Every time law enforcement is given surveillance tools the same thing happens, the people with legal and approved access will abuse it.
Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works, if it's abused, the system isn't locked down enough or that one person circumvented the procedure. They completely fail to understand that there exists people to whom you cannot grant access and screening people in advance probably impossible. Some cop checks all the boxes, gets access to databases, then their partner leaves them and they are now no longer safe to grant access.
I don't understand why it's hard to grasp that surveillance tools are dangerous and rather using them to protect others, law enforcement will use these tools to do bad things. It's as if that we assume that cops are better people and follow rules better. Even in countries that actually train their police force this isn't remotely true.
The US might be different, I doubt it, but society is getting increasingly SAFE, there is less and less need for these tools.
This is a great point, and one that really isn't played up because it doesn't fit the whole profit-from-attention narrative that literally every media surface seems to be following.
It almost seems as if law enforcement 'need' these additional tools to keep them busy; find new, more trivial crime that's been hiding behind no one reporting it or being hurt by it.
Maybe if law enforcement resources could be applied to more corporate crime, that'd keep em busy till the cows come home.
I have this conversation with neighbors almost weekly, and I’ve had a bunch of them just say that I’m wrong with no real evidence or, and this is verbatim, “it doesn’t feel safer.”
This conversation is usually about how no one lets their kids play outside unsupervised anymore, but it applies to police as well. In Georgia they had to pass a law telling police they couldn’t arrest parents who let their kids go outside by themselves. The inciting incident literally had a police officer lecturing a mother about how many sickos are out there and then putting her in cuffs because her 10-year-old was a mile away by himself. Even since then, DFCS has been caught bullying parents into signing an agreement saying they were negligent and agreeing to a restrictive safety plan because they let their kid go to a nearby playground by themself.
It is insane and depressing about how people willingly restrict their lives and their kids lives because of the mistaken belief that the world isn’t as safe as it was when they were a kid. Not only that, but if you let your kids play outside without you, then you risk your neighbors calling the police on you and having to deal with whatever bs comes from that.
A friend of mine had the cops called on her by a neighbor because her kids were playing in the front yard and she wasn't out there with them.
I don't know what world people here live in, but I am not expecting kids in a front yard in the middle of the day in a quiet neighborhood on a dead end road to be snatched up.
Could it happen? Sure. Should we force our kids to live under fear that it will happen as soon as a parent isn't watching them? Absolutely not.
I have feeling that how safe you feel is correlates strongly to your media diet, and weakly to your surroundings. I'd be curious to see what studies have been done.
I heard about this story somewhere and couldn’t really believe it. I also thought that the US/German comparison videos about the fact we Germans let our kids go to school alone etc are a bit over the top.
Seems no.
But to be fair. Also in Germany things around security have changed. Where it was normal in my youth that my parents had actually no clue where I was while I was roaming the streets of Berlin (Courtesy to a Berlin wide public transport ticket I got for school). Today that doesn’t fly anymore. Kids have phones and get tracked every step. It’s the more controlled level of freedom.
Another connected anecdote that left me puzzled at the time: I spend some days in D.C last year (right before the National Guard got deployed) and wanted to do a short run from the Hotel. It was already going dark and I didn’t check for the weather and asked at the desk if it was ok outside to run. The answer was “yes it’s pretty safe around here.”
See my mind never made the connection that something harmful would be out there waiting for me.
> This conversation is usually about how no one lets their kids play outside unsupervised anymore,
Those two show overall fear is higher, not that reasonable fear is higher.
There's so much in current society that sells fear, that I'm not surprised. FOMO for the next Musk stock promotion. Stalkers, scammers, pedophiles. Burglar alarms being sold with a subscription at 70% profit margins (Verisure here in Sweden.) I recently calculated that I'd pay about $300k-600k in fees for every actual burglary where I live. The insurance deductible is way way lower than that, and I doubt they'd actually change the outcome. Incidentally, insurance companies care about water and fire damage, not burglary. But the scary marketing video with masked men in your garage sells well...
Of course, insurance is a a whole other chapter on selling fear. Sometimes warranted, mostly not. The Freetrailer app, used to book and pay for trailers, defaults to me paying for a deductibility reduction. With a big fat warning if I remove that, that if something happens, I might be liable for up to $700!
Not to mention the economy is always just one bad quarter away from a 1929 crash.
I blame media (new and old) for the fearmongering that sells my attention on low probability outcomes.
The internet has enabled essentially instant communication between any two or more parties anywhere on the planet.
The next 1929 is going to happen faster than the last one, with less warning, and the impact will be more widespread.
Or ...
We'll all see it coming ahead of time, behave perfectly rationally, and avoid the crisis entirely.
Based on how we handled 9/11, and spent 20 years and $20 trillion to get 1 guy, im preparing for the former, not the later, because most people are not rational in the face of a crisis.
> The next 1929 is going to happen faster than the last one
For sure, and for reasons we can't imagine today.
I sometimes think about nuclear accidents. It seems very unlikely that we've already seen the worst accident that will ever be. Same goes for so many technologies less than 100 years old. Safety standards need to go up in parity with the scaling up to keep MTBF in check. Given what I've seen of human greed, I hold only partial hope that'll happen as energy demands increase. Hopefully batteries, wind, solar and regulatory oversight are enough.
This is so depressing; my parents in the late 60’s/early 70’s would be serving a life sentence for negligence according to current standards, given how utterly (but basically harmlessly) feral we were back in the day.
The issue is overpopulation. In an underpopulated area neighbors tend to be neighbors, in an overpopulated one they tend to call police on your noisy kids to take you down a peg.
I think it's only safer since we're doing less. We're more immobile; sitting on our phones, TVs, iPads. We order stuff online instead of going to the store. There's also less adventure without immediate reconciliation. We can corroborate if what we're doing out-and-about is correct from a simple google search anywhere, which reduces person-to-person interaction.
not really, it's about having less dumb cops and having more specialists roles. Spending less money on weapons of war and more on training and education.
I don't expect many people to be okay with justice being enforce by the average citizen.
People will always have conflicts from time to time, the only question is whether we let them deal with it themselves or have an authority with a uniform and a badge who is supposed to be trustworthy enough to handle it.
> whether we let them deal with it themselves or have an authority with a uniform and a badge who is supposed to be trustworthy enough to handle it
a trial by jury is the closest thing i think to a compromise between those two, where someones societal peers decide whether there even is a conflict and then who is "guilty"
a trustworthy person is needed to haul the relevant parties to the quorum and then deal with punishments, though with cell phones and cameras everywhere these days...
Agreed, I do appreciate the concept of a jury of your peers though I think we've gone down the wrong path as they're implemented today.
The courts have done a great job demonizing jury nullification, for example. In my opinion that's a feature not a bug, it gives the public a say over what laws they agree with enforcing.
I've also seen far too many examples of cases that seem blatantly unproven but forced through because of a combination of poor defence council and politically hot topics that the DA seems to want under their belt.
He knew it would be stupid to post that tweet. He had actually said to himself, as he thumbed-up the "send" gesture, "It's probably stupid to post this tweet." But he'd done it anyway. He was mad, he needed to vent. The internet would know just how, his joining in with a cacophony of other angry voices. He hadn't given his own concern a second thought at the time, though, nor of the 8chan brigade that immediately descended from the cyber-ether to light up his n-list with death threats, hate speech, his address (or, at least the fake one he spoofed), his phone number (ditto). That was normal. The people who wrote these things were typically hundreds of miles away, where the conservative half of the country had anaphased years earlier. There were, of course, always the stories of young black men, reckless online, being dragged out of their homes, never seen again. But in a world ruled by informed probabilistic behavior, an educated adult worried little about things with a 1/10000th chance of killing you.
But then he'd gotten the email. The one on his personal account. The account his parents had set up for him as a child, that was only used for official business, that he was to guard more closely than an SSN (after all, it was worth more). The email that included his real address, his real phone number. And suddenly, he didn't feel safe in his apartment anymore. So he'd stayed home from work, begun packing clothes, batteries, replacement s-cells, food; backed up and wiped his home storage, just to be safe. That took too long. It was another thing he shouldn't have done.
At 6:45 pm, a knock sounded on the door, and a gruff voice announced, "POLICE, OPEN UP," and his heart froze in his chest. This was how it always started. It was a callback to when there WERE police: before the public lost confidence in law enforcement; before their rights to weapons, their unofficial immunity in the courtroom, all of that, was stripped, deemed too dangerous in the hands of an institution rife with corruption and abuse; before departments around the nation, unable or unwilling to face a reality where they had to use amiable coercion rather than cruel force to maintain order, disbanded en masse; before the people, true to the American spirit of ingenuity, turned to technology and dogged practice to self-police their own communities.
That had been the good news. Ubiquitous personal surveillance, accountability to one's neighbors, and a nationalized forensics service that provided unbiased expertise when necessary had lowered crime to previously unimaginable levels (after a brief rise, during which many activities previously deemed crimes were recognized as the treatable social dysfunction that they were). The bad news was that many of America's men in blue were unprepared for the realities of unemployment, being unemployable, pariah-hood. So some - a fractional minority, to be sure, but enough - fell back on what they knew, the core traditions ensconced and enshrined in police practice from the days when departments had first formed, as slave-catchers and Ku Klux Klan offshoots, security for the wealthy or sundown towns: they ganged up and started killing n*ggers and poor people.
(Originally written in 2015, a few months after the Ferguson protests and shortly after Freddie Gray was murdered.)
>what happens when society solves its issues and theres no need to 'keep them busy' :(
Look at the engineering and surveying firms over the past 50yr. Cops will likely see something like that. Like they'll get written into all sorts of laws and processes despite the scope of the "value" they provide being narrower than ever.
It'll turn into a low effort make-work job. Like Realtors(TM) with extra steps to justify their existence.
Like no amount of 1080p Ring footage of your door getting kicked in will suffice, the insurance company will not believe your house has been broken into until a certified license holding cop shows up and signs off on it.
There's a whole host of laws that people break daily. Even a book about it "3 felonies a day".
Most of those 'crimes' shouldnt be. And thats what parts of the jury nullification movements are all about; judging the law BEFORE judging the person.
Also the more data captured about every human, the more criminality can be found, especially in things that shouldnt have ever been criminal. And having higher "bust" numbers and proof of evil criminality element (regular humans doing normal things that are criminalized by the elite) then allows them to write bigger checks for more pervasive surveillance.
Its the classic long tail, and exponential cost increases for of a logarithmic decay of detection.
Our society could restart with a good review of all laws. And those laws with nobody else harmed should be scrapped.
Indeed, in my experience all these tools do is offset policing to "easy" crimes and the harder problems continually get ignored. It's largely been accepted in my city, for example, that traffic enforcement no longer happens.
A "fun" observation I've had is that politicians and police tells us that they are focusing on crimes that increases the perception of safety. Then for some reason they spend time on petty drug deals, gangs that mostly fight internally and other crimes that the average person would never experience.
If they wanted to do something to increase feeling of safety, and justice, they'd crack down on bike theft.
Yes, we also have a local politician who is very much into the appearance of "tough on crime" and has done vanity work with police like catching homeless shoplifters attempting to resell food on the street. The police also love bragging about impounding unregistered scooters and dirtbikes.
> If I would have to rate difficulty of Traffic enforcement, I would have put it quite low... What makes it so difficult?
The problem with traffic enforcement is that the police want it to remain available as a pretext to stop anyone when they want to.
For example, the MUTCD recommends that speed limits typically be set to the 85th percentile traffic speed. One of the reasons for this is that speed differentials are very dangerous. Another is that you typically want laws to have at least a little bit of leeway between "thing law abiding people are expected to actually do" and "thing with government-imposed penalties", rather than having them separated by 0.
But US speed limits are regularly set 10-15 MPH below that speed, so that the majority of traffic is exceeding them. Because then the police have an excuse to pull over anyone they want to. This is also often used a source of fine revenue because as long as they don't do so much enforcement that people actually comply with the law, they can periodically park a patrol car on the side of the road and "efficiently" hand out one ticket after another.
Which is the problem with automated enforcement. If people were consistently fined then you would get compliance rather than widespread violations. At which point people might object more strongly to the speed limits not being set by the book. But regardless of which way that comes out, it causes you to lose the fine revenue and the pretext to stop anyone, since you stop having both of those if you do either of the things that results in most people being in compliance with the law.
As someone from the UK, all these points seem ridiculous to me, are they really valid elsewhere?
I get that point 1 is extremely valid in a place like the US where everyone can have a gun.
Do other countries not enforce fines?
In the UK you can have your car confiscated on the spot if the automated number plate recognition in a patrol car flags you don't have insurance. Fines are enforced, but escalating that to non-payment of fines seems like something they could do (people might complain, but only the ones not paying their fines!)
Re point (1), it's definitely not just guns. In the US:
- Suppose a vehicle chooses not to stop. What's the safest way to complete the stop? High-speed chases are dangerous. The eventual spike trap or pushing the tail end of the car or whatnot is dangerous. The fleeing person won't be in a sound state of mind for safe driving even if not followed. Toss in a little human error like forgetting to turn your lights and sirens on, and these are predictably extremely dangerous. Just under 1% end in a fatality.
- There's an elevated risk of wrecks, side-swipes, and whatnot by virtue of being on the side of the road, often in dangerous areas.
- Most assaults on police officers don't involve guns. There are something like 7-8k assaults on officers due to traffic stops annually, despite knowing they carry guns. A little over a hundred of those result in serious injury to the officer, most of which don't use guns in the process.
- Don't forget injury to the passengers. 100k/yr are injured by the police at a traffic stop. Again, that's usually without guns. And why wouldn't they be? The police have nearly a carte blanche, and they're being placed into an environment where they know they're at risk, with perceived risk being higher than actual risk.
You mention the UK, so how do they fare? They have 100x fewer traffic stops, so I'll scale up the numbers accordingly. In particular, that means they have 2.5x officers injured just from vehicles being rammed during stops than the US has assaults on officers in total. That's suggestive of gun violence not being the entire story regarding traffic stop safety.
Mind you, that's not quite apples to apples. The UK has 5x fewer people and 2-3x fewer miles driven per person per year, suggesting we're missing another factor of 5-10 when trying to figure out why the US has more traffic stops, and my first guess would be that the UK police have a selection bias toward more serious offenses, so the higher safety rates of the US police are at least in part due to pulling over a higher share of less violent individuals.
Nevertheless, it's not just gun violence. Traffic stops are dangerous elsewhere too. (not to be interpreted as a comment on gun policy, rather that it's annoying to see important conversations like consequences of traffic stop safety derailed by irrelevant nationalistic swipes and jabs)
From here [0], extrapolating based on relative rates of traffic stops vs other police-initiated contact. An estimated 32k of those required hospitalization.
How much of the violence you list is because of warrant enforcement via 'traffic stop'?
Traffic stops should be used for traffic enforcement and treated as community policing, not as the main method of hoping to stumble on things the police should have resolved via actual police work and effort.
It seems like our federal system is an obstacle. I'm in Maryland and a huge fraction of our biggest habitual traffic violators somehow get Virginia license plates.
> Do other countries not enforce fines?
Where I live (Baltimore, MD) the 10 vehicles with the most unpaid speeding tickets owe $81,000 between them. So you can push 10k in unpaid fines and remain on the road somehow.
Remove the warrant check portion of traffic stops and suddenly they become much much less risky and just normal community policing. But adding that 'the person may have a warrant and the US justice system is happy to hand down 10+ year sentences (which are basically life sentences, you aren't getting a life back after 10 years) every traffic stop by choice become much more high risk.
Policing shouldn't be done via traffic stops. Traffic stops should be done via traffic stops.
The rules and numbers are allowed to be what they are so long as mass tasteful/mild noncompliance is tolerated. The second you start robotically (electronic robots vs meat robots in uniform does not matter in this case) fining people for taking lefts on red arrows at 1am or exceeding the speed limit a bit in the base case you will see politicians pandering to voters by changing those rules such that the typical person can behave typically without any particular care to abide by them and generally not break them.
Law enforcement largely exists in the US to protect Corporate crime. Has done since it's beginnings as an institution, finding roots in the south in slave patrols, and roots in the north in protecting private property.
The cops are not now nor have they ever been an institution to protect the people, they are there to protect the Peace. What's the Peace? Largely seems to be whatever makes the rich people happy.
The police protect "property owners" and "property rights."
And this is why the homeless remain homeless.
No matter where they stand, its someone elses property, and they have little to no rights.
You can't feed yourself if you are forced to keep walking.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) held that the Constitution generally does not require the government to protect people from harm inflicted by private individuals.
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), held that a woman did not have a constitutional entitlement to police enforcement of a restraining order.
You are forced to pay taxes for service that you may/may not actually receive.
You are forced to tell the truth to people who are allowed to tell you lies.
The system is designed to protect the system, and we are just passing through it while we are alive.
This seems like a pretty abstract claim to me. What does "protect the people" mean vs "whatever makes the rich people happy"? There are laws on the books which the police enforce.
Now, I agree that the police are not your friends, and they are incentivized to find crimes when there may not really be any at times, but I disagree with the notion that they are simply the lapdogs of the wealthy. In fact, it seems like in a lot of places in California it's the law-abiding, wealthier citizens that are hassled most by the police for minor infractions, because they know they can actually extract revenue from them.
You work at a retail store. You take $100 from the till. They have you on camera. Management calls cops, and has you arrested for misdemeanor theft. You spend night in jail.
You work in retail store. You log in at 9am. And your manager was told to cut payroll and edits your (and 9 other peoples) timecards to the tune of $1000. You catch this. Management refuses to correct it and/or punish the manager. Nobody is arrested. You're told this is a civil issue.
Wage theft is larger than all other theft combined, but treated as a civil, not criminal matter. I wonder why.
You secured your expensive road bike ($2000) cause its your primary transportation. You put a gps tag on it, so if its ever stolen, you can make the appropriate report and retrieval. The lock was cut, and the bike taken. Its at a nearby house. You report it. Cops wont take report and wont get the stolen property. You even have definite proof. They dont care, and they dont have to.
Target (retailer) has a policy to let people steal from them, and to do facial recognition until a thief surpasses the statutory felony limit (usually $1000). THEY send a report to the police, which isnt ignored, and the police go do the corporates' dirty work and arrest the alleged perpetrator.
During the 1980's there was well known pushes (by Biden etm) to criminalize cocaine severely. But the cocaine they punished wasnt the white powder. That was used predominantly by executives. Instead, the heavy criminalization focused on crack cocaine, which was used predominantly by the lower (poor, black) people. Punishments were upwards of 10x disparity against the poor classes.
The misattributed quote "If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class" (to Final Fantasy Tactics, not true attribution), is something we see all the time.
Anthropic - mass for-profit copyright fraud against the public? Fine.
All insurance - if you lie? Insurance fraud. If they lie, get rekt and die or something.
Banks - guilty of mass laundering and made $50B? Oh, $2B fine. $48B profit. If a human did that, theyd go to jail for decades.
These disparities exist everywhere in "law". Law only defends elite, wealthy, donor class, and well known monied local elites. It almost never defends the average wronged citizen.
Almost every middle/lower class ill disappears if you eliminate wage theft and close the tax loopholes that wealthy people take advantage of. They're massive distortions of the economic machinery, and no one should be surprised that things don't make sense even when circumstances are "normal".
> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works, if it's abused, the system isn't locked down enough or that one person circumvented the procedure. They completely fail to understand that there exists people to whom you cannot grant access and screening people in advance probably impossible. Some cop checks all the boxes, gets access to databases, then their partner leaves them and they are now no longer safe to grant access.
I don’t think it’s naïveté. I think it’s an acceptable byproduct to them. It’s collateral damage in their war on ??? crime? insecurity? or in their lobby kickbacks.
Good point. A lot of politicians are in fact in favor of (or at least indifferent towards) increased state surveillance for the sake of asserting the state’s power over the working public.
Politicians want a strong law enforcement that protects the status quo of an upper class who has impunity regarding the law to the point where they can host a sex trafficking ring on a private island.
Working people used to have vandalism and sabotage as a tactic when the state and capital wrought the working public this way, but with the modern surveillance state this tactic has been completely neutralized. This is the world that politicians want.
Exactly my thought. It is so naive to think that this is not going better than planned. Imagine having dozens, if not hundreds of crimes, and still get away of all of them because you got a new job.
IANAL but the warrant part of this will probably not be what will get them. Unauthorized access for the husband and conspiring on the part of the wife seems like the logical path.
Using third party systems like Flock for warrantless police work has not been fully tested in courts yet. With the current SCOTUS, I fully expect them to find it constitutional somehow if it lands there.
> The US might be different, I doubt it, but society is getting increasingly SAFE, there is less and less need for these tools.
Crime rates could be going up, that still wouldn't justify broad, warrantless spying on the public. We have rights and they aren't conditional on crime rates.
I wouldn't offer bad policing and bad prosecution the benefit of "shouldn't." They can attempt to enforce the way they want, our rights still supersede crime rates and fear.
> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works, if it's abused, the system isn't locked down enough or that one person circumvented the procedure.
That's being charitable. Complicit is far more likely, any system like that plays to benefit of the ruling party as you can use it to suppress the people that would vote you out.
We live in a world where a guy had complete access to the entire CIA then NSA's illegal infrastructure. And did walk away with all the documents. Not like anyone cares to protect citizen.
LEOs being a certain type of people is a big part of the problem. Compare to corporate IT, who have huge surveillance powers within their companies, but virtually none of them use it beyond their actual job duties.
I suspect it's human nature, earlier today I was reading about how some hospital staff had been fired [in the UK] for looking up details of patients they shouldn't have been involved with.
