards authoritarianism and being a militarized police-state I do not see how this technology will be used to make a positive impact on the lives of everyday citizens (which IMO has been happening since the 80s at least before you just imply I don't like the current administration).
I am personally willing to incur a higher risk of being the victim of a crime if it means government/police/private companies/etc. are not able to violate my privacy every waking moment of my life.
> I am personally willing to incur a higher risk of being the victim of a crime if it means government/police/private companies/etc. are not able to violate my privacy every waking moment of my life.
This is it precisely. Thank you for stating this so clearly.
And I am not. Practically speaking, invasion of privacy from the government or private companies affects me not at all. Petty crime does make daily life unpleasant. And before you say "but you don't know how that'll turn out" - we do. There is China, there is Russia, there is Dubai. These are places where a female can walk around safely in the middle of the night.
Flock collects data which is given/sold to police departments or other entities. Regardless of how you feel about law enforcement having this data, how do you feel about Flock being a middle-man who controls the flow of the data? How do you feel about knowing Flock is VC-driven and will be making decisions based on ROI, not societal benefit?
And a public officer would instead be driven by corruption, like that nice San Jose policewoman who signed off on customs forms for fentanyl shipments.
The "you shouldn't need privacy if you aren't doing anything wrong" is such a tired yarn.
There are many many many examples of abuse, both in the short term (flock gymnastics pedophiles, cop loveint, cross state abortion suspicion tracking) and long term (the "red scare", the administration performing loyalty tests). There are also plenty of discussions outlining how everyone should support privacy because some need it more than others and we're all on the same team.
Pretending people who are against flock or government illegal surveillance care more about criminals then their families is so bad faith it makes them an asshole (not you but a comment above).
But think of it from another angle. It's easy to assume that everyone is on board with your cause when you are in a bubble and all of your friends are. But it could be that there's no grand conspiracy to suppress the public opinion. It's just that public opinion isn't quite what you think.
And yeah, there will be bad apples. On the balance, I think these bad apples are better than the ones they replace.
Yes. Their reputation is taking on the reputation of projects they support. If they want to keep good reputation, they should watch over their sponsored projects.
I thought the reputation that mattered to YC was for taking on could-be-very-profitable startups, and making them (statistically) much more profitable.
Also, might your argument require that YC's leaders eventually gain access to a time machine, so they could advise their earlier selves against supporting projects which later proved disreputable?
No, what's done is done. You can achieve a lot with bad reputation too. But maybe one day the stream of startups or even the stream of money will dry up. As I said earlier, it's not an exact science and you never know when bad reputation will bite you.
Do we generally feel like they have a good reputation these days though? Like I don't know what people say on Twitter now I guess, but I do remember when they were advertising Elon speaking at their conference at the height of the Government Efficiency saga, and it really dawned on me that something like public sentiment is kinda low priority for them.
And for what its worth (very little), I have worked at this point at various YC startups over close to a decade now, and it can't help but be a quite negative signal to me as non-CEO, lowly dev worker. I get that they have a bunch of successes under their belt, and this is near superstition on my part, but the heuristic of staying away from YC companies has made me a much happier employee.
The reputation thing is not an exact science. They might not care and then it might completely sink them one day. It's generally good to have good reputation and I think IT is losing it fast.
Keep in mind that the general public's sentiment on Flock is nowhere near that of the Twitterati. My HOA wants to pay for a camera. All the old folks that attend the meetings are excited and think the technology is cool. The only "crime" we get is a bunch of teenagers sneaking into the pool after hours.
At the same time though, if a car that's obviously "not from around here" were to do a drive-by looking for open garages to grab some tools or a bike - I'd want that to be recorded and flagged.
I'd get lynched for sharing a thought like this from a non-throwaway account, but: I don't get the ultra-liberal folks obsession with the skid row. For whatever reason they seem to think that low rank criminals should be allowed to continue living however they please. An attempt to clean up crime in Oakland - for example - is met with cries of gentrification! Think of the families! Somehow everyone focuses on the family of the drug dealer and not of the hard working single mom who doesn't want her kids to join a gang. Is seems that only those involved in petty crime are considered to be the valuable members of the local community, and only their values need protecting.
Do you really need flock cameras to catch low rank criminals in skid row or kids sneaking into the pool after hours? This seems like a massively imbalanced transaction. Moreover, who really cares about these kids doing that? Our justice system is completely overloaded, and the tools it has to deal with one of those kids in the wrong jurisdiction runs an extremely high risk of ruining their life rather than scaring them straight. One of those old people could probably accomplish the same thing by spending a couple of late evenings at the pool with a very bright flashlight if it’s that big of a deal.
Finally, I’m really worried about the parental surveillance we’re sticking everywhere. You are absolutely training your children to never take risks and wondering why they’re an anxious mess. There is a wide gulf between cutting through private property and vandalizing it, and I’m not convinced our current system is properly equipped to handle the nuances of that.
> I'd get lynched for sharing a thought like this from a non-throwaway account, but: I don't get the ultra-liberal folks obsession with the skid row. For whatever reason they seem to think that low rank criminals should be allowed to continue living however they please. An attempt to clean up crime in Oakland - for example - is met with cries of gentrification! Think of the families!