They should have known better, but despite constant training people just seem unable to help themselves.
Hospital staff have a certain reputation too. I've even heard nursing career being described as the female counterpart of police career, in that both of them attract the exact same type of person for the exact same reason (having people's lives in their hands). Can't say from my own experience if it's true or not, but I heard it often enough that I'm not terribly surprised.
Time after time I feel like this is the Luddite path.
Law enforcement can already do incredibly privacy-invading things, and we’re ok with it. House searches (with a warrant), arrests (with probable cause), etc. It’s tightly controlled and can’t be used on a whim.
I feel technology should absolutely be a part of policing, and also tightly controlled, just as these other powers are.
As a general rule, every policy and system should be designed with the worst possible user in mind.
- German address registers with religious affiliation were a good idea until the Nazis came to power.
- Pegasus spyware was developed and sold to governments to fight terrorism and serious crime — until it was used to spy on journalists, human rights activists and political opponents, including in authoritarian states.
- Rwandan identity cards listed ethnicity for administrative purposes — until militias used them to identify and execute Tutsis at roadblocks during the 1994 genocide.
Bottom line: Even if you trust the current administration (do you?), are you sure you want 5o give that power to all future ones?
There was a time in the US I really thought we were different. I genuinely didn’t fear our government. I didn’t think the types of people that did such atrocities existed in numbers and that they’d immediately be removed once it was determined they snuck into office.
Now I fully believe it can happen here and that those people are in office now and that a non-trivial percentage of the US public would be Ok with those atrocities happening in the US.
We have really turned into the opening act of a terrible dystopian movie.
You're assuming that politicians aren't aligned with mass surveillance of the populous to the point that they don't care whether allowing it to be in the hands of those that will abuse it is granted.
It’s such a shame that media (social and traditional) really plays up loss aversion. My local news is basically fear mongering. My local social media page is filled with people who have nothing better to do with their time than complain about all of the negative stuff happening in this town. They take every isolated incident and project it as some major pattern. It’s really sad.
To some extend I'd argue that even true crime shows are complicit. Hour long "documentaries" about obscure murders 40 years in a place you're not entirely sure exists. The streaming services just keeps digging deeper and deeper for anything that could lure in viewers, covering crimes that you wouldn't have known of 20 years ago.
My local news just did a whole special program on high profile plane issues/crashes. Modern ones, like over the last few years. I saw an ad for it yesterday I was just so grossed out by the flagrant fear mongering. Pieces like that have real world consequences.
They aren’t doing hard hitting journalism exposing negligence, they are making people terrified of planes. They’re stressing people out about something that is not reasonably within their control AND it’s not a real risk for us all. The numbers don’t support scaring people over this.
The purge movies are interesting to me. They came out when I was already and adult, so I missed the cultural moment. If you watch the movies, the plot is patently stupid (if not emotionally gripping) -- so stupid, that I was really surprised to find out how much they resonated with people. Governments don't benefit from violence, and normal everyday people wouldn't want to be violent one day year. Most violent people are regularly violent; they beat their girlfriends for years, and finally kill one of them. They have a long, long rap sheet or an active warrant while they fight the police after being pulled over. etc. Further, general mass violence is extremely destabilizing to governments because most people abhor it, and a government that cannot prevent mass violence is a government with no validity.
The idea that a movie could get so many basic things so badly wrong, that it could float a scenario that made zero sense, but still gain such cultural traction was one of the first times I felt old. It's speaking to a youth with crazy and new ideas. They're ready to make their own grand and terrible mistakes, which a future youth will one day hate them for.
I feel like maybe you missed the point? The concept of the Purge movies is the government is using the Purge as a smoke screen to eliminate the people it considers undesirable. It's supposed to be like Kristallnacht with plausible deniability.
What I think everdrive is saying is that for it to be a smokescreen, there needs to be smoke: if it was only the government participating in the Purge to eliminate undesireables, it'd be extremely obvious and rallied against. But it's not, regular people are engaging with it in droves, which is what they believe to be the unrealistic part.
But most people don't participate, they just hunker down and wait it out. It's a small minority who are aligned with the government who do most of it. The prequel makes this very clear, where the government sent masked mercenaries to participate in the test purge to give them the results they wanted. The movies aren't high art or anything, but their message is pretty clear that they think the average person wouldn't be violent.
You need to consider that what regular people consider normal depends on little more then social consensus. Once you recognize this, the unrealistic part does not sound as unrealistic.
Rally round the flag accounts for "violence done by others against us" and not "random violence against ourselves" so I think it's completely meaningless in the case of this conversation.
With regard to human sacrifice, how much violence have you been involved in? Maybe a few fist fights in middle school or high school? Do you know anyone who has committed real violence? I'll bet you don't. It's exceedingly rare these days compared to historical norms. People might disagree on why its become so rare, but the general rarity is a fact. Even for areas with high violent crime, there is usually a small minority of violent re-offenders, rather than a large majority of people committing random violence.
Does years of domestic violence count? What about shootings I've witnessed but wasn't a part of? There's a school nearby and kids carry guns around here.
> Do you know anyone who has committed real violence?
I don't hang out with the violent types in the first place, so the question makes no sense.
>Does years of domestic violence count? What about shootings I've witnessed but wasn't a part of? There's a school nearby and kids carry guns around here.
No, I mean, per capita, how many people as compared to the number of people you know total, have perpetrated violence.
>I don't hang out with the violent types in the first place, so the question makes no sense.
But if violence were ubiquitous, you wouldn't be able to avoid it. I don't know any violent people either. My point is just that most people (per capita) do not commit violence most of the time. The idea that everyone's just chomping at the bit to perpetrate violence is at odds with reality.
most people's exposure to philosophical concepts is through narrative abstraction, you may be an exception but if you want to interact with laypeople this is inevitably going to be your experience.
The Purge was a terrible movie in so many ways but its message is still extremely resonant. It's also about as subtle as a brick wall, yet I'm afraid that it might have been still a tad too subtle.
I think calling them ideologues is overly generous for most American politicians. They're vehicles for influence via bribery (which is usually done in a technically legal fashion).
> (which is usually done in a technically legal fashion)
Alas, the Roberts court effectively ruled that it's not really a bribe if it falls short of the third party saying they want the government official to vote/rule a particular way for a particular price, the government official does as asked, and he/she sends the third party a written invoice for services rendered.
Even should that happen, I'm pretty sure Justice Thomas would find the larger offense is that the invoice failed to include sales tax.
Remember our Supreme Court's recent bribery scandal wasn't that a number of justices were accepting gifts but rather that they hasn't disclosed them properly. We're perfectly OK with third parties bribing the judges on our highest court so long as the judges fill out the correct paperwork.
Im all for fighting for digital privacy rights. But referencing the purge with a smile begs the question, are you yearning for a purge-like scenario? Some fantastical idea that you’ll be the main character in an anarchic chaos?
People will need to come together and fix the system.
If a definite majority wants to do so, the system will change. Until then the oligarchs will keep playing one side againts the other, as can currently be seen with Trump amplifying the hate in the population, in order for his cronies to steal more money, start more wars and so forth. He will lose the upcoming elections but he will continue to worship theft and destruction.
Have you considered the possibility that the politicians know this, and also don’t care?
I think you’re misunderstanding that they think are part of the populace. They do not. They do not think they’re at your level. That’s why they got in the politics. That’s why they’ve been successful at it.
Go spend some time around with police higher ups if you don’t think that they also believe that they’re a class of nobility.
The constitution bars titles of nobility, so to achieve the status of nobility, you print the title you want on a business card, and attend group meetings once a week, where your perceived status and nobility are reinforced by an institutional echo chamber that will dispose of you in a heartbeat to save itself.
You don’t need to wonder what they are thinking. The Palantir CEO put out a manifesto that spells it out pretty explicitly. He literally says, in plain English, more surveillance on the underclass, less scrutiny on the owning class. This is the prevailing ideology among those in power.
> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works
They understand exactly how people work. You are naive for thinking that they aren't aware of this. Their entire job is essentially a popularity contest in which they promise you things, that they almost never deliver on.
Like they deliberately want a system that can be abused, or that they actually know that it can and will be abused, but not voting for it would make them appear soft on crime?
Honestly I think the majority aren't smart enough to do the cost benefit analysis of these system, so they just ignore the warning.
There are a significant number of software developers / computer programmers who think they are smarter than everyone else because they confuse giving a shit about something with the ability to understand it.
If (and that is a big if) you did indeed ask people this question, you get that answer because they are confused about why you have asked it. Not that they don't understand how to answer the hypothetical.
What are you going to ask them next? What is heavier, 1 tonne of bricks or feathers? It's old-school boy humour. It doesn't prove anything other than the maturity level of the person asking it.
Also I severely doubt you did this, as it was a meme that was floating around online last year for about two weeks because some influencers popularised it.
Bro, have you considered the following possibility:
I didn't literally ask people "How would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast?", but rather questions that naturally followed the conversation that at the same time were either hypotheticals, or some adjacent ideas that require similar shift of perspective. The "How would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast?" stands as a symbol of a general idea.
Your comment is prime example of grown-ass adults having reading comprehension of GPT-1, especially that you missed the word "like", which explicitly points that the following example isn't to be taken literally, but rather metaphorically.
I can already imagine you in a conversation going like:
- It hit me like a bolt from the blue!
- But a bolt from the blue did not hit you, did it?
I cannot believe I need to explain this shit to you.
> Bro, have you considered the following possibility:
> I didn't literally ask people "How would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast?" but rather questions that naturally followed the conversation that at the same time were either hypotheticals or some adjacent ideas that require a similar shift of perspective. The "How would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast?" stands as a symbol of a general idea.
Sure, of course, and I still don't believe you.
I had also considered the possibility that you would further lie about it and pivot your explanation when directly challenged. If you don't want people to think you are fabricating things, I suggest you don't reference a worn-out trend that was tiresome mere days after it first spread.
Even if I accepted that what you said is true (which I find very hard to believe), many people generally just don't like being asked hypotheticals because they think they are being tricked in an effort to embarrass them, so they often don't bother engaging further.
> Your comment is prime example of grown-ass adults having reading comprehension of GPT-1, especially that you missed the word "like", which explicitly points that the following example isn't to be taken literally, but rather metaphorically.
I didn't miss the word "like" at all. Putting "like" in a sentence isn't a get out of jail free card, especially when I recognise what I believe to be an obvious lie.
People were asking this stupid hypothetical on Discord/Reddit, etc., for what felt like several months last year. People when off the internet typically don't bother engaging in this behaviour. So I just don't believe you, even if the hypothetical was technically a bit different, e.g., "How would you feel if you lost your bag on the bus this morning?"
> Like they deliberately want a system that can be abused, or that they actually know that it can and will be abused, but not voting for it would make them appear soft on crime?
They don't care either way. They do whatever they think is popular to garner support. If it was popular to bring slavery back, they would advocate for that.
> Honestly I think the majority aren't smart enough to do the cost benefit analysis of these system, so they just ignore the warning.
I honestly wonder why many of you keep on giving these people the benefit of the doubt. Please don't quote Hanlon's razor at me. There's another side of it that often isn't discussed.
Nefarious individuals know (if they can't verbalise it) that most people will assume a mistake is made rather than malice and they will routinely use this to their advantage. Anyone that is in the political space, I automatically assume malice.
Michael Corleone: "Oh, who's being naïve, Kay?"
put the cynical aside.
I would not say they are all liars. some of them sure have good hearts and want to make the world better. sometimes, they promised things they weren't sure, but they said things anyway.
<< The US might be different, I doubt it, but society is getting increasingly SAFE, there is less and less need for these tools.
Oh man, I have to assume you live in a nice little enclave and are reading old statistical reports. I have the misfortune of sometimes having to travel into the city. I can assure you, it is not getting safer. In fact, just last week I saw first sign of Chicago turning into Philly.
This chart is up to 2024. If you look up 2025 and 2026 data for the US you will see that it has continued to decline YoY.
Judging by your comment I assume that you have personally witnessed some criminality recently and are drawing conclusions about the entire US, if so I’m sorry you had to endure that, but that doesn’t mean that your conclusions apply to the general trend in the US as the GP was referring to.
Sure, sure, just a major metropolitan area in the midwest and not a barometer for anything at all. One would think that either stats are misleading or my population sample is wrong.
But I have no need to convince anyone. It is just weird to me that I need to explain the obvious.
:D Friend, allow me to make light of this conversation for the benefit of all.
I am sure that you are familiar with an expression of being hit by lightning indicating some relatively low chance of an event[1]. Now, imagine walking around with a rather conductive flagpole everywhere you go, do you think you would up or lower your odds ( edit: for a lightning to strike ).
Maybe it is true that I don't discuss statistics the way you do. After all, I merely apply them to real life.
But then again, I don't walk around during thunderstorm waiting to be struck.
In other words, you are wrong. Individual actions affecting chance are very much relevant to discussion about statistics.
I agree the data says that. Also weird that as long as the people responsible for statistics were replaced by new appointees the data shifted direction almost immediately.
What could have been going there?
Maybe just a coincidence. I'm sure it is just a coincidence.
For real
> Harpe accepted responsibility for sharing her credentials but argued that firing her was excessive.
> In her appeal, Harpe said her husband was a certified federal law enforcement officer and that every search was conducted for law enforcement purposes.
> “The violation occurred because I gave my husband, who is a certified law enforcement officer with the Department of Homeland Security, access to my Flock account,” Harpe wrote. “Every search he conducted was for law enforcement use only and not for personal gain.”
There seems to be a subset of law enforcement officers who fundamentally don't understand privacy, checks and balances, and responsibility. They believe they should have unrestricted access to everyone else and that they are above us all.
Firing her was not excessive, it is the bare minimum. Officers should be held to a higher standard, not lower. She and her husband should be in a jail cell.
This was also surprising to me, I'd think the firing would be automatic and then it'd be a legal case about unauthorized access of govt computers, which is generally taken pretty seriously.
You can't make the same argument with financial systems by giving someone at a different bank access to your bank just because you're both "financial professionals", and that's arguably much less sensitive data.
> There seems to be a subset of law enforcement officers who fundamentally don't understand privacy, checks and balances, and responsibility.
This is why two things should be mandatory for new officers: psychological examination and a mandatory law degree from a qualified institution. If you're enforcing the law, you need to actually know its contents and how it works. That would naturally limit the numbers and discourage people who haven't gotten over high school from using their job as a torment nexus.
Is it practical to give weapons and combat vehicles to under-qualified but readily-available individuals to enforce laws they don't understand (let alone have knowledge of) like we do now?
It's not. We just accept it as a default because it's easy to dismiss something obviously good (making sure police are mentally stable, law-aware, and held to a level of scrutiny commensurate to the job) because it may require effort.
Someone being handed a gun and told to go "keep people in line" should be held to an almost absurd standard before ever being let on the streets. That we don't already do this speaks volumes about the underdeveloped state of our civilization (despite our hubris to the contrary).
> Is it practical to give weapons and combat vehicles
I get what you mean, but with how easy it is to get a gun (especially in red states), it is practical in the sense that it seems pretty easy to do and there’s no shortage.
But should we? I agree with you, absolutely fucking not.
> I get what you mean, but with how easy it is to get a gun (especially in red states)
Have you tried? I live in Tennessee (aggressively red) and own multiple firearms. Mandatory background checks and a mandatory 3-day wait [1] are the standard. Even online transfers from an FFL require submission of an ATF registration form.
Tangential, but it's not as easy as one would think. Also, there are a shocking number of posers down here. Stars and bars and "don't tread on me" but not a lot of commitment to "the mission." There are far more grown men driving lifted trucks with glow lights on them than serious threats.
Just in one of the super blue states. My buddy lives in Texas, he’s got a couple of guns and says is easy to get.
> There are far more grown men driving lifted trucks with glow lights on them than serious threats.
The problem is these guys join ICE or act like they are, and that’s a serious threat. If you brandish Stars and Stripes / Dont Tread on Me, even if you’re a poser I’m not going to take a risk of finding out. That in itself is powerful.
Photography is one that comes into play a bit (taking photos in public places). There was a Georgia police chief who gave a press conference on the steps of a courthouse having just lost a civil rights case: his officers arrested a photographer and just kept doubling down. His conference had this marquee quote: "We cannot expect our police officers to be constitutional lawyers or know every minute detail".
"We can arrest you even though we're not really sure if you actually broke a law. You, on the other hand, are expected to know the law, and ignorance is not considered an excuse."
> privacy, checks and balances, and responsibility
In their eyes it goes like this:
Privacy:- why do you need it if you have nothing to hide?
Checks and balances:- you are the balance and I’m here to check you
Responsibility:- it is my responsibility to check you
I want to say I’m being sarcastic but I don’t know anymore. Arguably their motivation is to hunt and jail people, so it feels like “personal gain” on the fringes. No job is so far removed that it’s devoid of personal gain.
When Batman created his sonar system we cheered because he needed it to fight "the bad guy". It took Alfred to explain this was too much. "The bad guy" has been used for hundreds of years to escuse simple solutions under the premise that we're "the good guys".
>When Batman created his sonar system we cheered because he needed it to fight "the bad guy".
And because it was fiction, and we had suspended our disbelief to enjoy a vision of a different world with guys that are inherently trustworthy, and because there was a confirmed terrorist plot to commit mass murder that literally could only be thwarted with this move.
Don't conflate temporary acceptance of a premise with real-world values, that's like being the guy that responds to the trolley problem with "I would simply remove the one person from the track, saving everyone and refusing to engage with this conversation."
> There seems to be a subset of law enforcement officers who fundamentally don't understand privacy, checks and balances, and responsibility. They believe they should have unrestricted access to everyone else and that they are above us all.
A large part of law enforcement training is specifically to instill and reinforce this belief. They are officers, you are civilians. You are not the same (in their eyes). They are the thin blue line keeping society from crumbling into anarchy (or socialism). Hell, when push comes to shove, they will close ranks and throw firefighters and paramedics under the bus (arrested on the scene of car accidents for insufficiently respecting the cops "authority"), ER staff (ER nurses arrested for refusing a warrantless blood draw when the cops are desperate to diffuse blame from their off-duty drunk fellow officer who blew a red light and fatally t-boned another car), and so on and so on.
It's almost never like that. Usually some team collaborates with some other team and sets something up with approval from departments A, B, and C with director X signing off. There's rarely one person you can point to. Also, wait a year and all those As, Bs, Cs, and Xs have switched to different roles or don't exist.
Is crazy that production databases at places I've worked are often harder to access than this. So much stuff they do with Flock access I would be fired for if I tried it with even vaguely sensitive customer data.
The dichotomy of our current age. On one hand, all knowing super thinking machines are just around the corner. Meanwhile, this. Almost seems like a feature and not a bug.
What's crazier is that it's basic username/password auth. The officer in this here article literally shared her creds with her husband like a sticky note. That's a METEORIC security risk. Something like Flock should just be OAuth access tokens (no refreshers). Shoot, something like Flock shouldn't even _have_ its own auth provider.
dystopia
/dɪs'toʊpiə/
noun
A vision of a future that is a corrupted (usually beyond recognition) utopian society.
A miserable, dysfunctional state or society that has a very poor standard of living.
(medicine) Anatomical tissue that is not found in its usual place.
Neither dys- nor -topia relates to time. One can apply dystopia in the long time ago in a distant galaxy setup, in some future, in some alternative dimension, or in present time.
Eu- is a classic antonym morph for dys-, yes, and though rendered as u- is less usual it's still the same morpheme that one find in euphoria or euphony.
Both are classically used to name fiction places, starting with Thomas More eponymous book.
That said, neither eu- nor dys- are related to chronology or imaginative consideration on themselves, only about how desirable or awful the prefixed root is assessed to be in the judged situation.
it seems everyone in this thread is focusing on the wrong issue; the problem was not that "sign-in procedures are too lax", it's that these individuals have access, period - or that the system exists in the first place.
People understand that. I think Flock needs to be dismantled but I'm also a bit shocked (as much as one can be these days) that the login procedures are just a username and password from anywhere. Netflix has stronger access controls.
Myriad ways, pretty standard on most corporate networks, to restrict access to corporate devices. I cannot access any of my client's resources, including Web apps, without their laptop.
Simple method is IP whitelisting, easy in some ways painful to keep updated. Vpn is another easy option. But then you can have client side certs, hardware tokens, and endpoint security mechanisms which are probably more robust. Either way, it's not a weird unique thing, it's pretty ubiquitous :)
I have to be logged in to azure vpn to access the development environment of the web application I work on because heavens forbid if our users stumble upon a non-production version of the application on the Internet and yet these people just put everything out there for everyone to see. At least I think it should require a CAC card or a PIV card to access sensitive data like this, shutting down immediately if the card presence is not detected somehow.
I think the idea of Flock (and all modern software, pretty much) is not just to offer a service, but to offer it as dirt-cheap and lazily as possible with the intent of creating reasonable margins for a product that otherwise shouldn't even be profitable in the first place.
Doing things, "correctly" is sort of no longer the place of software. The idea is to build solutions that are comprised of toothpicks and sticky tacky so you can force out whatever the alternative was and make money for the shareholders at the same time.
Probably the department's fault for not using (presumably) Entra Conditional Access to restrict SSO to corporate devices / corporate subnets.
This is why if you're building a product, please give SSO for free (see sso.tax) - you shift responsibility, requirements and posture to the tenant's IdP.
Unfortunately that will make you a lot less money. The whole premise of the sso.tax seems based on that it's not intentional.
It is intentional and deliberate price discrimination to charge enterprises more. One example: why do you think enterprises don't just stack consumer/teams Codex or Claude subs with significant subsidies; given that all enterprise seats are API/PAYG now? SSO/IdP + ability to opt out of training globally
SSO is a core security feature, not a value add. I do not mind charging extra for say SCIM or advanced RBAC. I have a different view to business than most SaaS apps, and feel when you bring value and delight to the customer, they take you as a trustworthy partner and want to grow with you. Trust is very important and I feel so bitter paying Bitwarden, Adobe, and all the other enshittified stacks that 30-100% uplift on the base plan to get SSO. I also love my homelab stuff and it's a sour taste when I need to set up some system with local auth. yeah, maybe some nerd's A/B test show charging SSO makes more money, that's a shame and I think long term it's simply harmful (and probably less profitable due to my comment on stickyness and delighting customers being good business sense).
Only a tech nerd would think the solution to massive overreach by government organizations and illegal use of mass surveillance tools is more technology from one of the participating technology companies...
In addition to the other things mentioned, some very sensitive applications in my organization must be run from a virtual desktop, which is itself must be run from a locked down corporate laptop.
We typically use VPC Endpoint Services or equivalent for enterprise customers, ie connect our private VPC with their private VPC. Pretty much the best way to do this, no VPNs to manage or IP whitelists to maintain and all traffic is local to the cloud provider.
I can’t run any web apps from my employer unless I’m on one of their computers. Tokens are only generated on corporate systems. IP access only allowed from corporate VPN.
Although I would agree on some days depending on my mood, if you've worked enough places you would know just as well as I do that this isn't limited to public sector software...
I think "the authorities" don't care and that they seem to be able to force these systems on folks anyhow, and that the if->then syllogism you propose doesn't work.
The people committing these kinds of crimes don't seem to understand them as crimes and believe they will not and should not be punished. Further, the people who those folks report to seem to feel the same way.
I see them as crimes.
I am, however, ambivalent about what punishment should look like because the entirety of the carcerial system in the US (and the so-called immigration systesm) are so rotten to their cores that I just give up on them. It doesn't matter -what- I think because, as this kind of event shows, we do not in fact live in a system that represents me in any meaningful sense.
That's bad, and and it's not local to me. After all "those who make peaceful change impossible..." and such.
But I don't agree that they won't get the politically orthodox folks in the US to accept these systems; they seem to already have accepted them.
Unfortunately the darker reason is that the authorities / ruling class know that they don't need the public to accept these things. Americans will allow basically any abuse.
Now I'm not saying the Americans should look to France for inspiration, ...
In Chatrie v. United States (June 2026) the SCOTUS ruled that individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their digital location history and that geofence warrants constitute a search under the 4th Amendment. It's only a matter of time until a similar case involving Flock comes before them and they rule that a search of the Flock database constitutes a search under the 4th Amendment and that every single search requires a specific warrant.
I think there have been a positive number of cases gone in favor of digital privacy recently. This being one of them. It’s unfortunate, but it’ll just take time for these manners to go through the courts.
I’m quite naive regarding the details of the legal system, wonder why we can’t expedite certain cases when a SCOTUS precedent has been established, or some form of expedited legal notice. We shouldn’t have to wait for a perfect case of a flock violation, then wait for someone to be brave enough to spend the money (or if pro bono just their time/reputation) to file a case and go through the system for the next x years
It's hope that Chatrie v. US automatically implies Flock searches require a warrant, but this is definitely not guaranteed - SCOTUS could easily go either way on this. For example, in his concurrence with the decision, Gorsuch relied on property rights, namely that Chatrie's agreement with Google regarding location history made this a warrant-required search. Obviously that doesn't apply in Flock's case.
SCOTUS has held for a long time that people don't have an expectation of privacy when visible in public. Digital recording and powerful search features certainly change the calculus on that, but there is a fundamental difference between a location tracked by a cellphone you purchased and own vs. just driving around where anyone can read your license plate.
> There is a fundamental difference between a location tracked by a cellphone you purchased and own vs. just driving around where anyone can read your license plate
I heavily disagree with the sentiment that modern 'ALPRs' are the same as following around an individual in public. No police officer, sheriff, state trooper, etc. is able to follow an individual across the entire country and catalog their every move 24/7. They have jurisdictions they're allowed to operate in. Additionally, the level of tracking these cameras provide (via their accompanying software) is nearly on par with placing a GPS tracker on a vehicle (which requires a warrant btw), and they're tracking every vehicle that passes, not just vehicles involved in a crime. Our travel history is protected by the 4th amendment because of the intimate details it can reveal about an individual's life. That is ultimately why Chatrie v. US was decided, not because of the specific technology utilized. It's the same case for Carpenter v. US and US v. Jones; both of which were instrumental in deciding the outcome of Chatrie.
I encourage people to go read the opinions of the justices that decided these cases. For example Justice Kegan had this to say in Chatrie v. US [1]:
> The Court began its analysis by reviewing what it had said about a different way of tracking “physical location and movements”: the use of a GPS device to monitor a vehicle. In United States v. Jones, five Justices had agreed that such tracking counts as a Fourth Amendment search because “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.” That made sense, the Carpenter Court thought, even though the movements occurred in public. Prior to the digital age, pursuing a suspect “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” As a result, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car.” A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government.
FWIW, I totally agree with you, that's why I wrote "Digital recording and powerful search features certainly change the calculus".
But my point was just that it's absolutely not a fait accompli given the current makeup of SCOTUS. Gorsuch' rationale doesn't fit within Kagan's at all and is wholly dependent on the private relationship between Google and the consumer, so that brings it to 5-4, and I could easily see Roberts or Kavanagh (who voted with the majority in Chatrie) finding enough differences between the circumstances in Chatrie compared to Flock to change their vote.
Police regularly slaughter those they swore to "protect and serve" and since they have qualified immunity nothing can ever happen to them. The purpose of a system is what it does.
Who do you expect to charge the woman with a crime: the local prosecutors who are basically cop-adjacent, Georgia's attorney general who supports the lawless ICE, or a federal prosecutor working under the Trump administration?
I mean, maybe you'd like to do something about it via a civil lawsuit, at which point you ought to acquaint yourself with something called "qualified immunity."
And a great big poisoned tree for anything that comes from the data. But it’s not like the Americans have been following the rules when deporting people anyways.
That rule only applies in courtrooms. As ICE doesn't really do courtrooms, the rule is moot. (Not a joke. ICE moves prisoners around so quickly specifically to avoid dealing with courtrooms.)
The regime has figured out that the people don’t like certain things, but not nearly enough to do anything uncomfortable about them. Now they’re calibrating on the best ways to do things without stirring the people up too much. Apparently if you make gas cost too much that’s where Americans draw the line. And who says capitalism doesn’t work!
You can make gas cost too much if your media bubble says it's someone else's fault. Their target audience is people who only watch Fox News, and they will never connect the gas prices to the president unless he's a democrat.
I also do not understand how this doesn't break stuff like CFAA.
If I worked at a company and gave my work login credentials to a friend and that friend used it to access my work's network then I'm pretty sure I'd go to jail.
Most of the federal government predates the current administration. They really do want to follow the law. It's their job, not an ideology.
ICE is the President's personal force, screened for their loyalty to him. They have no interest in the law. The rest of the government doesn't like them any better than you do.
Voting data says there are large portions of the population loyal to Trump with no interest in the law, and even larger portions in the law enforcement agencies. If I was working in those departments, I would assume at least 2/3 (the portion of the general population fine with Trump's behavior) is not going to be on my side.
Its funny how nobody was making this argument when it was Obama ignoring international law to launch drone strikes on weddings and 18 yr old American citizens.
I know leftists were criticizing Obama for drone strikes. If the Republicans weren't criticizing Obama for murdering civilians, it's because they agreed with it. They attacked him on pretty much everything else, after all.
Ohh, your right! I forgot that the torture Obama was overseeing in Guantanamo was allowed by the constitution! He never violated anybody's rights, or broke any national laws!
Like I said, people only cry foul when its not 'their guy' disregarding the law and constitution. America has always been like this, and its only getting worse as both sides become more neurotic.
I guess the way I'd put it is that we've been increasingly allowing and not punishing privacy breaches and government/authorities overstepping and after 20+ years of boiling the frog the latest, most extreme variant has pretty much pushed it over the edge of dystopian.
So it's not all Trump, but his administration has definitely pushed the lack of accountability to new heights and combining it with the new wave of surveillance tech with limited oversight or legislation it's all just become ingrained with nobody to fight it.
There are probably systems that even if they should exist (debatable for some), they should do so only in secured facilities that the government worker must badge into physically to access.
This would at least reduce some of the avenues for abuse.
Weird that Flock (YC17 [1]) is clearly being used for more than license plate reading, and is built to do more than that, and is actively abused for that without any repercussions, and we point at the officers misusing it rather than the company supplying it?
The old "if we don't do it, someone else will" doesn't apply if you're the only person evil enough to run Flock.
As long as people fall for scare tactics and don’t actually reason to think and demand proper solutions from politicians, these will continue. From a politicians perspective, there is no roi in fixing problems, the damn people will just want more. Instead, just scare them and pit one group against the other and that is reusable and scales very well. That’s what we have today.
Wonder how many low level Lowes or Home Depot asset protection employees would also happily hand their credentials over for nationwide search access, too.
I have Home Depot employees using Flock announcements to shadow me now.
Last two visits, some guy named "Victor" shadowed me, and made it a point to call me by my first name twice.
I spend as little money at Home Depot as possible now.
The flock system is being abused by every organization across the entire country, because thats where peoples heads are at today.
2 out of 3 adults in the US are not considered "psychologically mature" by psychologists.
Nation of adult children + spying and tracking technology ... of course its being abused. The only question is how much, and Flock isn't going to tell us the truth of it, ever, because they dont track abuse, they track victims.
Home Depot was also one of the major backers of Cop City, sitting on the Atlanta Police Foundation [0] and pushing through a wholly undemocratic construction of a training facility [1] that resulted in the razing of the fourth largest remaining greenspace [2] in Atlanta so the cops could practice their swatting techniques.
Home Depot and Lowes are the 2 largest US home store ( construction materials, appliances, etc ) retail chains in the US.
They have Flock cameras installed on mobile trailers, parked in their parking lots. The cameras track your vehicle as you are parking, and issue alerts for anyone that has been flagged in the database.
In my case, I have classmates from school, who have friends at the local county EMS operations center, who are using the system to stalk me.
Just 3 days ago, I tried to have a quiet conversation with my girlfriend at a little park, in a small neighborhood. Less than 10 minutes after arriving, a car with 4 or 5 people showed up, positioned themselves within ear shot, and then began making fun of us in order to prevent us from thinking and discussing issues clearly. This event by itself seems innocent and random, except, it happens like clockwork, in multiple locations, and its an established pattern in my life, making it decidedly non-random. The "actors" think of it as street theatre, the police think of it as "policing", and what you get as the target is pure psychological hell.
When a victim begins to try and explain verbally what is happening to them, they relive the trauma of the events that have been "staged" and people assume the victim is mentally unstable. It is the same strategy as kicking a dog in the head repeatedly, until it becomes an agry mad dog, and then putting it down because it was dangerous. Create the problem, then appear to solve it.
What may have started out as a joke now has them guilty of human trafficking, so they have adopted a strategy of "running me out of town" via harrassment.
They know if they emotionally destablise people, they will voluntarily leave or self destruct via drugs, stress, acting out, etc.
This is what "community policing" now means.
There are any number of videos on youtube of people having meltdowns, claiming they are being 'gangstalked', etc. and they seem very disturbed. This is why this works. They disturb you, then dismiss any allegations as you being disturbed.
Watch the movie "Closetland" for how psychological abuse works.
It sounds like you have a good basis for some lawsuits (and criminal charges if you can convince someone), hopefully at least one of which will be financially worth it. Of course you need to gather good evidence first. Consult with a lawyer first.
There is an entire "targetted individual" community on the internet.
You can tell that something has happened to them, but its ephemeral, because its psychological, and what do all of us do when we don't understand someone ?
We dismiss them. We other them. We isolate them. We walk away.
Not as a group decision, but the outcome of our collective individual decisions.
Abuse someone long enough, psychologically, and if they are not educated and self-aware, their behavior becomes erratic and they lose all social support.
It's not unlike veterans of a war, who understand what each other went through, when the public doesn't.
The "targeted individual" community is mostly people with paranoid delusions. That might not be the right medical term - I don't intend to diagnose people, just to describe what they are experiencing.
Unfortunately, our society is really good about detecting people who are "acting weird" - and some people decide to harass or bully the weird ones. Feeling like you are being stalked makes it very difficult to act "normally" in all circumstances, which increases the odds on any subsequent outing that somebody will notice and act toward you in a way that's undesirable.
It still sucks, what is happening to these people. But it's not a coordinated malicious campaign against them in particular. It's like you say - the outcome of our collective individual decisions. For most of them, there never was any "targeting."
> The "targeted individual" community is mostly people with paranoid delusions.
How did you reach this conclusion ?
> Unfortunately, our society is really good about detecting people who are "acting weird"
Yes, and I can cause you to act wierd, by projecting a false reality onto you.
Alot of what happened to me, happened in the bar my classmate worked at. We were "supposed to be working on music" together, but that was just his cover story. I would go to the bar where he works to talk to him about our project, and he would text his friends/actors to come and act out scripts with me, and in front of me. He controlled the narrative this way. Afterwards, I would reflect upon the events, and how I felt about it.
Just as one example, he had a woman pretend to be interested in me. Then, after investing time in talking to her, taking her to dinner, etc. she publicly humiliated me in the bar. The goal is emotional destablization.
Make you happy, pull the rug, make you sad.
One of the people in charge of county EMS operations aka camera monitoring, happens to be a female, and the bartender had her sit next to me and pretend to be interested in me as well on another occasion. I found her employment info later using google searches to connect the dots.
The terms for people who behave this way are "malignant narcissists" and the tactic is "intermitent reinforcement."
Sounds like he was trying to get you a date and it didn't work out.
Sincerely, you should probably get back in touch with a medical professional you trust. Maybe I'm reading this situation all wrong, and you really do have dozens of unpaid "actors" spending their lives harassing you for no gain. But probably not.
.. scarcity of objects creates a competitive environment. And since we imitate each other, we have this herd mentality of imitating each other in our desires. This inevitably, ineluctibly gives rise to competition which easily deteriorates and devolves into violence.
Society develops the scapegoat mechanism to redirect violence in ways that are less harmful to itself which in turn inspires the invention of religion to justify sacrifice is how the encyclopedia Britannica describes the situation.
Everyone gets to laugh at the sacrifice, except the sacrifice.
Comedy and tragedy are 2 sides of the same coin, and what determines if we laugh or cry, is our own personal proximity and role in the situation.
It's funny when Dick Van Dyke trips over the foot stool.
It hurts like hell when you do it.
The Jewish community was doing just as well as anyone else in the 20's. By the 30's, propaganda had convinced everyone they were the enemy. These people experienced "normal life" right up until someone decided to make them the enemy, via psychological warfare. They woke up one day with a train ticket to Auschwitz, for "work."
Many of them no doubt, were suspicious, but they were told they were 'crazy' and that 'the government wouldn't do that, the government is here to protect us.' The problem is, that government isn't a thing. Government is a group of people, and groups of people behave irrationally and violently all the time, while laughing and carrying on about how right they were to violently destroy their fellow man.
Go to a European soccer game. Just watch how the 2 sides act towards each other. The fans will attack each other, over their emotional investment in corporations that sell t-shirts.
Try convincing a religious person that God isn't real. They'll kill you to prove you wrong. The lack of evidence either way isn't a factor in their reasoning. The only thing that matters is their personal emotional investment in the idea.
As for me seeing a "medical professional" I'm going to have to schedule a consultation for myself and my girlfriend, because she's witnessed the "acting" as well, and the same bartender used these tactics to attack her brother, right after their father died. The bartender tried the same thing when my mother died. The day after she passed, I walked into the bar, and he started up a conversation saying "Noone gives a shit about some old lady dying." He wanted me to lose my shit and get angry, like my gf's brother did. I gave him no response, because I knew he was manipulating me.
When anyone can watch a youtube video on how to manipulate people, do you really think that noone is using the information to manipulate others ?
Wouldn't a "lifelong bartender" be interested in controlling and manipulating people ? Wouldn't he be an expert at it after 20 years of working in a bar ?
I'm a computer programmer. He knows this. He knows I've spent more hours interacting with computers than people, and he thought I would be an easy target. When you know the characters involved, the behavior patterns emerge.
If said bartender was a malignant narcissist, wouldnt the environment of a bar provide him with endless narcissistic supply ? He's a god in the bar. He can make anyones evening great, or he can text his friend to start a fight and get someone arrested. This is what narcissistic supply is.
"Every Manipulation Technique & How To Combat It Explained"
It was only 120 years ago Congress had to pass a law specifically prohibiting bartenders from drugging people and selling them to boat captains.
How much have people changed in 120 years, behaviorially, at the core ?
Wouldn't the same selfish psychopaths, that sold people to boat captains, still be attracted to the same bar environment, even if their tactics of fleecing people have changed ?
I just happen to have gone to school with the guy. Lucky me.
Just to be clear, they don't have access to the "full package", only the cameras on their property, right? Or is it cross referenced with vehicles flagged by others?
That's a truly horrible story. It strikes me as one that a reputable investigative journalism outlet might take up. Have you thought about contacting somewhere like ProPublica to see if they would be interested in writing about it?
That is fucking insane. I'm also separately sorry your friends are being stalked. I'd like to give a perspective here without sounding holy. Yes we have ANPR (what you'd call ALPR). There are national police databases and I am sure the cameras are very effective, but every search would require a justification of proportionality and access is not sold to the highest bidders. I think the furthest stretch of users would be the tax authorities' investigations departments. That a private company can profile citizens' movements like this is insane.
I think you may have misread. I am being stalked. My friends are not.
My "former classmates" due to some grudge, are using their friends in power, to abuse me. The two classmates spearheading it, know everyone who is anyone in this county, because one was the President of a womens organization, and the other has been a bartender downtown for 20 years.
I'm being harassed by the digital good ole boy network. This behavior isn't new, its just morphed into a sci fi dystopia.
Sorry, I did misread that. Stay safe I guess :/ I just find it bizarre this whole thing is a private company with a sales@ email the Home Depot etc can contact. I won't be political but a) unlike many countries you can elect your sheriffs, remind them who they work for, b) you have a thing coming up in a few weeks, remind your lawmakers who they work for too.
Gang stalking or group-stalking is a set of persecutory delusions in which those affected believe they are being followed, stalked, and harassed by a large number of people.
When wikipedia says its a delusion, the predators have free reign, because the victims will never be believed, because wikipedia said they were delusional.
It takes far less time, attention, and energy, to dismiss a claim like this than it does to prove it, so everyone dismisses it.
It's perfect, just like the matrix.
I'm also reminded of the Star Trek episode "I, Mudd" where they short circuit the robots brains with illogical statements that can't be resolved.
Same scenario.
You and I sit here, and make references to literary plots, to attempt to solve a problem.
Predators watch the same Star Trek episode, and say to themselves, "I'm going to start doing that to people."
I'd be happy to complete a test for you, that demonstrates im not paranoid, and merely repeating what I am observing in my life.
The Flock system has these risks built into it, no matter what its proponents claim. A person with one too many beers in them, in any downtown area, in any city, in any country, could say something to offend the wrong person. A person with access to Flock, who happens to be a police officer, who then stalks them.
Your reality is composed of what you have observed, what you have experienced, and what people tell you is real, and people tell 9 lies a day.
Your reality, some part of it, is not what you think. If you place a person in a reality that you control, and then execute a "rug pull" where you drop the veil and reveal a different reality, it causes stress, and stress kills after enough of it.
It's alright if you can't accept that this is happening to other people, but you are doing so because the idea scares you, and its not happening to you, so you reject it, and that is why it works.
Its the new digital Jim Crowe era, and US history is repleat with stories of people whos rights have been abused by others.
For every black person who was denied a seat at a diner in the 50's, there were 10 white people who love the diner and get excellent service every time.
We share a planet, and a country, while our experiences, even in the exact same place, are different.
The wealthy are fine protectors of the status quo, because it serves them. The poor have problems with the status quo, because it doesn't serve them. Same set of rules, 2 different outcomes, for 2 different groups of people.
The comment described a plausible scenario of how flock could be used in the described stalking. Instead of assuming the commenter is paranoid and delusional, we should make sure that surveillance cameras cannot be used in that way, especially given that there are actual documented cases of flock being used for stalking and no apparent safeguards to prevent it.
It can be a bit of both. There are subreddits full of people claiming to be gangstalked. Who is paying these people to follow this person around? Or they just have enough free time/no job and do it for fun?
Lets say Im your former girlfriend from school, and I have a grudge against you for normal mistakes kids make when socializing in school, and I have access to the Flock system, either directly, or through someone I've known for a long time.
Lets also add, that I have $5 million dollars in the bank, from having been born into a family of privilege, and experienced success in my professional life.
Lets also add, that I'm an unstable malignant narcissist, or covert narcissist, who extracts joy from using power to make others suffer. This isn't a made up diagnosis, this is a real behavior pattern among people in power.
Now, you are doing everything "right." You would never even think of stalking, harrassing, attacking anyone. Just because you don't have these thoughts, doesn't mean that others don't have them. They do. But you dont have a social support network, and you live paycheck to paycheck.
I can destabilize your life in any number of ways with the Flock database, because I know every store you visit, every friend you visit, every park you visit, etc. and theres nothing you can do about it.