You fail to demonstrate that you are capable of thinking in terms of policies that are pragmatic and enduring. Where is your rage when time and again corporations are give multi-million dollars of incentives when they promise jobs, economic boom to the cities which has been repeatedly shown to never materialize and taxpayers are left footing the bill. taxpayer money keeps flowing to other avoidable things like settlements for police brutality, cleaning up the mess left by many bad ideas, etc.
I am no liberal, but what seems to be the problem in spending some money to build low cost housing so removal does not seem forced? why would that thought not come to your mind? for every ultra-liberal, there are 4x the corporate boot-lickers, and that seems to be the source of the problem.
You seem like the kind of person that is perfectly ok with stolen goods as long as they are are kept in nice display cases in a museum and even an entry fee is even charged for it.
Flock won't help protect your shovel. No one is getting flagged for being in an area they don't live when you report missing lawn art. Its used for more serious crimes and to build a map that tracks where everyone goes, when and combined with your cell data who you are.
You personal benefit nothing and lose privacy of movement.
For most people it means nothing until it does.
I live in Oakland and this resonates true from what I’ve seen, where Flock is a deeply divided issue in Alameda county compared to the overall negative sentiment you find on HN.
Listening in on city council meetings or even just perusing Nextdoor posts you’ll find there are many proponents for more cameras generally from folks tired of crime.
This entire post seems like a strawman? What do Oakland or Skid Row have to do with people not wanting Flock cameras installed in their communities tracking all of their movements?
I don't care about Flock tracking petty criminals, I care about Flock tracking _me_.
But why? For most people all they'll find out is "this guy commutes to work, goes to Costco, and has an affair". Big tech knows about the affair from text messages already.
There are already numerous examples of law enforcement abusing data from Flock to track and stalk citizens who have done nothing wrong.
There are already numerous examples of Flock misidentifying citizens as suspects of crimes and them being arrested or otherwise harassed by law enforcement.
You can say that these are individual problems rather than systemic problems, but with the US' gradual descent towards authoritarianism and being a militarized police-state I do not see how this technology will be used to make a positive impact on the lives of everyday citizens (which IMO has been happening since the 80s at least before you just imply I don't like the current administration).
I am personally willing to incur a higher risk of being the victim of a crime if it means government/police/private companies/etc. are not able to violate my privacy every waking moment of my life.
> I am personally willing to incur a higher risk of being the victim of a crime if it means government/police/private companies/etc. are not able to violate my privacy every waking moment of my life.
This is it precisely. Thank you for stating this so clearly.
And I am not. Practically speaking, invasion of privacy from the government or private companies affects me not at all. Petty crime does make daily life unpleasant. And before you say "but you don't know how that'll turn out" - we do. There is China, there is Russia, there is Dubai. These are places where a female can walk around safely in the middle of the night.
> all they'll find out
Who is "they"?
Flock collects data which is given/sold to police departments or other entities. Regardless of how you feel about law enforcement having this data, how do you feel about Flock being a middle-man who controls the flow of the data? How do you feel about knowing Flock is VC-driven and will be making decisions based on ROI, not societal benefit?
And a public officer would instead be driven by corruption, like that nice San Jose policewoman who signed off on customs forms for fentanyl shipments.
The "you shouldn't need privacy if you aren't doing anything wrong" is such a tired yarn.
There are many many many examples of abuse, both in the short term (flock gymnastics pedophiles, cop loveint, cross state abortion suspicion tracking) and long term (the "red scare", the administration performing loyalty tests). There are also plenty of discussions outlining how everyone should support privacy because some need it more than others and we're all on the same team.
Pretending people who are against flock or government illegal surveillance care more about criminals then their families is so bad faith it makes them an asshole (not you but a comment above).
But think of it from another angle. It's easy to assume that everyone is on board with your cause when you are in a bubble and all of your friends are. But it could be that there's no grand conspiracy to suppress the public opinion. It's just that public opinion isn't quite what you think.
And yeah, there will be bad apples. On the balance, I think these bad apples are better than the ones they replace.
Is there some reason to believe that Y Combinator maintains "stances" on the 6,200-ish startups which have been through their program?
If not - since YC is a for-profit business, what paths to positive RoI might you foresee if they did maintain such stances?
Yes. Their reputation is taking on the reputation of projects they support. If they want to keep good reputation, they should watch over their sponsored projects.
I thought the reputation that mattered to YC was for taking on could-be-very-profitable startups, and making them (statistically) much more profitable.
Also, might your argument require that YC's leaders eventually gain access to a time machine, so they could advise their earlier selves against supporting projects which later proved disreputable?
No, what's done is done. You can achieve a lot with bad reputation too. But maybe one day the stream of startups or even the stream of money will dry up. As I said earlier, it's not an exact science and you never know when bad reputation will bite you.
Do we generally feel like they have a good reputation these days though? Like I don't know what people say on Twitter now I guess, but I do remember when they were advertising Elon speaking at their conference at the height of the Government Efficiency saga, and it really dawned on me that something like public sentiment is kinda low priority for them.
And for what its worth (very little), I have worked at this point at various YC startups over close to a decade now, and it can't help but be a quite negative signal to me as non-CEO, lowly dev worker. I get that they have a bunch of successes under their belt, and this is near superstition on my part, but the heuristic of staying away from YC companies has made me a much happier employee.
The reputation thing is not an exact science. They might not care and then it might completely sink them one day. It's generally good to have good reputation and I think IT is losing it fast.