I can send my police officer friend, into a store that you visit, like Home Depot, that has flock, and have them tell the security guy at home depot to flag you for whatever reason I care to make up. The uniform provides all the authority, even when the conversation is complete bs. The home depot guy flags you. Now, everytime you walk into any home depot, some random stranger treats you like a repeat shoplifter. They follow you, they say odd things to you. The idea that you are a criminal is "projected" onto you, by their assumption.
I can hire actors using the gig economy websites, and send them to where you are going to be to act out a script, which will cause you to respond in a manner that prevents you from thinking clearly. They will mock your clothes, your hair, etc.
After enough of these "scripted scenes" you realize everyone treats you like a criminal, worthless, useless troublemaker, and not the educated, intelligent, caring professional you are. They projected a new identity onto you.
A person who is aware of what is happening to them, and sees it clearly, has a near 0 chance of explaining it to someone who hasn't experienced it themselves. They sound crazy, because they have been intentionally destablized using the same psychological warfare tactics that get used by the military during wars.
They also begin to behave differently, in order to avoid the stress. In the home depot example, they start parking where the flock camera wont tag the car. Anyone with them asks "why are we walking a mile" and the person says "The flock system is tracking me." A perfectly rational adaptation to the environment, gets perceived as paranoia, because the stress only exists in the targets perception.
This technique works especially well on people who are seeking validation of their own identity from others. If you know who you are, and you have cemented your own identity, it doesn't work the same.
Watch some of Sam Vaknin's videos on narcissism. You'll be amazed that these people exist and enjoy destroying others, and they tend to hold positions of power. Your pain is their pleasure.
Lowes and Home Depot, two retailers of tools and home repair supplies, got Flock cameras for all their parking lots after a wave of organized thefts in multiple states. By tracking license plates, they were able to end several rings of thieves who had been stealing millions of dollars worth of goods.
But this sounds like a policing problem not a private enterprise problem. By all means let them have an ALPR reader at the parking lot egress. 'Hi 911 yes we saw this pickup truck XX1ABC steal our shit at 2359hrs this evening', not 'cool we'll play cops & robbers with highly sensitive PII and no accountability or due process'
At it's basics, it's a camera software suite like any other security software like Genetec or the open source Frigate that companies can buy. Obviously the access allowed for a private company like home depot would be limited to only their cameras but home depot could then make those cameras available to law enforcement sort of like how Fusus allows private businesses to set up their local Police department with access to their camera system through a Fusus access box just that with Flock it's built into the software and isn't a third party add-on.
Correct. Lowes and Home Depot pay for "private" Flock cameras for asset protection purposes.
They use the licence plate hotlist internally to track when "organized retail crime(tm)" shows up and get pings when "thieves" come back to the store.
Thus, any Lowes/HD asset protection employee/manager can log into Flock, and see all of the ones "owned" by their corporation (which is nationwide, and installed well beyond the confines of the store property, often covering entire shopping plazas or parks where they're located). They won't be able to see outside of those bounds, but that's still a SUPER powerful tool if you consider ~1700 Lowes and 2000 Home Depots in the US alone.
And of course, combined with "small town" mentality and "backing the blue", of course someone with a modicum of power (the mall cop AP employee) will LARP up and want to whack out with ICE/the local PD and be happy to help them if it means getting a challenge coin!
Well this slightly (but only slightly) makes this a little better. So Cory at the Home Depot cannot stalk his ex by tracking the nationwide Flock network, but _in effect_ has a mini nationwide network available to him because he can see any Home Depot/Lowes which is a huge dragnet anyways?
Explain to me where in the Constitution it has a carve out for creating an incentive for a private company to gather and collate that data, and then using tax dollars to pay for it.
Sure. The part where it says the government can't do it, and doesn't say private companies can't, and doesn't say the government can't buy it from private companies. The government didn't even create most of these at all - the company did it privately and then offered to the government to buy its services.
In my area the police union would have appealed and likely won. The only way that doesn't happen is if the union believes they have too much to lose because ICE is so unpopular and does not push it.
Edward Snowden said that some NSA workers had used their huge surveillance systems to peep on their partners and ex's. One cannot give a bunch of people access to a vast surveillance network without abuse ensuing.
> Interim Maj. Max Nowinsky sustained the allegation and recommended an eight-hour suspension
Lots of explanations provided for wanting to go easy on her. Is the same logic applied for the many victims of a police department? If it's preferential treatment then maybe Interim Maj. Max Nowinsky should also be kicked to the curb.
> Tyler Harpe, a federal ICE agent
Federal ICE agent Tyler Harpe, may you enjoy your new found fame.
@Americans who laugh at China and Russia thinking you're still much better off in freedom and rights: That is exactly how you look like to the rest of the world.
Ironic that defending "justice" makes them to break several laws.
It is almost like they are always on the verge of not respecting the laws anyway until they are the ones controlling the laws.
What could possibly go wrong?
Anything that can be abused through collusion in a wide scale scenario will eventually happen.
This is not a contingent issue, it’s a fundamental integrated flaw of any system that put general totalitarian spy as an aimed outcome. Whatever the way it’s green-washed over safety tradeoffs won’t change this obvious fact.
I'm not completely opposed to 'camera, cell, solar, battery on a pole'. Its pretty low tech honestly... But there absolutely be a minimum standard of search warrant approval in front of a judge before using it. AND it should be a criminal offense to use it without a search warrant.
However there's this whole problem of "illegal for government to do it but whitewashing through for profit company to do illegal thing".
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the abuse is tangential to the fact that "the system working as intended" is designed to comprehensively and cheaply subjugate us all to the whims of whoever or whatever has the ear of government at any particular minute.
If you wave a magic wand and fix the abuse you will not fix the very nature and purpose of these systems. 1984 would not magically become acceptable if cops couldn't stalk their girlfriend or creds could not be shared among agencies off the books.
A large enough to be a problem subset of the people decrying abuse fancy themselves an armchair central planner (the more self aware ones fancy themselves armchair despots). In the back of their mind they're thinking "if only we got rid of the abuse then the public would buy into this Orwellian system then I could get the government enforce my pet policies with an iron fist and get minimal pushback". Beware of these people. They are the true evil. They all seek to take a bite out of your day to day freedom and it doesn't take all that many of them getting their way before there is nothing left. The politicians feeling emboldened to sign contracts with Flock or any other surveillance vendor only feel emboldened to do so due to the existence and frequency of these people.
Abuse or not these systems are rotten and incompatible on a fundamental level with a free society.
> the abuse is tangential to the fact that "the system working as intended" is designed to comprehensively and cheaply subjugate us all to the whims of whoever or whatever has the ear of government at any particular minute.
I'm reminded of a "hah hah, only serious" joke/slang popularized by EverQuest players: Broken as intended.
This used to be called "running a date" by law enforcement when checking up on some pretty face. That abuse is part of what led to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. When I worked for my state's motor vehicle agency, there were training videos about what was and wasn't allowed. It won't happen under this administration, but ALPR systems should be legislated as covered by DPPA.
This is wild. If the standards to get into these professions were as high as places as Europe (2-4 year diploma/degree before applying to police force), there might be less opportunity for this to happen.
And ICE in turn guns down US citizens, as is already documented.
This is literally a repeat, with modification, of Europe in the
1930s. It is not 1:1 comparable, also in part because the US
justice system, even if undermined by orange scumbag loyalists,
works to some extent still. I am not saying all of it works, but
on youtube you can often listen to discussions by several judges
discussing issues at hand. I forgot which one it was, but it was
linked in "Audit the Audit", and the judges there asked very good,
and very objective questions. In the end they denied a cop immunity
by default, based on very logical arguments they made. I was quite
surprised when I listened to that. It also means that the Trump
oligarch team is not able to kill all of the US justice system,
even though they placed their agents into it already.
I’m less surprised that such things are happening (much worse has been happening for over 20 years) than by the fact that many people seem to genuinely believe that voting, protesting, or calling some representative is going to get us out of this.
A rollback here and there only delays the inevitable. There has been no meaningful progress in individual rights in a Western country in at least 30 years.
They're taking the more nihilistic stance that progress now is just a delay, and the outcome is treated as inevitable. Honestly, it's hard to see it going any other way: plenty of towns, cities, and counties are just waiting out the storm of public opinion and will move on once people get tired of protesting the same thing over and over.
Doesn't mean I don't think that protest and outrage over surveillance aren't good things, just that these things require constant vigilance or else we're stuck with them. Personally, what I see happening is a further bifurcation of American life, where we see communities opposed to constant surveillance contrasted with those that embrace the panopticon.
People thought the same thing about nuclear proliferation. Turns out we can do hard things if we make the effort as a populace. I’m all for being a realist but 1984 is not inevitable, it’s just very difficult to prevent.
I think a generous interpretation of this comment is that voting, writing reps, and protesting (likely the permitted kind) are somewhat ineffectual at the level of policy change especially if the goal is federal-level change.
Even at the state level, you're still reined in by the fact that America operates on the slave economy logic that land represents people which results in rural communities that have a few hundred in population with the same table stakes as a rep in a million+ constituent district. You can write to your rep all you want but if Bubba from Farmtown, USA says trans people should be barred from youth sports [0] and he can get a dozen of his other buddies from the depopulated rural localities to co-sponsor it, it doesn't matter what your rep says or does.
The end result is that effective organizing has to be hyperlocal - this means showing up to county/municipal council meetings, sitting on neighborhood planning groups, broadening awareness in your community via doorknocking and public events.
Specifically to that point against protesting, some forms of 'protest' that seem pervasive with groups like No Kings and 50501 are effectively self-neutered. The vast majority of those protests are permitted with police escorts.
On it's face, these 'protests' are similar to those of the past - people show up, they wave signs, they chant. But like a child imitating being a fighter pilot, it accomplishes nothing real. The point of a protest is disruption - economic disruption, traffic blocking, etc - because that disruption buys you leverage with the local government. When you can say 'I can shut down your arteries at any time so meet me halfway with our demands or face millions in economic damage', you have an effective protest. This is how the Europeans do it between burning down their Supreme Courts to piling up tons of manure outside of Parliament - and that gets actual results.
Asking your local government liaison for permission to say mean things about a federal official does nothing except give them a chance for easy points with the crowd. Nothing changes, all that energy and labor that goes into organizing a safe protest dissipates, and the status quo remains fixed, even consolidated now that the already limited shared pool of movement labor has been siphoned off into a performative act.
I'd assume that the Plutocrats, their loyal politicians, and the Creep State have worked very hard to convince people to "fight back" with ineffectual tactics.
Which is not to say that voting can't be extremely effective, if organized at suitable scales over time. Trump wasn't re-elected because all the swing voters who'd replaced him with Biden in '20 were overjoyed with how Joe and his Dem's had handled things.
Trump and his predecessors have all been advancing mass surveillance on an unimaginable scale. This particular topic is probably the strongest argument against the power of voting.
It started under bush jr. That mass surveillance was illegal and then-respected media outlets like NYTimes and WaPo knew about it prior to the 2004 elections and deliberately covered it up until after that election. Congress then retroactively legalized that illegal activity in order to protect bush & themselves.
Against the power of n=1 voting, or the against the power of "we got 53%" voting?
I was pointing out that the former is virtually meaningless, but the latter tends to be decisive.
Yes, mass surveillance is a huge problem. But most of the time, most of the voters do not behave as if they meaningfully care about most of the aspects of mass surveillance. That's pretty much the same rule as for the Pentagon buying $5,000 screwdrivers, and bizarre loopholes appearing in the tax code to benefit a few billionaires who are extremely "generous" to their good friends in Congress. Both R's and D's may loudly denounce those practices - but they know that actually fighting against them, where it counts, will not be good for their political careers.
Is this any different, legally, than sharing your Netflix login etc?
Because the data is purchased, most jurisdictions don't require a warrant. The only legal issue I can see currently is that Flock lost revenue from having another subscriber.
What if sharing of Netflix passwords could lead to bodily harm or an “illegal” activity that wouldn’t hold up in court? Probably the one sharing Netflix password wouldn’t remain unscathed, legally speaking?
A lot of downvotes for this comment but I think it's an interesting question and shouldn't be downvoted.
It's easy to argue (as lot of people have in this thread) that there is a huge moral difference between sharing access to a streaming service and sharing access to a mass surveillance tool.
But was any criminal law broken? Is it just a violation of Flock's ToS and the biggest consequence is the police department losing access for violating the contract?
It's an important question, because if there isn't really any legal consequences for any of the parties involved then it's worth understanding that and, hopefully, addressing!
If we interpret OP's question in good faith, I don't think they are implying that it should be legal, just asking if it is.
I think the annoying part is that it is clearly illegal under most understandings of the Fourth Amendment but because our legal processes are so byzantine and stuffed full of moldering corpses of prescriptivism past, it's unlikely we'll see any legal recourse here.
The additionally annoying aspect about the question is that this is something privacy advocates have been going on about for years. Ever since I started following the EFF in 2012, they've been warning about the rise in private sector mass surveillance and how it would lead to government CCTV. And now here we are, with Ring doorbells sharing data with LEOs and Flock everywhere.
So to hear 'is this illegal' says to me, at minimum, that a dearth of basic internet sleuthing has been done about this issue and the question was posed out of a complete lack of curiosity and self-driven exploration. Especially now with LLMs, research like this is vanishingly easy to do (as is the adversarial review of it, and the eventual dialectical synthesis). To not do so seems lazy, at best, and that's not addressing how the 'if it's not illegal, it's fine' thought-terminating cliche has been pervasively used to justify detention centers, military black sites, NSA wiretapping, police brutality, etc in a way that seems to universally be a bad faith practice.
I don’t think anyone is implying that it not being illegal would make it ok.
It doesn’t seem like any criminal charges being brought in this case. So sure, an argument could be made that this violates the 4th amendment, but under the current application of the law this seems legal. Which means all and ICE agent needs to get access to flock data is a friend with access. Surely trying to understand that isn’t lazy or justifying anything?
I've heard bad faith 'if it's legal, it's fine' quite a few too many times to see it as anything except either intellectual laziness or simple bad faith. This is a rhetoric that always seems to pop up whenever anybody advocates for the ethical practice.
I also think it's a pointless exercise to understand the legality of it. Unless you're an actual civil rights attorney, a legislator, or some kind of judge, you, me, and everyone else here has effectively zero power over how the law is interpreted. We can debate all we want but it's a dance in the ivory tower, removed from realworld consequence.
The only real way to push against these forces is to join up with a community organization local to you, volunteer groups that often struggle with basic tech setup and resource tracking. Folks from HN could be a huge boon to the movement if they simply had the initiative to get involved.
There is a certain degree of irony in entirely misrepresenting my point by asserting it's somehow "bad faith."
I don't think it's fair to say that trying to understand if something is legal is a "dance in the ivory tower." Isn't a pretty important part in enacting change understand WHAT needs to change?
My point is this: Flock does not provide access to ICE, if using another person's login is a legal loophole around this then it needs to be specifically addressed and closed.
In no way am I justifying mass surveillance by arguing "if it's legal, it's fine."
I can't really follow. You say "I think the annoying part is that it is clearly illegal under most understandings of the Fourth Amendment," but at the same time say "I also think it's a pointless exercise to understand the legality of it."
I get the feeling the question being asked a bit leading, since you've been pretty hostile to me so far. I don't have a great answer, civil engagement and supporting politicians that also think it should be illegal for private companies to create gigantic mass surveillance dragnets?
The question is - how would you individually contribute to the movement of limiting mass surveillance? In the same way that we can all comment on a play made at a sports game, the actual effect of our commentary is nil except here the stakes are real and much higher.
I'm not being hostile and you're reading a lot of intent here for my frustration at apathetic armchair quarterbacking that I didn't direct at you.
I think I answered that question, note I didn't say "comment online" as a solution.
I guess I don't know who else it's directed at. I think it's important to understand the legality of our law enforcement's actions. I don't think that's an especially controversial take.
So your answer was "civil engagement and supporting politicians that also think it should be illegal"? Has that worked in the past on this issue? I asked that previously. What about in a post-Citizen's United world? How much an effect does your personal political speech have?
Your employer probably would, and Anthropic as well.
—
In any case, these Netflix and LLM subscription comparisons are utterly beside the point, the equation is hilariously different when it’s a surveillance tool used by
the state violence monopoly that we’re talking about. The standard should be absurdly higher than "no big deal, everyone shares their Netflix".
In this case, the customer utilizing the data without authorization also is known for killing Americans, and the data facilitates stalking their victims and their families.
We should be advocating for more accountability from the government and its representatives, not less.
Every time law enforcement is given surveillance tools the same thing happens, the people with legal and approved access will abuse it.
Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works, if it's abused, the system isn't locked down enough or that one person circumvented the procedure. They completely fail to understand that there exists people to whom you cannot grant access and screening people in advance probably impossible. Some cop checks all the boxes, gets access to databases, then their partner leaves them and they are now no longer safe to grant access.
I don't understand why it's hard to grasp that surveillance tools are dangerous and rather using them to protect others, law enforcement will use these tools to do bad things. It's as if that we assume that cops are better people and follow rules better. Even in countries that actually train their police force this isn't remotely true.
The US might be different, I doubt it, but society is getting increasingly SAFE, there is less and less need for these tools.
> society is getting increasingly SAFE
This is a great point, and one that really isn't played up because it doesn't fit the whole profit-from-attention narrative that literally every media surface seems to be following.
It almost seems as if law enforcement 'need' these additional tools to keep them busy; find new, more trivial crime that's been hiding behind no one reporting it or being hurt by it.
Maybe if law enforcement resources could be applied to more corporate crime, that'd keep em busy till the cows come home.
I have this conversation with neighbors almost weekly, and I’ve had a bunch of them just say that I’m wrong with no real evidence or, and this is verbatim, “it doesn’t feel safer.”
This conversation is usually about how no one lets their kids play outside unsupervised anymore, but it applies to police as well. In Georgia they had to pass a law telling police they couldn’t arrest parents who let their kids go outside by themselves. The inciting incident literally had a police officer lecturing a mother about how many sickos are out there and then putting her in cuffs because her 10-year-old was a mile away by himself. Even since then, DFCS has been caught bullying parents into signing an agreement saying they were negligent and agreeing to a restrictive safety plan because they let their kid go to a nearby playground by themself.
It is insane and depressing about how people willingly restrict their lives and their kids lives because of the mistaken belief that the world isn’t as safe as it was when they were a kid. Not only that, but if you let your kids play outside without you, then you risk your neighbors calling the police on you and having to deal with whatever bs comes from that.
A friend of mine had the cops called on her by a neighbor because her kids were playing in the front yard and she wasn't out there with them.
I don't know what world people here live in, but I am not expecting kids in a front yard in the middle of the day in a quiet neighborhood on a dead end road to be snatched up.
Could it happen? Sure. Should we force our kids to live under fear that it will happen as soon as a parent isn't watching them? Absolutely not.
I have feeling that how safe you feel is correlates strongly to your media diet, and weakly to your surroundings. I'd be curious to see what studies have been done.
No feeling necessary, it's well understood: https://news.darden.virginia.edu/articles/fox-news-versus-cn...
People who aren't afraid don't tend to vote Republican. Therefore, there's big money to be made selling fear.
Feels like NYT, CNN, etc may have been feeling the pinch and pedal fear now, as well.
I heard about this story somewhere and couldn’t really believe it. I also thought that the US/German comparison videos about the fact we Germans let our kids go to school alone etc are a bit over the top. Seems no. But to be fair. Also in Germany things around security have changed. Where it was normal in my youth that my parents had actually no clue where I was while I was roaming the streets of Berlin (Courtesy to a Berlin wide public transport ticket I got for school). Today that doesn’t fly anymore. Kids have phones and get tracked every step. It’s the more controlled level of freedom. Another connected anecdote that left me puzzled at the time: I spend some days in D.C last year (right before the National Guard got deployed) and wanted to do a short run from the Hotel. It was already going dark and I didn’t check for the weather and asked at the desk if it was ok outside to run. The answer was “yes it’s pretty safe around here.” See my mind never made the connection that something harmful would be out there waiting for me.
> “it doesn’t feel safer.”
> This conversation is usually about how no one lets their kids play outside unsupervised anymore,
Those two show overall fear is higher, not that reasonable fear is higher.
There's so much in current society that sells fear, that I'm not surprised. FOMO for the next Musk stock promotion. Stalkers, scammers, pedophiles. Burglar alarms being sold with a subscription at 70% profit margins (Verisure here in Sweden.) I recently calculated that I'd pay about $300k-600k in fees for every actual burglary where I live. The insurance deductible is way way lower than that, and I doubt they'd actually change the outcome. Incidentally, insurance companies care about water and fire damage, not burglary. But the scary marketing video with masked men in your garage sells well...
Of course, insurance is a a whole other chapter on selling fear. Sometimes warranted, mostly not. The Freetrailer app, used to book and pay for trailers, defaults to me paying for a deductibility reduction. With a big fat warning if I remove that, that if something happens, I might be liable for up to $700!
Not to mention the economy is always just one bad quarter away from a 1929 crash.
I blame media (new and old) for the fearmongering that sells my attention on low probability outcomes.
I'm glad you mentioned the economy.
Money is a form of communication.
The internet has enabled essentially instant communication between any two or more parties anywhere on the planet.
The next 1929 is going to happen faster than the last one, with less warning, and the impact will be more widespread.
Or ...
We'll all see it coming ahead of time, behave perfectly rationally, and avoid the crisis entirely.
Based on how we handled 9/11, and spent 20 years and $20 trillion to get 1 guy, im preparing for the former, not the later, because most people are not rational in the face of a crisis.
> The next 1929 is going to happen faster than the last one
For sure, and for reasons we can't imagine today.
I sometimes think about nuclear accidents. It seems very unlikely that we've already seen the worst accident that will ever be. Same goes for so many technologies less than 100 years old. Safety standards need to go up in parity with the scaling up to keep MTBF in check. Given what I've seen of human greed, I hold only partial hope that'll happen as energy demands increase. Hopefully batteries, wind, solar and regulatory oversight are enough.
I’m wrong with no real evidence or, and this is verbatim, “it doesn’t feel safer.”
At in part due to media fear mongering and lying 24/7? Fear, lies, doubts, hatred, division... all of this gets clicks, gets the ad dollars.
This is so depressing; my parents in the late 60’s/early 70’s would be serving a life sentence for negligence according to current standards, given how utterly (but basically harmlessly) feral we were back in the day.
The issue is overpopulation. In an underpopulated area neighbors tend to be neighbors, in an overpopulated one they tend to call police on your noisy kids to take you down a peg.
Mom said it's my turn to shoehorn my pet issue into an unrelated discussion.
It's actually about restrictive zoning preventing sufficiently dense housing and high quality public transit.
I think it's only safer since we're doing less. We're more immobile; sitting on our phones, TVs, iPads. We order stuff online instead of going to the store. There's also less adventure without immediate reconciliation. We can corroborate if what we're doing out-and-about is correct from a simple google search anywhere, which reduces person-to-person interaction.
But there is zero evidence of this. Safety has been a long downward trend since the late 80s and early 90s in most places.
> these additional tools to keep them busy
Easy fix: Minesweeper and Solitaire should be mandatory on every police computer.
> It almost seems as if law enforcement 'need' these additional tools to keep them busy
what happens when society solves its issues and theres no need to 'keep them busy' :(
This is basically the core premise of "defund the police"
not really, it's about having less dumb cops and having more specialists roles. Spending less money on weapons of war and more on training and education.
Society solves its issues? Don't worry, there will be lots of warning signs before this happens. Pigs will be flying all over the place, for one.
Yup! Can't solve an inherent property. It's like unlearning to be bound by gravity to take flight.
I don't expect many people to be okay with justice being enforce by the average citizen.
People will always have conflicts from time to time, the only question is whether we let them deal with it themselves or have an authority with a uniform and a badge who is supposed to be trustworthy enough to handle it.
> whether we let them deal with it themselves or have an authority with a uniform and a badge who is supposed to be trustworthy enough to handle it
a trial by jury is the closest thing i think to a compromise between those two, where someones societal peers decide whether there even is a conflict and then who is "guilty"
a trustworthy person is needed to haul the relevant parties to the quorum and then deal with punishments, though with cell phones and cameras everywhere these days...
Agreed, I do appreciate the concept of a jury of your peers though I think we've gone down the wrong path as they're implemented today.
The courts have done a great job demonizing jury nullification, for example. In my opinion that's a feature not a bug, it gives the public a say over what laws they agree with enforcing.
I've also seen far too many examples of cases that seem blatantly unproven but forced through because of a combination of poor defence council and politically hot topics that the DA seems to want under their belt.
>what happens when society solves its issues and theres no need to 'keep them busy' :(
Look at the engineering and surveying firms over the past 50yr. Cops will likely see something like that. Like they'll get written into all sorts of laws and processes despite the scope of the "value" they provide being narrower than ever.
It'll turn into a low effort make-work job. Like Realtors(TM) with extra steps to justify their existence.
Like no amount of 1080p Ring footage of your door getting kicked in will suffice, the insurance company will not believe your house has been broken into until a certified license holding cop shows up and signs off on it.
> the insurance company will not believe your house has been broken into until a certified license holding cop shows up and signs off on it.
ah, the movie Brazil :)
There's a whole host of laws that people break daily. Even a book about it "3 felonies a day".
Most of those 'crimes' shouldnt be. And thats what parts of the jury nullification movements are all about; judging the law BEFORE judging the person.
Also the more data captured about every human, the more criminality can be found, especially in things that shouldnt have ever been criminal. And having higher "bust" numbers and proof of evil criminality element (regular humans doing normal things that are criminalized by the elite) then allows them to write bigger checks for more pervasive surveillance.
Its the classic long tail, and exponential cost increases for of a logarithmic decay of detection.
Our society could restart with a good review of all laws. And those laws with nobody else harmed should be scrapped.
Indeed, in my experience all these tools do is offset policing to "easy" crimes and the harder problems continually get ignored. It's largely been accepted in my city, for example, that traffic enforcement no longer happens.
A "fun" observation I've had is that politicians and police tells us that they are focusing on crimes that increases the perception of safety. Then for some reason they spend time on petty drug deals, gangs that mostly fight internally and other crimes that the average person would never experience.
If they wanted to do something to increase feeling of safety, and justice, they'd crack down on bike theft.
Yes, we also have a local politician who is very much into the appearance of "tough on crime" and has done vanity work with police like catching homeless shoplifters attempting to resell food on the street. The police also love bragging about impounding unregistered scooters and dirtbikes.
If I would have to rate difficulty of Traffic enforcement, I would have put it quite low... What makes it so difficult?
> If I would have to rate difficulty of Traffic enforcement, I would have put it quite low... What makes it so difficult?
The problem with traffic enforcement is that the police want it to remain available as a pretext to stop anyone when they want to.
For example, the MUTCD recommends that speed limits typically be set to the 85th percentile traffic speed. One of the reasons for this is that speed differentials are very dangerous. Another is that you typically want laws to have at least a little bit of leeway between "thing law abiding people are expected to actually do" and "thing with government-imposed penalties", rather than having them separated by 0.
But US speed limits are regularly set 10-15 MPH below that speed, so that the majority of traffic is exceeding them. Because then the police have an excuse to pull over anyone they want to. This is also often used a source of fine revenue because as long as they don't do so much enforcement that people actually comply with the law, they can periodically park a patrol car on the side of the road and "efficiently" hand out one ticket after another.
Which is the problem with automated enforcement. If people were consistently fined then you would get compliance rather than widespread violations. At which point people might object more strongly to the speed limits not being set by the book. But regardless of which way that comes out, it causes you to lose the fine revenue and the pretext to stop anyone, since you stop having both of those if you do either of the things that results in most people being in compliance with the law.
1. Enforcement via traffic stop is extremely dangerous to everyone, cops included.
2. Automated enforcement is generally in the form of fines, which habitual violators ignore.
3. Confiscating vehicles as an escalating consequence of automated enforcement is so unpopular no one will even suggest it.
As someone from the UK, all these points seem ridiculous to me, are they really valid elsewhere?
I get that point 1 is extremely valid in a place like the US where everyone can have a gun.
Do other countries not enforce fines?
In the UK you can have your car confiscated on the spot if the automated number plate recognition in a patrol car flags you don't have insurance. Fines are enforced, but escalating that to non-payment of fines seems like something they could do (people might complain, but only the ones not paying their fines!)
Re point (1), it's definitely not just guns. In the US:
- Suppose a vehicle chooses not to stop. What's the safest way to complete the stop? High-speed chases are dangerous. The eventual spike trap or pushing the tail end of the car or whatnot is dangerous. The fleeing person won't be in a sound state of mind for safe driving even if not followed. Toss in a little human error like forgetting to turn your lights and sirens on, and these are predictably extremely dangerous. Just under 1% end in a fatality.
- There's an elevated risk of wrecks, side-swipes, and whatnot by virtue of being on the side of the road, often in dangerous areas.
- Most assaults on police officers don't involve guns. There are something like 7-8k assaults on officers due to traffic stops annually, despite knowing they carry guns. A little over a hundred of those result in serious injury to the officer, most of which don't use guns in the process.
- Don't forget injury to the passengers. 100k/yr are injured by the police at a traffic stop. Again, that's usually without guns. And why wouldn't they be? The police have nearly a carte blanche, and they're being placed into an environment where they know they're at risk, with perceived risk being higher than actual risk.
You mention the UK, so how do they fare? They have 100x fewer traffic stops, so I'll scale up the numbers accordingly. In particular, that means they have 2.5x officers injured just from vehicles being rammed during stops than the US has assaults on officers in total. That's suggestive of gun violence not being the entire story regarding traffic stop safety.
Mind you, that's not quite apples to apples. The UK has 5x fewer people and 2-3x fewer miles driven per person per year, suggesting we're missing another factor of 5-10 when trying to figure out why the US has more traffic stops, and my first guess would be that the UK police have a selection bias toward more serious offenses, so the higher safety rates of the US police are at least in part due to pulling over a higher share of less violent individuals.
Nevertheless, it's not just gun violence. Traffic stops are dangerous elsewhere too. (not to be interpreted as a comment on gun policy, rather that it's annoying to see important conversations like consequences of traffic stop safety derailed by irrelevant nationalistic swipes and jabs)
Wait, 100k passengers a year are injured at traffic stops? What? Where did this number come from? Injured how?
From here [0], extrapolating based on relative rates of traffic stops vs other police-initiated contact. An estimated 32k of those required hospitalization.
[0] https://policeepi.uic.edu/u-s-data-on-police-shootings-and-v...
How much of the violence you list is because of warrant enforcement via 'traffic stop'?
Traffic stops should be used for traffic enforcement and treated as community policing, not as the main method of hoping to stumble on things the police should have resolved via actual police work and effort.
No clue. The data isn't broken out at that granularity.
As you intuited, I'm in the US.
It seems like our federal system is an obstacle. I'm in Maryland and a huge fraction of our biggest habitual traffic violators somehow get Virginia license plates.
> Do other countries not enforce fines?
Where I live (Baltimore, MD) the 10 vehicles with the most unpaid speeding tickets owe $81,000 between them. So you can push 10k in unpaid fines and remain on the road somehow.
The UK doesn't have the same scale of frontier territory, nor an effective war being waged on the border.
If Northern Ireland was the size of Greenland back in the 80s, I'm sure traffic stops in the middle of nowhere would've been a bit hairy, too.
Remove the warrant check portion of traffic stops and suddenly they become much much less risky and just normal community policing. But adding that 'the person may have a warrant and the US justice system is happy to hand down 10+ year sentences (which are basically life sentences, you aren't getting a life back after 10 years) every traffic stop by choice become much more high risk.
Policing shouldn't be done via traffic stops. Traffic stops should be done via traffic stops.
Political will.
The rules and numbers are allowed to be what they are so long as mass tasteful/mild noncompliance is tolerated. The second you start robotically (electronic robots vs meat robots in uniform does not matter in this case) fining people for taking lefts on red arrows at 1am or exceeding the speed limit a bit in the base case you will see politicians pandering to voters by changing those rules such that the typical person can behave typically without any particular care to abide by them and generally not break them.
Law enforcement largely exists in the US to protect Corporate crime. Has done since it's beginnings as an institution, finding roots in the south in slave patrols, and roots in the north in protecting private property.
The cops are not now nor have they ever been an institution to protect the people, they are there to protect the Peace. What's the Peace? Largely seems to be whatever makes the rich people happy.
Yes.
The police protect "property owners" and "property rights."
And this is why the homeless remain homeless.
No matter where they stand, its someone elses property, and they have little to no rights.
You can't feed yourself if you are forced to keep walking.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) held that the Constitution generally does not require the government to protect people from harm inflicted by private individuals.
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), held that a woman did not have a constitutional entitlement to police enforcement of a restraining order.
You are forced to pay taxes for service that you may/may not actually receive.
You are forced to tell the truth to people who are allowed to tell you lies.
The system is designed to protect the system, and we are just passing through it while we are alive.
This seems like a pretty abstract claim to me. What does "protect the people" mean vs "whatever makes the rich people happy"? There are laws on the books which the police enforce.
Now, I agree that the police are not your friends, and they are incentivized to find crimes when there may not really be any at times, but I disagree with the notion that they are simply the lapdogs of the wealthy. In fact, it seems like in a lot of places in California it's the law-abiding, wealthier citizens that are hassled most by the police for minor infractions, because they know they can actually extract revenue from them.
Cases in point:
You work at a retail store. You take $100 from the till. They have you on camera. Management calls cops, and has you arrested for misdemeanor theft. You spend night in jail.
You work in retail store. You log in at 9am. And your manager was told to cut payroll and edits your (and 9 other peoples) timecards to the tune of $1000. You catch this. Management refuses to correct it and/or punish the manager. Nobody is arrested. You're told this is a civil issue.
Wage theft is larger than all other theft combined, but treated as a civil, not criminal matter. I wonder why.
https://www.tcworkerscenter.org/2018/09/wage-theft-vs-other-...
You secured your expensive road bike ($2000) cause its your primary transportation. You put a gps tag on it, so if its ever stolen, you can make the appropriate report and retrieval. The lock was cut, and the bike taken. Its at a nearby house. You report it. Cops wont take report and wont get the stolen property. You even have definite proof. They dont care, and they dont have to.
Target (retailer) has a policy to let people steal from them, and to do facial recognition until a thief surpasses the statutory felony limit (usually $1000). THEY send a report to the police, which isnt ignored, and the police go do the corporates' dirty work and arrest the alleged perpetrator.
During the 1980's there was well known pushes (by Biden etm) to criminalize cocaine severely. But the cocaine they punished wasnt the white powder. That was used predominantly by executives. Instead, the heavy criminalization focused on crack cocaine, which was used predominantly by the lower (poor, black) people. Punishments were upwards of 10x disparity against the poor classes.
The misattributed quote "If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class" (to Final Fantasy Tactics, not true attribution), is something we see all the time.
Anthropic - mass for-profit copyright fraud against the public? Fine.
All insurance - if you lie? Insurance fraud. If they lie, get rekt and die or something.
Banks - guilty of mass laundering and made $50B? Oh, $2B fine. $48B profit. If a human did that, theyd go to jail for decades.
These disparities exist everywhere in "law". Law only defends elite, wealthy, donor class, and well known monied local elites. It almost never defends the average wronged citizen.
The wage theft one always blows my mind, every time. Just eclipses every other form of larceny COMBINED and the authorities do NOTHING. AT. ALL.
Almost every middle/lower class ill disappears if you eliminate wage theft and close the tax loopholes that wealthy people take advantage of. They're massive distortions of the economic machinery, and no one should be surprised that things don't make sense even when circumstances are "normal".
that's quite interesting. I'm not from the US and I don't know this history. Where can I learn more about this?
https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/origins-m...
https://ourworldindata.org/us-crime-rates its it really getting better if you adjust for the ageing population?
Why would you control for that (other than to find some way to disagree with a page full of charts going down)?
Is that a joke? Are you a human person? How is grandpa gonna beat and rob u?
… you’re describing a mechanism by which crime rates go down, and then acting like that can’t possibly mean crime rates are actually going down.
What’s the difference between a crime rate going down because people are getting older versus a crime rate going down?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun
violent crime peaks at 18-19 years old. bad hacker news takes are timeless. https://www.ccsd.ca/resources/CrimePrevention/c_age.htm
Your argument was about the inability of an old guy to physically threaten someone with robbery. Glad that Claude found you a blogpost
> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works, if it's abused, the system isn't locked down enough or that one person circumvented the procedure. They completely fail to understand that there exists people to whom you cannot grant access and screening people in advance probably impossible. Some cop checks all the boxes, gets access to databases, then their partner leaves them and they are now no longer safe to grant access.
I don’t think it’s naïveté. I think it’s an acceptable byproduct to them. It’s collateral damage in their war on ??? crime? insecurity? or in their lobby kickbacks.
Good point. A lot of politicians are in fact in favor of (or at least indifferent towards) increased state surveillance for the sake of asserting the state’s power over the working public.
Politicians want a strong law enforcement that protects the status quo of an upper class who has impunity regarding the law to the point where they can host a sex trafficking ring on a private island.
Working people used to have vandalism and sabotage as a tactic when the state and capital wrought the working public this way, but with the modern surveillance state this tactic has been completely neutralized. This is the world that politicians want.
> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works
The real revelation comes when you realize this is not true.
Exactly my thought. It is so naive to think that this is not going better than planned. Imagine having dozens, if not hundreds of crimes, and still get away of all of them because you got a new job.
Maybe missing from the debate: the Police officer was using Flock without a warrant as well.
IANAL but the warrant part of this will probably not be what will get them. Unauthorized access for the husband and conspiring on the part of the wife seems like the logical path.
Ah, the Gestapo. I hope they enjoy jail, because this still ain't nazi germany yet.
Using third party systems like Flock for warrantless police work has not been fully tested in courts yet. With the current SCOTUS, I fully expect them to find it constitutional somehow if it lands there.
You're betting that someone's going to get a jail sentence for this? Because I doubt it.
The real reason why these actions are rarely punisned is that their supervisors are mainly annoyed that they got caught, not by the act itself.
police often avoid jail for killing people, unlikely this results in anything more than a change of location
> The US might be different, I doubt it, but society is getting increasingly SAFE, there is less and less need for these tools.
Crime rates could be going up, that still wouldn't justify broad, warrantless spying on the public. We have rights and they aren't conditional on crime rates.
They shouldn't be conditional in crime rates.
I wouldn't offer bad policing and bad prosecution the benefit of "shouldn't." They can attempt to enforce the way they want, our rights still supersede crime rates and fear.
> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works, if it's abused, the system isn't locked down enough or that one person circumvented the procedure.
That's being charitable. Complicit is far more likely, any system like that plays to benefit of the ruling party as you can use it to suppress the people that would vote you out.
We live in a world where a guy had complete access to the entire CIA then NSA's illegal infrastructure. And did walk away with all the documents. Not like anyone cares to protect citizen.
Every time anyone is given surveillance tools the same thing happens - we can't just act like it's because LEOs are some type of certain person.
LEOs being a certain type of people is a big part of the problem. Compare to corporate IT, who have huge surveillance powers within their companies, but virtually none of them use it beyond their actual job duties.
I suspect it's human nature, earlier today I was reading about how some hospital staff had been fired [in the UK] for looking up details of patients they shouldn't have been involved with.
They should have known better, but despite constant training people just seem unable to help themselves.
Hospital staff have a certain reputation too. I've even heard nursing career being described as the female counterpart of police career, in that both of them attract the exact same type of person for the exact same reason (having people's lives in their hands). Can't say from my own experience if it's true or not, but I heard it often enough that I'm not terribly surprised.
"Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works"
Thats the one thing no politician is-- they are succesful because they understand people very well.
They just dont care.
Time after time I feel like this is the Luddite path.
Law enforcement can already do incredibly privacy-invading things, and we’re ok with it. House searches (with a warrant), arrests (with probable cause), etc. It’s tightly controlled and can’t be used on a whim.
I feel technology should absolutely be a part of policing, and also tightly controlled, just as these other powers are.
As a general rule, every policy and system should be designed with the worst possible user in mind.
- German address registers with religious affiliation were a good idea until the Nazis came to power.
- Pegasus spyware was developed and sold to governments to fight terrorism and serious crime — until it was used to spy on journalists, human rights activists and political opponents, including in authoritarian states.
- Rwandan identity cards listed ethnicity for administrative purposes — until militias used them to identify and execute Tutsis at roadblocks during the 1994 genocide.
Bottom line: Even if you trust the current administration (do you?), are you sure you want 5o give that power to all future ones?
There was a time in the US I really thought we were different. I genuinely didn’t fear our government. I didn’t think the types of people that did such atrocities existed in numbers and that they’d immediately be removed once it was determined they snuck into office.
Now I fully believe it can happen here and that those people are in office now and that a non-trivial percentage of the US public would be Ok with those atrocities happening in the US.
We have really turned into the opening act of a terrible dystopian movie.
When we are in kindergarten, on day 1, we are told what ?
"The police officer is your friend."
What else did we do immediately ? We learned to pledge our allegience.
5 year olds .... pledging allegience to an ideology they can't possibly comprehend.
It was always right there in front of us.
I remember being told by a teacher in grade school that our country (usa) doesn't produce propaganda. Only other countries do that.
You're assuming that politicians aren't aligned with mass surveillance of the populous to the point that they don't care whether allowing it to be in the hands of those that will abuse it is granted.
> but society is getting increasingly SAFE
It’s such a shame that media (social and traditional) really plays up loss aversion. My local news is basically fear mongering. My local social media page is filled with people who have nothing better to do with their time than complain about all of the negative stuff happening in this town. They take every isolated incident and project it as some major pattern. It’s really sad.
Fear is what keeps people on the couch, so they can watch more news, so they can sell pills to people who never move.
Fear keeps people from starting their own company, so they'll return to work on Monday.
See it for what it is. Another system of control.
"Disturbed - The Vengeful One (Official Music Video) [4K UPGRADE]"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nW-IPrzM1g
To some extend I'd argue that even true crime shows are complicit. Hour long "documentaries" about obscure murders 40 years in a place you're not entirely sure exists. The streaming services just keeps digging deeper and deeper for anything that could lure in viewers, covering crimes that you wouldn't have known of 20 years ago.
My local news just did a whole special program on high profile plane issues/crashes. Modern ones, like over the last few years. I saw an ad for it yesterday I was just so grossed out by the flagrant fear mongering. Pieces like that have real world consequences.
They aren’t doing hard hitting journalism exposing negligence, they are making people terrified of planes. They’re stressing people out about something that is not reasonably within their control AND it’s not a real risk for us all. The numbers don’t support scaring people over this.
> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works
Some are, others aren't. They just accept it willingly.
Just as in the Purge movies politicians are exempt ;-)
The purge movies are interesting to me. They came out when I was already and adult, so I missed the cultural moment. If you watch the movies, the plot is patently stupid (if not emotionally gripping) -- so stupid, that I was really surprised to find out how much they resonated with people. Governments don't benefit from violence, and normal everyday people wouldn't want to be violent one day year. Most violent people are regularly violent; they beat their girlfriends for years, and finally kill one of them. They have a long, long rap sheet or an active warrant while they fight the police after being pulled over. etc. Further, general mass violence is extremely destabilizing to governments because most people abhor it, and a government that cannot prevent mass violence is a government with no validity.
The idea that a movie could get so many basic things so badly wrong, that it could float a scenario that made zero sense, but still gain such cultural traction was one of the first times I felt old. It's speaking to a youth with crazy and new ideas. They're ready to make their own grand and terrible mistakes, which a future youth will one day hate them for.
I feel like maybe you missed the point? The concept of the Purge movies is the government is using the Purge as a smoke screen to eliminate the people it considers undesirable. It's supposed to be like Kristallnacht with plausible deniability.
What I think everdrive is saying is that for it to be a smokescreen, there needs to be smoke: if it was only the government participating in the Purge to eliminate undesireables, it'd be extremely obvious and rallied against. But it's not, regular people are engaging with it in droves, which is what they believe to be the unrealistic part.
But most people don't participate, they just hunker down and wait it out. It's a small minority who are aligned with the government who do most of it. The prequel makes this very clear, where the government sent masked mercenaries to participate in the test purge to give them the results they wanted. The movies aren't high art or anything, but their message is pretty clear that they think the average person wouldn't be violent.
You need to consider that what regular people consider normal depends on little more then social consensus. Once you recognize this, the unrealistic part does not sound as unrealistic.
> Governments don't benefit from violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_%27round_the_flag_effect
> normal everyday people wouldn't want to be violent one day year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice
The best book I read this year was actually this (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/j.ctv2321hnd), so I'm aware (and was aware before) of human sacrifice.
Rally round the flag accounts for "violence done by others against us" and not "random violence against ourselves" so I think it's completely meaningless in the case of this conversation.
With regard to human sacrifice, how much violence have you been involved in? Maybe a few fist fights in middle school or high school? Do you know anyone who has committed real violence? I'll bet you don't. It's exceedingly rare these days compared to historical norms. People might disagree on why its become so rare, but the general rarity is a fact. Even for areas with high violent crime, there is usually a small minority of violent re-offenders, rather than a large majority of people committing random violence.
> how much violence have you been involved in
Does years of domestic violence count? What about shootings I've witnessed but wasn't a part of? There's a school nearby and kids carry guns around here.
> Do you know anyone who has committed real violence?
I don't hang out with the violent types in the first place, so the question makes no sense.
>Does years of domestic violence count? What about shootings I've witnessed but wasn't a part of? There's a school nearby and kids carry guns around here.
No, I mean, per capita, how many people as compared to the number of people you know total, have perpetrated violence.
>I don't hang out with the violent types in the first place, so the question makes no sense.
But if violence were ubiquitous, you wouldn't be able to avoid it. I don't know any violent people either. My point is just that most people (per capita) do not commit violence most of the time. The idea that everyone's just chomping at the bit to perpetrate violence is at odds with reality.
But that's not the premise of the purge either.
The absolute majority just takes shelter and sits it out.
The unlucky people who can't but don't want to participate get slaughtered.
The crazy ones thrive
>Just as in the Purge movies
I will never understand the reason of mentioning works of fictions to make a real life point
most people's exposure to philosophical concepts is through narrative abstraction, you may be an exception but if you want to interact with laypeople this is inevitably going to be your experience.
You never use a parable to metaphor to clarify something or make a point?
The Purge was a terrible movie in so many ways but its message is still extremely resonant. It's also about as subtle as a brick wall, yet I'm afraid that it might have been still a tad too subtle.
Politicians are ideologues immune to the negative impacts of their ideology.
We should engineer a society immune to that.
Not Starship Troopers, though.
I think calling them ideologues is overly generous for most American politicians. They're vehicles for influence via bribery (which is usually done in a technically legal fashion).
> (which is usually done in a technically legal fashion)
Alas, the Roberts court effectively ruled that it's not really a bribe if it falls short of the third party saying they want the government official to vote/rule a particular way for a particular price, the government official does as asked, and he/she sends the third party a written invoice for services rendered.
Even should that happen, I'm pretty sure Justice Thomas would find the larger offense is that the invoice failed to include sales tax.
Remember our Supreme Court's recent bribery scandal wasn't that a number of justices were accepting gifts but rather that they hasn't disclosed them properly. We're perfectly OK with third parties bribing the judges on our highest court so long as the judges fill out the correct paperwork.
I think that depends on whether you can vote for them or not. To the non-voter they are definitely ideologues.
This rhetoric of violence and rebellion is wild on a tech forum
Technology is an expression of power, always has been and always will be. Pretending otherwise is naive and dangerous.
Im all for fighting for digital privacy rights. But referencing the purge with a smile begs the question, are you yearning for a purge-like scenario? Some fantastical idea that you’ll be the main character in an anarchic chaos?
Everyone is missing that the surveillance is the point. It has nothing to do with safety.
The politicians think they are part of a protected class with the billionaires and corrupt institutions with zero accountability.
s/think they//g
If only we could just air gap it.
Yes, the conclusion is the easy part. But what can we do to make them see it?
People will need to come together and fix the system.
If a definite majority wants to do so, the system will change. Until then the oligarchs will keep playing one side againts the other, as can currently be seen with Trump amplifying the hate in the population, in order for his cronies to steal more money, start more wars and so forth. He will lose the upcoming elections but he will continue to worship theft and destruction.
Have you considered the possibility that the politicians know this, and also don’t care?
I think you’re misunderstanding that they think are part of the populace. They do not. They do not think they’re at your level. That’s why they got in the politics. That’s why they’ve been successful at it.
Go spend some time around with police higher ups if you don’t think that they also believe that they’re a class of nobility.
Absolutely.
The constitution bars titles of nobility, so to achieve the status of nobility, you print the title you want on a business card, and attend group meetings once a week, where your perceived status and nobility are reinforced by an institutional echo chamber that will dispose of you in a heartbeat to save itself.
You don’t need to wonder what they are thinking. The Palantir CEO put out a manifesto that spells it out pretty explicitly. He literally says, in plain English, more surveillance on the underclass, less scrutiny on the owning class. This is the prevailing ideology among those in power.
> Interim Maj. Max Nowinsky sustained the allegation and recommended an eight-hour suspension.
"Bad cop, take the day off".
> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works
They understand exactly how people work. You are naive for thinking that they aren't aware of this. Their entire job is essentially a popularity contest in which they promise you things, that they almost never deliver on.
Like they deliberately want a system that can be abused, or that they actually know that it can and will be abused, but not voting for it would make them appear soft on crime?
Honestly I think the majority aren't smart enough to do the cost benefit analysis of these system, so they just ignore the warning.
The majority of them cares mainly for their own wellbeing and going against the police is generally not associated with wellbeing and comfort.
I think they are smarter than you give them credit for, especially in the "how can I stay in power" game.
> the majority aren't smart enough
You'd be shocked how many people cannot process basic hypotheticals. I've been in countless dialogues like this one:
- How would you feel now if you had not eaten breakfast?
- But I did eat breakfast.
There is a significant portion of the population, whos brains do not process the word "if."
As a computer programmer, I do not have english words to express how frustrating this can be at times.
There are a significant number of software developers / computer programmers who think they are smarter than everyone else because they confuse giving a shit about something with the ability to understand it.
The contempt is palpable.
If (and that is a big if) you did indeed ask people this question, you get that answer because they are confused about why you have asked it. Not that they don't understand how to answer the hypothetical.
What are you going to ask them next? What is heavier, 1 tonne of bricks or feathers? It's old-school boy humour. It doesn't prove anything other than the maturity level of the person asking it.
Also I severely doubt you did this, as it was a meme that was floating around online last year for about two weeks because some influencers popularised it.
Bro, have you considered the following possibility:
I didn't literally ask people "How would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast?", but rather questions that naturally followed the conversation that at the same time were either hypotheticals, or some adjacent ideas that require similar shift of perspective. The "How would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast?" stands as a symbol of a general idea.
Your comment is prime example of grown-ass adults having reading comprehension of GPT-1, especially that you missed the word "like", which explicitly points that the following example isn't to be taken literally, but rather metaphorically.
I can already imagine you in a conversation going like:
- It hit me like a bolt from the blue!
- But a bolt from the blue did not hit you, did it?
I cannot believe I need to explain this shit to you.
> Bro, have you considered the following possibility: > I didn't literally ask people "How would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast?" but rather questions that naturally followed the conversation that at the same time were either hypotheticals or some adjacent ideas that require a similar shift of perspective. The "How would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast?" stands as a symbol of a general idea.
Sure, of course, and I still don't believe you.
I had also considered the possibility that you would further lie about it and pivot your explanation when directly challenged. If you don't want people to think you are fabricating things, I suggest you don't reference a worn-out trend that was tiresome mere days after it first spread.
Even if I accepted that what you said is true (which I find very hard to believe), many people generally just don't like being asked hypotheticals because they think they are being tricked in an effort to embarrass them, so they often don't bother engaging further.
> Your comment is prime example of grown-ass adults having reading comprehension of GPT-1, especially that you missed the word "like", which explicitly points that the following example isn't to be taken literally, but rather metaphorically.
I didn't miss the word "like" at all. Putting "like" in a sentence isn't a get out of jail free card, especially when I recognise what I believe to be an obvious lie.
People were asking this stupid hypothetical on Discord/Reddit, etc., for what felt like several months last year. People when off the internet typically don't bother engaging in this behaviour. So I just don't believe you, even if the hypothetical was technically a bit different, e.g., "How would you feel if you lost your bag on the bus this morning?"
> Like they deliberately want a system that can be abused, or that they actually know that it can and will be abused, but not voting for it would make them appear soft on crime?
They don't care either way. They do whatever they think is popular to garner support. If it was popular to bring slavery back, they would advocate for that.
> Honestly I think the majority aren't smart enough to do the cost benefit analysis of these system, so they just ignore the warning.
I honestly wonder why many of you keep on giving these people the benefit of the doubt. Please don't quote Hanlon's razor at me. There's another side of it that often isn't discussed.
Nefarious individuals know (if they can't verbalise it) that most people will assume a mistake is made rather than malice and they will routinely use this to their advantage. Anyone that is in the political space, I automatically assume malice.
Michael Corleone: "Oh, who's being naïve, Kay?" put the cynical aside. I would not say they are all liars. some of them sure have good hearts and want to make the world better. sometimes, they promised things they weren't sure, but they said things anyway.
There is an old joke "How do you know if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving."
These people have us arguing about nonsense while they line their pockets.
Stop assuming that these people have your best interests at heart. Cynicism is warranted because their class has earned the (poor) reputation.
We aren't going to see improvement until we make police unions illegal. Police carry enormous power over local governments in this country.
It’s not naivety
<< The US might be different, I doubt it, but society is getting increasingly SAFE, there is less and less need for these tools.
Oh man, I have to assume you live in a nice little enclave and are reading old statistical reports. I have the misfortune of sometimes having to travel into the city. I can assure you, it is not getting safer. In fact, just last week I saw first sign of Chicago turning into Philly.
https://ourworldindata.org/us-crime-rates
This chart is up to 2024. If you look up 2025 and 2026 data for the US you will see that it has continued to decline YoY.
Judging by your comment I assume that you have personally witnessed some criminality recently and are drawing conclusions about the entire US, if so I’m sorry you had to endure that, but that doesn’t mean that your conclusions apply to the general trend in the US as the GP was referring to.
Sure, sure, just a major metropolitan area in the midwest and not a barometer for anything at all. One would think that either stats are misleading or my population sample is wrong.
But I have no need to convince anyone. It is just weird to me that I need to explain the obvious.
The fact that you personally saw something that you didn't like in your city is not relevant in a discussion about statistics.
:D Friend, allow me to make light of this conversation for the benefit of all.
I am sure that you are familiar with an expression of being hit by lightning indicating some relatively low chance of an event[1]. Now, imagine walking around with a rather conductive flagpole everywhere you go, do you think you would up or lower your odds ( edit: for a lightning to strike ).
Maybe it is true that I don't discuss statistics the way you do. After all, I merely apply them to real life.
But then again, I don't walk around during thunderstorm waiting to be struck.
In other words, you are wrong. Individual actions affecting chance are very much relevant to discussion about statistics.
[1]https://www.cdc.gov/lightning/data-research/index.html
I agree the data says that. Also weird that as long as the people responsible for statistics were replaced by new appointees the data shifted direction almost immediately. What could have been going there?
Maybe just a coincidence. I'm sure it is just a coincidence. For real
hmm would need to at least adjust for the ageing population. how grandpa gonna beat yo ass?
Why would we need to adjust for that? Either way, it's less violent crime for the cops to deal with.
> Harpe accepted responsibility for sharing her credentials but argued that firing her was excessive.
> In her appeal, Harpe said her husband was a certified federal law enforcement officer and that every search was conducted for law enforcement purposes.
> “The violation occurred because I gave my husband, who is a certified law enforcement officer with the Department of Homeland Security, access to my Flock account,” Harpe wrote. “Every search he conducted was for law enforcement use only and not for personal gain.”
There seems to be a subset of law enforcement officers who fundamentally don't understand privacy, checks and balances, and responsibility. They believe they should have unrestricted access to everyone else and that they are above us all.
Firing her was not excessive, it is the bare minimum. Officers should be held to a higher standard, not lower. She and her husband should be in a jail cell.
This was also surprising to me, I'd think the firing would be automatic and then it'd be a legal case about unauthorized access of govt computers, which is generally taken pretty seriously.
You can't make the same argument with financial systems by giving someone at a different bank access to your bank just because you're both "financial professionals", and that's arguably much less sensitive data.
> There seems to be a subset of law enforcement officers who fundamentally don't understand privacy, checks and balances, and responsibility.
This is why two things should be mandatory for new officers: psychological examination and a mandatory law degree from a qualified institution. If you're enforcing the law, you need to actually know its contents and how it works. That would naturally limit the numbers and discourage people who haven't gotten over high school from using their job as a torment nexus.
> If you're enforcing the law, you need to actually know its contents and how it works.
Not disagreeing but I can’t see how this would be practical. I think any college degree should be the absolute minimum though.
Is it practical to give weapons and combat vehicles to under-qualified but readily-available individuals to enforce laws they don't understand (let alone have knowledge of) like we do now?
It's not. We just accept it as a default because it's easy to dismiss something obviously good (making sure police are mentally stable, law-aware, and held to a level of scrutiny commensurate to the job) because it may require effort.
Someone being handed a gun and told to go "keep people in line" should be held to an almost absurd standard before ever being let on the streets. That we don't already do this speaks volumes about the underdeveloped state of our civilization (despite our hubris to the contrary).
> Is it practical to give weapons and combat vehicles
I get what you mean, but with how easy it is to get a gun (especially in red states), it is practical in the sense that it seems pretty easy to do and there’s no shortage.
But should we? I agree with you, absolutely fucking not.
> I get what you mean, but with how easy it is to get a gun (especially in red states)
Have you tried? I live in Tennessee (aggressively red) and own multiple firearms. Mandatory background checks and a mandatory 3-day wait [1] are the standard. Even online transfers from an FFL require submission of an ATF registration form.
Tangential, but it's not as easy as one would think. Also, there are a shocking number of posers down here. Stars and bars and "don't tread on me" but not a lot of commitment to "the mission." There are far more grown men driving lifted trucks with glow lights on them than serious threats.
[1] https://www.stateregstoday.com/politics/gun-control/firearm-...
> Have you tried?
Just in one of the super blue states. My buddy lives in Texas, he’s got a couple of guns and says is easy to get.
> There are far more grown men driving lifted trucks with glow lights on them than serious threats.
The problem is these guys join ICE or act like they are, and that’s a serious threat. If you brandish Stars and Stripes / Dont Tread on Me, even if you’re a poser I’m not going to take a risk of finding out. That in itself is powerful.
Photography is one that comes into play a bit (taking photos in public places). There was a Georgia police chief who gave a press conference on the steps of a courthouse having just lost a civil rights case: his officers arrested a photographer and just kept doubling down. His conference had this marquee quote: "We cannot expect our police officers to be constitutional lawyers or know every minute detail".
"We can arrest you even though we're not really sure if you actually broke a law. You, on the other hand, are expected to know the law, and ignorance is not considered an excuse."
> privacy, checks and balances, and responsibility
In their eyes it goes like this:
Privacy:- why do you need it if you have nothing to hide?
Checks and balances:- you are the balance and I’m here to check you
Responsibility:- it is my responsibility to check you
I want to say I’m being sarcastic but I don’t know anymore. Arguably their motivation is to hunt and jail people, so it feels like “personal gain” on the fringes. No job is so far removed that it’s devoid of personal gain.
Maybe that last part was a smidge too radical.
When Batman created his sonar system we cheered because he needed it to fight "the bad guy". It took Alfred to explain this was too much. "The bad guy" has been used for hundreds of years to escuse simple solutions under the premise that we're "the good guys".
>When Batman created his sonar system we cheered because he needed it to fight "the bad guy".
And because it was fiction, and we had suspended our disbelief to enjoy a vision of a different world with guys that are inherently trustworthy, and because there was a confirmed terrorist plot to commit mass murder that literally could only be thwarted with this move.
Don't conflate temporary acceptance of a premise with real-world values, that's like being the guy that responds to the trolley problem with "I would simply remove the one person from the track, saving everyone and refusing to engage with this conversation."
> It took Alfred to explain this was too much.
Believe it was Lucius.
> There seems to be a subset of law enforcement officers who fundamentally don't understand privacy, checks and balances, and responsibility. They believe they should have unrestricted access to everyone else and that they are above us all.
A large part of law enforcement training is specifically to instill and reinforce this belief. They are officers, you are civilians. You are not the same (in their eyes). They are the thin blue line keeping society from crumbling into anarchy (or socialism). Hell, when push comes to shove, they will close ranks and throw firefighters and paramedics under the bus (arrested on the scene of car accidents for insufficiently respecting the cops "authority"), ER staff (ER nurses arrested for refusing a warrantless blood draw when the cops are desperate to diffuse blame from their off-duty drunk fellow officer who blew a red light and fatally t-boned another car), and so on and so on.
Wait, this system is standard SaaS and they can sign in from anywhere, not locked to department devices? That's crazy.
I work in the health sector and some systems are locked down much tighter than others despite containing the same kinds of data. It's a bit of a mess.
Who is responsible for the specifications of those systems? Someone is paid to do it well, so that someone is doing their job.
It's almost never like that. Usually some team collaborates with some other team and sets something up with approval from departments A, B, and C with director X signing off. There's rarely one person you can point to. Also, wait a year and all those As, Bs, Cs, and Xs have switched to different roles or don't exist.
Insurance. It's always insurance.
Why aren't the police required to carry liability insurance like doctors?
Is crazy that production databases at places I've worked are often harder to access than this. So much stuff they do with Flock access I would be fired for if I tried it with even vaguely sensitive customer data.
The dichotomy of our current age. On one hand, all knowing super thinking machines are just around the corner. Meanwhile, this. Almost seems like a feature and not a bug.
What's crazier is that it's basic username/password auth. The officer in this here article literally shared her creds with her husband like a sticky note. That's a METEORIC security risk. Something like Flock should just be OAuth access tokens (no refreshers). Shoot, something like Flock shouldn't even _have_ its own auth provider.
Honestly I’m not even surprised.
The future is a dystopian mundanity. We expect the protagonists to roleplay their part.
What do you mean with "the future"?
well, today can never be dystopian.
dystopia /dɪs'toʊpiə/ noun A vision of a future that is a corrupted (usually beyond recognition) utopian society. A miserable, dysfunctional state or society that has a very poor standard of living. (medicine) Anatomical tissue that is not found in its usual place.
The term "future" in that definition is idiosyncratic to the dictionary it was taken from, certainly. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dystopia#English don’t have any mention of "future".
Neither dys- nor -topia relates to time. One can apply dystopia in the long time ago in a distant galaxy setup, in some future, in some alternative dimension, or in present time.
considering it's antonym is a utopia and utopias are imagined; I think your argument is imagined.
Thanks. I'll be here all week.
Eu- is a classic antonym morph for dys-, yes, and though rendered as u- is less usual it's still the same morpheme that one find in euphoria or euphony.
Both are classically used to name fiction places, starting with Thomas More eponymous book.
That said, neither eu- nor dys- are related to chronology or imaginative consideration on themselves, only about how desirable or awful the prefixed root is assessed to be in the judged situation.
it seems everyone in this thread is focusing on the wrong issue; the problem was not that "sign-in procedures are too lax", it's that these individuals have access, period - or that the system exists in the first place.
People understand that. I think Flock needs to be dismantled but I'm also a bit shocked (as much as one can be these days) that the login procedures are just a username and password from anywhere. Netflix has stronger access controls.
How do you implement that with web apps?
Myriad ways, pretty standard on most corporate networks, to restrict access to corporate devices. I cannot access any of my client's resources, including Web apps, without their laptop.
Simple method is IP whitelisting, easy in some ways painful to keep updated. Vpn is another easy option. But then you can have client side certs, hardware tokens, and endpoint security mechanisms which are probably more robust. Either way, it's not a weird unique thing, it's pretty ubiquitous :)
I have to be logged in to azure vpn to access the development environment of the web application I work on because heavens forbid if our users stumble upon a non-production version of the application on the Internet and yet these people just put everything out there for everyone to see. At least I think it should require a CAC card or a PIV card to access sensitive data like this, shutting down immediately if the card presence is not detected somehow.
Due diligence is basically the enemy of the "growth at all costs" mindset.
I think the idea of Flock (and all modern software, pretty much) is not just to offer a service, but to offer it as dirt-cheap and lazily as possible with the intent of creating reasonable margins for a product that otherwise shouldn't even be profitable in the first place.
Doing things, "correctly" is sort of no longer the place of software. The idea is to build solutions that are comprised of toothpicks and sticky tacky so you can force out whatever the alternative was and make money for the shareholders at the same time.
IP range allowlists, mTLS, any number of conditions on your auth provider, take your choice.
Probably the department's fault for not using (presumably) Entra Conditional Access to restrict SSO to corporate devices / corporate subnets.
This is why if you're building a product, please give SSO for free (see sso.tax) - you shift responsibility, requirements and posture to the tenant's IdP.
Unfortunately that will make you a lot less money. The whole premise of the sso.tax seems based on that it's not intentional.
It is intentional and deliberate price discrimination to charge enterprises more. One example: why do you think enterprises don't just stack consumer/teams Codex or Claude subs with significant subsidies; given that all enterprise seats are API/PAYG now? SSO/IdP + ability to opt out of training globally
SSO is a core security feature, not a value add. I do not mind charging extra for say SCIM or advanced RBAC. I have a different view to business than most SaaS apps, and feel when you bring value and delight to the customer, they take you as a trustworthy partner and want to grow with you. Trust is very important and I feel so bitter paying Bitwarden, Adobe, and all the other enshittified stacks that 30-100% uplift on the base plan to get SSO. I also love my homelab stuff and it's a sour taste when I need to set up some system with local auth. yeah, maybe some nerd's A/B test show charging SSO makes more money, that's a shame and I think long term it's simply harmful (and probably less profitable due to my comment on stickyness and delighting customers being good business sense).
Only a tech nerd would think the solution to massive overreach by government organizations and illegal use of mass surveillance tools is more technology from one of the participating technology companies...
Could you use SSO as a layer for Device whitelisting?
Authenticate with SSO > IDP checks for Device fingerprint > IDP Approves Login if Device is whitelisted
In addition to the other things mentioned, some very sensitive applications in my organization must be run from a virtual desktop, which is itself must be run from a locked down corporate laptop.
We typically use VPC Endpoint Services or equivalent for enterprise customers, ie connect our private VPC with their private VPC. Pretty much the best way to do this, no VPNs to manage or IP whitelists to maintain and all traffic is local to the cloud provider.
That assumes the customers have cloud computing in use, which many do not.
Almost all of our enterprise customers have an AWS and/or Azure cloud, and if they don’t, we’ll host on-premise as a PaaS service.
I think you’re overestimating the amount of enterprises that don’t have cloud computing.
That can be part of signing the contract for these tools if any thought to security was put in place
IDP + MDM, Client certificates, VPNs, tokens/cookies, etc.
I can’t run any web apps from my employer unless I’m on one of their computers. Tokens are only generated on corporate systems. IP access only allowed from corporate VPN.
IP Whitelist, this is standard stuff.
IP whitelists or VPNs
With a VPN for instance
You are not a web app developer, are you?! Please say you are not! Or just doing it for fun and harmless matters.
Look at their profile. “Public sector software”. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions, and any relation to the topic of TFA.
Although I would agree on some days depending on my mood, if you've worked enough places you would know just as well as I do that this isn't limited to public sector software...
mTLS with cert in TPM.
They should both go to prison. One for giving out unauthorised access of the resource and the other for exploiting it.
If the authorities want people to accept systems like Flock etc. then they need to severely punish abuse like this.
You think so? I don't.
I think "the authorities" don't care and that they seem to be able to force these systems on folks anyhow, and that the if->then syllogism you propose doesn't work.
The people committing these kinds of crimes don't seem to understand them as crimes and believe they will not and should not be punished. Further, the people who those folks report to seem to feel the same way.
I see them as crimes.
I am, however, ambivalent about what punishment should look like because the entirety of the carcerial system in the US (and the so-called immigration systesm) are so rotten to their cores that I just give up on them. It doesn't matter -what- I think because, as this kind of event shows, we do not in fact live in a system that represents me in any meaningful sense.
That's bad, and and it's not local to me. After all "those who make peaceful change impossible..." and such.
But I don't agree that they won't get the politically orthodox folks in the US to accept these systems; they seem to already have accepted them.
Unfortunately the darker reason is that the authorities / ruling class know that they don't need the public to accept these things. Americans will allow basically any abuse.
Now I'm not saying the Americans should look to France for inspiration, ...
In Chatrie v. United States (June 2026) the SCOTUS ruled that individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their digital location history and that geofence warrants constitute a search under the 4th Amendment. It's only a matter of time until a similar case involving Flock comes before them and they rule that a search of the Flock database constitutes a search under the 4th Amendment and that every single search requires a specific warrant.
I think there have been a positive number of cases gone in favor of digital privacy recently. This being one of them. It’s unfortunate, but it’ll just take time for these manners to go through the courts.
I’m quite naive regarding the details of the legal system, wonder why we can’t expedite certain cases when a SCOTUS precedent has been established, or some form of expedited legal notice. We shouldn’t have to wait for a perfect case of a flock violation, then wait for someone to be brave enough to spend the money (or if pro bono just their time/reputation) to file a case and go through the system for the next x years
It's hope that Chatrie v. US automatically implies Flock searches require a warrant, but this is definitely not guaranteed - SCOTUS could easily go either way on this. For example, in his concurrence with the decision, Gorsuch relied on property rights, namely that Chatrie's agreement with Google regarding location history made this a warrant-required search. Obviously that doesn't apply in Flock's case.
SCOTUS has held for a long time that people don't have an expectation of privacy when visible in public. Digital recording and powerful search features certainly change the calculus on that, but there is a fundamental difference between a location tracked by a cellphone you purchased and own vs. just driving around where anyone can read your license plate.
> There is a fundamental difference between a location tracked by a cellphone you purchased and own vs. just driving around where anyone can read your license plate
I heavily disagree with the sentiment that modern 'ALPRs' are the same as following around an individual in public. No police officer, sheriff, state trooper, etc. is able to follow an individual across the entire country and catalog their every move 24/7. They have jurisdictions they're allowed to operate in. Additionally, the level of tracking these cameras provide (via their accompanying software) is nearly on par with placing a GPS tracker on a vehicle (which requires a warrant btw), and they're tracking every vehicle that passes, not just vehicles involved in a crime. Our travel history is protected by the 4th amendment because of the intimate details it can reveal about an individual's life. That is ultimately why Chatrie v. US was decided, not because of the specific technology utilized. It's the same case for Carpenter v. US and US v. Jones; both of which were instrumental in deciding the outcome of Chatrie.
I encourage people to go read the opinions of the justices that decided these cases. For example Justice Kegan had this to say in Chatrie v. US [1]:
> The Court began its analysis by reviewing what it had said about a different way of tracking “physical location and movements”: the use of a GPS device to monitor a vehicle. In United States v. Jones, five Justices had agreed that such tracking counts as a Fourth Amendment search because “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.” That made sense, the Carpenter Court thought, even though the movements occurred in public. Prior to the digital age, pursuing a suspect “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” As a result, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car.” A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government.
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
FWIW, I totally agree with you, that's why I wrote "Digital recording and powerful search features certainly change the calculus".
But my point was just that it's absolutely not a fait accompli given the current makeup of SCOTUS. Gorsuch' rationale doesn't fit within Kagan's at all and is wholly dependent on the private relationship between Google and the consumer, so that brings it to 5-4, and I could easily see Roberts or Kavanagh (who voted with the majority in Chatrie) finding enough differences between the circumstances in Chatrie compared to Flock to change their vote.
> He said every search was related to his federal law enforcement work and denied using the system for personal reasons.
Assuming that’s true, why wouldn’t he have his own flock account to do his searches?
Because for all their faults Flock dose not give ICE access to state owned cameras.
More accurately, no longer does by default (after much pushback).
Local & state agencies can affirmatively choose to opt-in to sharing with ICE/HSI, except in California and Virginia where it is banned.
[movies] Big Brother is an evil AI, that controls all our lives.
[reality] It's just the police, beating us with better batons, same as it ever was.
Oh, I suppose the baton upgrades are something to celebrate!
Also, baton manufacturing company started via HN
You're actually a Luddite and pro-kidnapper if you're against the baton upgrades. Think of the kids for the love of god! /s
[reality] both
Is this not cybercrime and illegal surveillance?
ICE are basically above the law. They're routinely ignoring court orders: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
But what about the woman? Sure, she was fired for it, but surely it has to also be illegal?
And while federal crimes are legal now, couldn't it be against state law too?
Police regularly slaughter those they swore to "protect and serve" and since they have qualified immunity nothing can ever happen to them. The purpose of a system is what it does.
police rarely face serious consequences for misconduct.
Of course it was illegal.
Who do you expect to charge the woman with a crime: the local prosecutors who are basically cop-adjacent, Georgia's attorney general who supports the lawless ICE, or a federal prosecutor working under the Trump administration?
I mean, maybe you'd like to do something about it via a civil lawsuit, at which point you ought to acquaint yourself with something called "qualified immunity."
Living in a police state is fun, right?
Fuhrer Brownshirts, just waiting for a competent dictator to take over from Trump.
And a great big poisoned tree for anything that comes from the data. But it’s not like the Americans have been following the rules when deporting people anyways.
That rule only applies in courtrooms. As ICE doesn't really do courtrooms, the rule is moot. (Not a joke. ICE moves prisoners around so quickly specifically to avoid dealing with courtrooms.)
The regime has figured out that the people don’t like certain things, but not nearly enough to do anything uncomfortable about them. Now they’re calibrating on the best ways to do things without stirring the people up too much. Apparently if you make gas cost too much that’s where Americans draw the line. And who says capitalism doesn’t work!
You can make gas cost too much if your media bubble says it's someone else's fault. Their target audience is people who only watch Fox News, and they will never connect the gas prices to the president unless he's a democrat.
I also do not understand how this doesn't break stuff like CFAA.
If I worked at a company and gave my work login credentials to a friend and that friend used it to access my work's network then I'm pretty sure I'd go to jail.
It does violate the CFAA and probably many other laws, but unless a prosecutor decides to pursue charges nothing will be done.
And just about everyone in the position to prosecute them actively wants this, so this is just another example of laundering the blame.
That was my first thought too, this is already illegal under the CFAA and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I don't want to automatically blame Trump, but if the leader of the country ignores laws, why would anyone else think they are that important?
Most of the federal government predates the current administration. They really do want to follow the law. It's their job, not an ideology.
ICE is the President's personal force, screened for their loyalty to him. They have no interest in the law. The rest of the government doesn't like them any better than you do.
Voting data says there are large portions of the population loyal to Trump with no interest in the law, and even larger portions in the law enforcement agencies. If I was working in those departments, I would assume at least 2/3 (the portion of the general population fine with Trump's behavior) is not going to be on my side.
What do you mean ignoring laws aren't ICE agents going after illegals? Wtf are they doing in this country in the first place?
Its funny how nobody was making this argument when it was Obama ignoring international law to launch drone strikes on weddings and 18 yr old American citizens.
The president has always ignored the law.
Nobody?
Plenty of people were making this argument. The main difference is the previous presidents didn’t fill their cabinet with literal neofascists.
I know leftists were criticizing Obama for drone strikes. If the Republicans weren't criticizing Obama for murdering civilians, it's because they agreed with it. They attacked him on pretty much everything else, after all.
Yes, America has thought itself to be above international law for quite some time. But with Trump, we’re talking national laws… the Constitution.
Ohh, your right! I forgot that the torture Obama was overseeing in Guantanamo was allowed by the constitution! He never violated anybody's rights, or broke any national laws!
Like I said, people only cry foul when its not 'their guy' disregarding the law and constitution. America has always been like this, and its only getting worse as both sides become more neurotic.
I guess the way I'd put it is that we've been increasingly allowing and not punishing privacy breaches and government/authorities overstepping and after 20+ years of boiling the frog the latest, most extreme variant has pretty much pushed it over the edge of dystopian.
So it's not all Trump, but his administration has definitely pushed the lack of accountability to new heights and combining it with the new wave of surveillance tech with limited oversight or legislation it's all just become ingrained with nobody to fight it.
No, because of the Führerprinzip [0], oh, um, sorry, I meant "unitary executive theory".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip
Only for us plebs. It's legal when Trump's guys do it.
There are probably systems that even if they should exist (debatable for some), they should do so only in secured facilities that the government worker must badge into physically to access.
This would at least reduce some of the avenues for abuse.
I get "Sorry, this content is not available in your region." when trying to access this link. EU/Sweden.
https://www.theverge.com/policy/1013573/spd-officer-fired-fl...
https://gizmodo.com/cop-fired-for-letting-her-ice-agent-husb...
Weird that Flock (YC17 [1]) is clearly being used for more than license plate reading, and is built to do more than that, and is actively abused for that without any repercussions, and we point at the officers misusing it rather than the company supplying it?
The old "if we don't do it, someone else will" doesn't apply if you're the only person evil enough to run Flock.
[1]: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety
As long as people fall for scare tactics and don’t actually reason to think and demand proper solutions from politicians, these will continue. From a politicians perspective, there is no roi in fixing problems, the damn people will just want more. Instead, just scare them and pit one group against the other and that is reusable and scales very well. That’s what we have today.
Wonder how many low level Lowes or Home Depot asset protection employees would also happily hand their credentials over for nationwide search access, too.
I have Home Depot employees using Flock announcements to shadow me now.
Last two visits, some guy named "Victor" shadowed me, and made it a point to call me by my first name twice.
I spend as little money at Home Depot as possible now.
The flock system is being abused by every organization across the entire country, because thats where peoples heads are at today.
2 out of 3 adults in the US are not considered "psychologically mature" by psychologists.
Nation of adult children + spying and tracking technology ... of course its being abused. The only question is how much, and Flock isn't going to tell us the truth of it, ever, because they dont track abuse, they track victims.
We are the victims of Flock.
Home Depot was also one of the major backers of Cop City, sitting on the Atlanta Police Foundation [0] and pushing through a wholly undemocratic construction of a training facility [1] that resulted in the razing of the fourth largest remaining greenspace [2] in Atlanta so the cops could practice their swatting techniques.
[0] https://roughdraftatlanta.com/2023/06/30/atlanta-police-arre...
[1] https://truthout.org/articles/despite-116000-signatures-atla...
[2] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08032023/atlanta-cop-city...
We spend most of our money at ACE or just order directly from manufacturers online.
Sorry, ignorant European here. WDYM a Home Depot employee can access Flock? This thing is not restricted to LEO?
No, its not.
Home Depot and Lowes are the 2 largest US home store ( construction materials, appliances, etc ) retail chains in the US.
They have Flock cameras installed on mobile trailers, parked in their parking lots. The cameras track your vehicle as you are parking, and issue alerts for anyone that has been flagged in the database.
In my case, I have classmates from school, who have friends at the local county EMS operations center, who are using the system to stalk me.
Just 3 days ago, I tried to have a quiet conversation with my girlfriend at a little park, in a small neighborhood. Less than 10 minutes after arriving, a car with 4 or 5 people showed up, positioned themselves within ear shot, and then began making fun of us in order to prevent us from thinking and discussing issues clearly. This event by itself seems innocent and random, except, it happens like clockwork, in multiple locations, and its an established pattern in my life, making it decidedly non-random. The "actors" think of it as street theatre, the police think of it as "policing", and what you get as the target is pure psychological hell.
When a victim begins to try and explain verbally what is happening to them, they relive the trauma of the events that have been "staged" and people assume the victim is mentally unstable. It is the same strategy as kicking a dog in the head repeatedly, until it becomes an agry mad dog, and then putting it down because it was dangerous. Create the problem, then appear to solve it.
What may have started out as a joke now has them guilty of human trafficking, so they have adopted a strategy of "running me out of town" via harrassment.
They know if they emotionally destablise people, they will voluntarily leave or self destruct via drugs, stress, acting out, etc.
This is what "community policing" now means.
There are any number of videos on youtube of people having meltdowns, claiming they are being 'gangstalked', etc. and they seem very disturbed. This is why this works. They disturb you, then dismiss any allegations as you being disturbed.
Watch the movie "Closetland" for how psychological abuse works.
It sounds like you have a good basis for some lawsuits (and criminal charges if you can convince someone), hopefully at least one of which will be financially worth it. Of course you need to gather good evidence first. Consult with a lawyer first.
That sucks though.
There is an entire "targetted individual" community on the internet.
You can tell that something has happened to them, but its ephemeral, because its psychological, and what do all of us do when we don't understand someone ?
We dismiss them. We other them. We isolate them. We walk away.
Not as a group decision, but the outcome of our collective individual decisions.
Abuse someone long enough, psychologically, and if they are not educated and self-aware, their behavior becomes erratic and they lose all social support.
It's not unlike veterans of a war, who understand what each other went through, when the public doesn't.
The "targeted individual" community is mostly people with paranoid delusions. That might not be the right medical term - I don't intend to diagnose people, just to describe what they are experiencing.
Unfortunately, our society is really good about detecting people who are "acting weird" - and some people decide to harass or bully the weird ones. Feeling like you are being stalked makes it very difficult to act "normally" in all circumstances, which increases the odds on any subsequent outing that somebody will notice and act toward you in a way that's undesirable.
It still sucks, what is happening to these people. But it's not a coordinated malicious campaign against them in particular. It's like you say - the outcome of our collective individual decisions. For most of them, there never was any "targeting."
> The "targeted individual" community is mostly people with paranoid delusions.
How did you reach this conclusion ?
> Unfortunately, our society is really good about detecting people who are "acting weird"
Yes, and I can cause you to act wierd, by projecting a false reality onto you.
Alot of what happened to me, happened in the bar my classmate worked at. We were "supposed to be working on music" together, but that was just his cover story. I would go to the bar where he works to talk to him about our project, and he would text his friends/actors to come and act out scripts with me, and in front of me. He controlled the narrative this way. Afterwards, I would reflect upon the events, and how I felt about it.
Just as one example, he had a woman pretend to be interested in me. Then, after investing time in talking to her, taking her to dinner, etc. she publicly humiliated me in the bar. The goal is emotional destablization.
Make you happy, pull the rug, make you sad.
One of the people in charge of county EMS operations aka camera monitoring, happens to be a female, and the bartender had her sit next to me and pretend to be interested in me as well on another occasion. I found her employment info later using google searches to connect the dots.
The terms for people who behave this way are "malignant narcissists" and the tactic is "intermitent reinforcement."
Sounds like he was trying to get you a date and it didn't work out.
Sincerely, you should probably get back in touch with a medical professional you trust. Maybe I'm reading this situation all wrong, and you really do have dozens of unpaid "actors" spending their lives harassing you for no gain. But probably not.
Everyone has enemies, except for you apparently.
Everyone has competition in life, except for you apparently.
Everyone experiences conflict in some form or another, except for you apparently.
Perhaps your appearance isn't what you make it out to be.
Also, you altered my statements to create yours. Thats the very tactic I've been explaining.
Nice try though.
"Mimetic Scapegoating, Then Mimetic Desire, Ends in Violence - Sam Vaknin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42LTRQKkaEs
.. scarcity of objects creates a competitive environment. And since we imitate each other, we have this herd mentality of imitating each other in our desires. This inevitably, ineluctibly gives rise to competition which easily deteriorates and devolves into violence.
Society develops the scapegoat mechanism to redirect violence in ways that are less harmful to itself which in turn inspires the invention of religion to justify sacrifice is how the encyclopedia Britannica describes the situation.
Everyone gets to laugh at the sacrifice, except the sacrifice.
Comedy and tragedy are 2 sides of the same coin, and what determines if we laugh or cry, is our own personal proximity and role in the situation.
It's funny when Dick Van Dyke trips over the foot stool.
It hurts like hell when you do it.
The Jewish community was doing just as well as anyone else in the 20's. By the 30's, propaganda had convinced everyone they were the enemy. These people experienced "normal life" right up until someone decided to make them the enemy, via psychological warfare. They woke up one day with a train ticket to Auschwitz, for "work."
Many of them no doubt, were suspicious, but they were told they were 'crazy' and that 'the government wouldn't do that, the government is here to protect us.' The problem is, that government isn't a thing. Government is a group of people, and groups of people behave irrationally and violently all the time, while laughing and carrying on about how right they were to violently destroy their fellow man.
Go to a European soccer game. Just watch how the 2 sides act towards each other. The fans will attack each other, over their emotional investment in corporations that sell t-shirts.
Try convincing a religious person that God isn't real. They'll kill you to prove you wrong. The lack of evidence either way isn't a factor in their reasoning. The only thing that matters is their personal emotional investment in the idea.
As for me seeing a "medical professional" I'm going to have to schedule a consultation for myself and my girlfriend, because she's witnessed the "acting" as well, and the same bartender used these tactics to attack her brother, right after their father died. The bartender tried the same thing when my mother died. The day after she passed, I walked into the bar, and he started up a conversation saying "Noone gives a shit about some old lady dying." He wanted me to lose my shit and get angry, like my gf's brother did. I gave him no response, because I knew he was manipulating me.
When anyone can watch a youtube video on how to manipulate people, do you really think that noone is using the information to manipulate others ?
Wouldn't a "lifelong bartender" be interested in controlling and manipulating people ? Wouldn't he be an expert at it after 20 years of working in a bar ?
I'm a computer programmer. He knows this. He knows I've spent more hours interacting with computers than people, and he thought I would be an easy target. When you know the characters involved, the behavior patterns emerge.
If said bartender was a malignant narcissist, wouldnt the environment of a bar provide him with endless narcissistic supply ? He's a god in the bar. He can make anyones evening great, or he can text his friend to start a fight and get someone arrested. This is what narcissistic supply is.
"Every Manipulation Technique & How To Combat It Explained"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkvBLyIAzo
We really need to stop thinking that predators don't walk amongst us, when all of history tells us it has always been the case.
Especially when it comes to bartenders.
They sell glasses of poison for people to drink.
It was only 120 years ago Congress had to pass a law specifically prohibiting bartenders from drugging people and selling them to boat captains.
How much have people changed in 120 years, behaviorially, at the core ?
Wouldn't the same selfish psychopaths, that sold people to boat captains, still be attracted to the same bar environment, even if their tactics of fleecing people have changed ?
I just happen to have gone to school with the guy. Lucky me.
Just to be clear, they don't have access to the "full package", only the cameras on their property, right? Or is it cross referenced with vehicles flagged by others?
That's a truly horrible story. It strikes me as one that a reputable investigative journalism outlet might take up. Have you thought about contacting somewhere like ProPublica to see if they would be interested in writing about it?
I'm doing what I can right now to mitigate the effects on my life, but I'm in a position where I have many battles right now, on many fronts.
I simply don't have the resources to fight this as hard as I would like, because it would consume all of the time I'm using merely to pay bills.
Predators don't attack the strongest animal. They attack the weakest.
That said, in the words of the great Tom Petty, "I won't back down."
The strategy that has worked so far for me, is to not internalize the nonsense. Just ignore it. Give it the attention it deserves, which is none.
The strategy btw is known as "gray rock" in the psychological community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmksB-SIvtA
That is fucking insane. I'm also separately sorry your friends are being stalked. I'd like to give a perspective here without sounding holy. Yes we have ANPR (what you'd call ALPR). There are national police databases and I am sure the cameras are very effective, but every search would require a justification of proportionality and access is not sold to the highest bidders. I think the furthest stretch of users would be the tax authorities' investigations departments. That a private company can profile citizens' movements like this is insane.
I think you may have misread. I am being stalked. My friends are not.
My "former classmates" due to some grudge, are using their friends in power, to abuse me. The two classmates spearheading it, know everyone who is anyone in this county, because one was the President of a womens organization, and the other has been a bartender downtown for 20 years.
I'm being harassed by the digital good ole boy network. This behavior isn't new, its just morphed into a sci fi dystopia.
Sorry, I did misread that. Stay safe I guess :/ I just find it bizarre this whole thing is a private company with a sales@ email the Home Depot etc can contact. I won't be political but a) unlike many countries you can elect your sheriffs, remind them who they work for, b) you have a thing coming up in a few weeks, remind your lawmakers who they work for too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_stalking
Gang stalking or group-stalking is a set of persecutory delusions in which those affected believe they are being followed, stalked, and harassed by a large number of people.
When wikipedia says its a delusion, the predators have free reign, because the victims will never be believed, because wikipedia said they were delusional.
It takes far less time, attention, and energy, to dismiss a claim like this than it does to prove it, so everyone dismisses it.
It's perfect, just like the matrix.
I'm also reminded of the Star Trek episode "I, Mudd" where they short circuit the robots brains with illogical statements that can't be resolved.
Same scenario.
You and I sit here, and make references to literary plots, to attempt to solve a problem.
Predators watch the same Star Trek episode, and say to themselves, "I'm going to start doing that to people."
...this seems overtly paranoid and is really hard to believe. Who are you to be constantly stalked by 4-5 people?
And you blame the "adults of America" that supposedly are "psychologically inmature", which to me looks like an absurd and unsubstantiated claim
I'd be happy to complete a test for you, that demonstrates im not paranoid, and merely repeating what I am observing in my life.
The Flock system has these risks built into it, no matter what its proponents claim. A person with one too many beers in them, in any downtown area, in any city, in any country, could say something to offend the wrong person. A person with access to Flock, who happens to be a police officer, who then stalks them.
Your reality is composed of what you have observed, what you have experienced, and what people tell you is real, and people tell 9 lies a day.
Your reality, some part of it, is not what you think. If you place a person in a reality that you control, and then execute a "rug pull" where you drop the veil and reveal a different reality, it causes stress, and stress kills after enough of it.
It's alright if you can't accept that this is happening to other people, but you are doing so because the idea scares you, and its not happening to you, so you reject it, and that is why it works.
Its the new digital Jim Crowe era, and US history is repleat with stories of people whos rights have been abused by others.
For every black person who was denied a seat at a diner in the 50's, there were 10 white people who love the diner and get excellent service every time.
We share a planet, and a country, while our experiences, even in the exact same place, are different.
The wealthy are fine protectors of the status quo, because it serves them. The poor have problems with the status quo, because it doesn't serve them. Same set of rules, 2 different outcomes, for 2 different groups of people.
The comment described a plausible scenario of how flock could be used in the described stalking. Instead of assuming the commenter is paranoid and delusional, we should make sure that surveillance cameras cannot be used in that way, especially given that there are actual documented cases of flock being used for stalking and no apparent safeguards to prevent it.
It can be a bit of both. There are subreddits full of people claiming to be gangstalked. Who is paying these people to follow this person around? Or they just have enough free time/no job and do it for fun?
The bottom line of it, is "projection."
Lets say Im your former girlfriend from school, and I have a grudge against you for normal mistakes kids make when socializing in school, and I have access to the Flock system, either directly, or through someone I've known for a long time.
Lets also add, that I have $5 million dollars in the bank, from having been born into a family of privilege, and experienced success in my professional life.
Lets also add, that I'm an unstable malignant narcissist, or covert narcissist, who extracts joy from using power to make others suffer. This isn't a made up diagnosis, this is a real behavior pattern among people in power.
Now, you are doing everything "right." You would never even think of stalking, harrassing, attacking anyone. Just because you don't have these thoughts, doesn't mean that others don't have them. They do. But you dont have a social support network, and you live paycheck to paycheck.
I can destabilize your life in any number of ways with the Flock database, because I know every store you visit, every friend you visit, every park you visit, etc. and theres nothing you can do about it.
I can send my police officer friend, into a store that you visit, like Home Depot, that has flock, and have them tell the security guy at home depot to flag you for whatever reason I care to make up. The uniform provides all the authority, even when the conversation is complete bs. The home depot guy flags you. Now, everytime you walk into any home depot, some random stranger treats you like a repeat shoplifter. They follow you, they say odd things to you. The idea that you are a criminal is "projected" onto you, by their assumption.
I can hire actors using the gig economy websites, and send them to where you are going to be to act out a script, which will cause you to respond in a manner that prevents you from thinking clearly. They will mock your clothes, your hair, etc.
After enough of these "scripted scenes" you realize everyone treats you like a criminal, worthless, useless troublemaker, and not the educated, intelligent, caring professional you are. They projected a new identity onto you.
A person who is aware of what is happening to them, and sees it clearly, has a near 0 chance of explaining it to someone who hasn't experienced it themselves. They sound crazy, because they have been intentionally destablized using the same psychological warfare tactics that get used by the military during wars.
They also begin to behave differently, in order to avoid the stress. In the home depot example, they start parking where the flock camera wont tag the car. Anyone with them asks "why are we walking a mile" and the person says "The flock system is tracking me." A perfectly rational adaptation to the environment, gets perceived as paranoia, because the stress only exists in the targets perception.
This technique works especially well on people who are seeking validation of their own identity from others. If you know who you are, and you have cemented your own identity, it doesn't work the same.
Watch some of Sam Vaknin's videos on narcissism. You'll be amazed that these people exist and enjoy destroying others, and they tend to hold positions of power. Your pain is their pleasure.
https://www.youtube.com/@samvaknin
Yes, this. I wouldn't start by victim blaming over what is a plausible event from recent media coverage of Flock.
Lowes and Home Depot, two retailers of tools and home repair supplies, got Flock cameras for all their parking lots after a wave of organized thefts in multiple states. By tracking license plates, they were able to end several rings of thieves who had been stealing millions of dollars worth of goods.
But this sounds like a policing problem not a private enterprise problem. By all means let them have an ALPR reader at the parking lot egress. 'Hi 911 yes we saw this pickup truck XX1ABC steal our shit at 2359hrs this evening', not 'cool we'll play cops & robbers with highly sensitive PII and no accountability or due process'
At it's basics, it's a camera software suite like any other security software like Genetec or the open source Frigate that companies can buy. Obviously the access allowed for a private company like home depot would be limited to only their cameras but home depot could then make those cameras available to law enforcement sort of like how Fusus allows private businesses to set up their local Police department with access to their camera system through a Fusus access box just that with Flock it's built into the software and isn't a third party add-on.
Correct. Lowes and Home Depot pay for "private" Flock cameras for asset protection purposes.
They use the licence plate hotlist internally to track when "organized retail crime(tm)" shows up and get pings when "thieves" come back to the store.
Thus, any Lowes/HD asset protection employee/manager can log into Flock, and see all of the ones "owned" by their corporation (which is nationwide, and installed well beyond the confines of the store property, often covering entire shopping plazas or parks where they're located). They won't be able to see outside of those bounds, but that's still a SUPER powerful tool if you consider ~1700 Lowes and 2000 Home Depots in the US alone.
And of course, combined with "small town" mentality and "backing the blue", of course someone with a modicum of power (the mall cop AP employee) will LARP up and want to whack out with ICE/the local PD and be happy to help them if it means getting a challenge coin!
Well this slightly (but only slightly) makes this a little better. So Cory at the Home Depot cannot stalk his ex by tracking the nationwide Flock network, but _in effect_ has a mini nationwide network available to him because he can see any Home Depot/Lowes which is a huge dragnet anyways?
Also Cory does not have Qualified Immunity, and if Cory is caught doing this, Cory can be punished.
Everything that Flock does is completely legal for anyone to do in the USA, because there are no privacy laws.
Uh, maybe it's legal for private citizens to do, but it very much is not constitutional for the government to be doing it.
That's why a group of private citizens does it, and sells the results to the government. You can do it too, if you want.
Explain to me where in the Constitution it has a carve out for creating an incentive for a private company to gather and collate that data, and then using tax dollars to pay for it.
Sure. The part where it says the government can't do it, and doesn't say private companies can't, and doesn't say the government can't buy it from private companies. The government didn't even create most of these at all - the company did it privately and then offered to the government to buy its services.
Oh, you're intellectually dishonest and not worth engaging with. Thanks for letting me know.
"Sorry, this content is not available in your region."
It's sad how the internet is getting worse by the day.
In my area the police union would have appealed and likely won. The only way that doesn't happen is if the union believes they have too much to lose because ICE is so unpopular and does not push it.
"Sorry, this content is not available in your region."
Why is that the case? Logged in from DE atm.
EU has laws on how to serve EU citizens and wjcl complies to them by not serving EU citizens.
Edward Snowden said that some NSA workers had used their huge surveillance systems to peep on their partners and ex's. One cannot give a bunch of people access to a vast surveillance network without abuse ensuing.
Yup, he said it was so common and accepted within the intel community it got nicknamed "LoveInt".
Depraved and lawless af
> Interim Maj. Max Nowinsky sustained the allegation and recommended an eight-hour suspension
Lots of explanations provided for wanting to go easy on her. Is the same logic applied for the many victims of a police department? If it's preferential treatment then maybe Interim Maj. Max Nowinsky should also be kicked to the curb.
> Tyler Harpe, a federal ICE agent
Federal ICE agent Tyler Harpe, may you enjoy your new found fame.
When you give any tool to any law enforcement agency, you give it to all of them, that's just reality.
@Americans who laugh at China and Russia thinking you're still much better off in freedom and rights: That is exactly how you look like to the rest of the world.
Why is this the top post on this website, what is going on?
I wish you all a safe and fruitful Halloween night
Apparently the system was not protected by 2FA.
How would that help? Credentials were not stolen.
Ironic that defending "justice" makes them to break several laws. It is almost like they are always on the verge of not respecting the laws anyway until they are the ones controlling the laws. What could possibly go wrong?
People forget that police officers are trained to "control the situation" and "control the narrative."
They are allowed to lie to you.
They are allowed to fabricate a false reality for you.
The moment you do the same to them, you are a criminal.
Divide and conquer. It's not new, and it still works.
The police have seen "The Matrix."
Flock is the console, you are Neo, and they are Agent Smith.
They should both be arrested. This is abuse of power. I hope we can clean up this next of corruption but fear we're too far gone.
So, when are both of these people going to be indicted, have their court hearings set up and face trial for their crimes?
"Sorry, this content is not available in your region."
https://archive.is/5cKk4
It's available in my country, via a vpn.
And this is why cities are letting their contracts expire, or citizens are shooting, stealing, and vandalizing Flock cameras.
Anything that can be abused through collusion in a wide scale scenario will eventually happen.
This is not a contingent issue, it’s a fundamental integrated flaw of any system that put general totalitarian spy as an aimed outcome. Whatever the way it’s green-washed over safety tradeoffs won’t change this obvious fact.
Can't give access if you dont collect it.
I'm not completely opposed to 'camera, cell, solar, battery on a pole'. Its pretty low tech honestly... But there absolutely be a minimum standard of search warrant approval in front of a judge before using it. AND it should be a criminal offense to use it without a search warrant.
However there's this whole problem of "illegal for government to do it but whitewashing through for profit company to do illegal thing".
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the abuse is tangential to the fact that "the system working as intended" is designed to comprehensively and cheaply subjugate us all to the whims of whoever or whatever has the ear of government at any particular minute.
If you wave a magic wand and fix the abuse you will not fix the very nature and purpose of these systems. 1984 would not magically become acceptable if cops couldn't stalk their girlfriend or creds could not be shared among agencies off the books.
A large enough to be a problem subset of the people decrying abuse fancy themselves an armchair central planner (the more self aware ones fancy themselves armchair despots). In the back of their mind they're thinking "if only we got rid of the abuse then the public would buy into this Orwellian system then I could get the government enforce my pet policies with an iron fist and get minimal pushback". Beware of these people. They are the true evil. They all seek to take a bite out of your day to day freedom and it doesn't take all that many of them getting their way before there is nothing left. The politicians feeling emboldened to sign contracts with Flock or any other surveillance vendor only feel emboldened to do so due to the existence and frequency of these people.
Abuse or not these systems are rotten and incompatible on a fundamental level with a free society.
> the abuse is tangential to the fact that "the system working as intended" is designed to comprehensively and cheaply subjugate us all to the whims of whoever or whatever has the ear of government at any particular minute.
I'm reminded of a "hah hah, only serious" joke/slang popularized by EverQuest players: Broken as intended.
https://wiki.c2.com/?HaHaOnlySerious
> if cops couldn't stalk their girlfriend
This used to be called "running a date" by law enforcement when checking up on some pretty face. That abuse is part of what led to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. When I worked for my state's motor vehicle agency, there were training videos about what was and wasn't allowed. It won't happen under this administration, but ALPR systems should be legislated as covered by DPPA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_...
This is wild. If the standards to get into these professions were as high as places as Europe (2-4 year diploma/degree before applying to police force), there might be less opportunity for this to happen.
The Metropolitan Police would like a quiet word....
These stories still don't belong on HN
Why not?
Article not available in the EU
Exact same idiotic issues with the NHS in the UK - people looking up patient medical records who have zero right doing so.
And ICE in turn guns down US citizens, as is already documented.
This is literally a repeat, with modification, of Europe in the 1930s. It is not 1:1 comparable, also in part because the US justice system, even if undermined by orange scumbag loyalists, works to some extent still. I am not saying all of it works, but on youtube you can often listen to discussions by several judges discussing issues at hand. I forgot which one it was, but it was linked in "Audit the Audit", and the judges there asked very good, and very objective questions. In the end they denied a cop immunity by default, based on very logical arguments they made. I was quite surprised when I listened to that. It also means that the Trump oligarch team is not able to kill all of the US justice system, even though they placed their agents into it already.
I’m less surprised that such things are happening (much worse has been happening for over 20 years) than by the fact that many people seem to genuinely believe that voting, protesting, or calling some representative is going to get us out of this.
Because… it is? Numerous states have banned flock style cameras as a result of the protests.
A rollback here and there only delays the inevitable. There has been no meaningful progress in individual rights in a Western country in at least 30 years.
I mean, the Flock cameras coming down is meaningful progress?
They're taking the more nihilistic stance that progress now is just a delay, and the outcome is treated as inevitable. Honestly, it's hard to see it going any other way: plenty of towns, cities, and counties are just waiting out the storm of public opinion and will move on once people get tired of protesting the same thing over and over.
Doesn't mean I don't think that protest and outrage over surveillance aren't good things, just that these things require constant vigilance or else we're stuck with them. Personally, what I see happening is a further bifurcation of American life, where we see communities opposed to constant surveillance contrasted with those that embrace the panopticon.
People thought the same thing about nuclear proliferation. Turns out we can do hard things if we make the effort as a populace. I’m all for being a realist but 1984 is not inevitable, it’s just very difficult to prevent.
If one treats all backsliding as permanent and all progress as temporary, their mind is already made up.
Look, I get it, we're clearly in the backsliding zone right now, but midterms are here.
On Flock very precisely, it had an impact in the last year.
Town canceled their contracts, the stock went down.
Two measurable metrics
I don't see what it matters? Local government removes cameras, state government installs them the next day.
A stock price went down. This is a serious and has impact on the real world.
They replaced them with Axon cameras.
What a sad and pitiful perspective.
I think a generous interpretation of this comment is that voting, writing reps, and protesting (likely the permitted kind) are somewhat ineffectual at the level of policy change especially if the goal is federal-level change.
Even at the state level, you're still reined in by the fact that America operates on the slave economy logic that land represents people which results in rural communities that have a few hundred in population with the same table stakes as a rep in a million+ constituent district. You can write to your rep all you want but if Bubba from Farmtown, USA says trans people should be barred from youth sports [0] and he can get a dozen of his other buddies from the depopulated rural localities to co-sponsor it, it doesn't matter what your rep says or does.
The end result is that effective organizing has to be hyperlocal - this means showing up to county/municipal council meetings, sitting on neighborhood planning groups, broadening awareness in your community via doorknocking and public events.
Specifically to that point against protesting, some forms of 'protest' that seem pervasive with groups like No Kings and 50501 are effectively self-neutered. The vast majority of those protests are permitted with police escorts.
On it's face, these 'protests' are similar to those of the past - people show up, they wave signs, they chant. But like a child imitating being a fighter pilot, it accomplishes nothing real. The point of a protest is disruption - economic disruption, traffic blocking, etc - because that disruption buys you leverage with the local government. When you can say 'I can shut down your arteries at any time so meet me halfway with our demands or face millions in economic damage', you have an effective protest. This is how the Europeans do it between burning down their Supreme Courts to piling up tons of manure outside of Parliament - and that gets actual results.
Asking your local government liaison for permission to say mean things about a federal official does nothing except give them a chance for easy points with the crowd. Nothing changes, all that energy and labor that goes into organizing a safe protest dissipates, and the status quo remains fixed, even consolidated now that the already limited shared pool of movement labor has been siphoned off into a performative act.
[0] https://ltgov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2025-04-28/lt-gover...
I'd assume that the Plutocrats, their loyal politicians, and the Creep State have worked very hard to convince people to "fight back" with ineffectual tactics.
Which is not to say that voting can't be extremely effective, if organized at suitable scales over time. Trump wasn't re-elected because all the swing voters who'd replaced him with Biden in '20 were overjoyed with how Joe and his Dem's had handled things.
Trump and his predecessors have all been advancing mass surveillance on an unimaginable scale. This particular topic is probably the strongest argument against the power of voting.
People getting what they want isn't an argument against voting.
It started under bush jr. That mass surveillance was illegal and then-respected media outlets like NYTimes and WaPo knew about it prior to the 2004 elections and deliberately covered it up until after that election. Congress then retroactively legalized that illegal activity in order to protect bush & themselves.
Against the power of n=1 voting, or the against the power of "we got 53%" voting?
I was pointing out that the former is virtually meaningless, but the latter tends to be decisive.
Yes, mass surveillance is a huge problem. But most of the time, most of the voters do not behave as if they meaningfully care about most of the aspects of mass surveillance. That's pretty much the same rule as for the Pentagon buying $5,000 screwdrivers, and bizarre loopholes appearing in the tax code to benefit a few billionaires who are extremely "generous" to their good friends in Congress. Both R's and D's may loudly denounce those practices - but they know that actually fighting against them, where it counts, will not be good for their political careers.
Is this any different, legally, than sharing your Netflix login etc?
Because the data is purchased, most jurisdictions don't require a warrant. The only legal issue I can see currently is that Flock lost revenue from having another subscriber.
What if sharing of Netflix passwords could lead to bodily harm or an “illegal” activity that wouldn’t hold up in court? Probably the one sharing Netflix password wouldn’t remain unscathed, legally speaking?
I am not a lawyer, just curious.
It is different, because the access is tied to your contract/job.
But even if it were legal, this only shows the core problem:
That data should not be available to anyone at all.
Sure, they got fired, but I don't see them getting prosecuted. Doesn't seem to be a criminal legal difference.
A lot of downvotes for this comment but I think it's an interesting question and shouldn't be downvoted.
It's easy to argue (as lot of people have in this thread) that there is a huge moral difference between sharing access to a streaming service and sharing access to a mass surveillance tool.
But was any criminal law broken? Is it just a violation of Flock's ToS and the biggest consequence is the police department losing access for violating the contract?
It's an important question, because if there isn't really any legal consequences for any of the parties involved then it's worth understanding that and, hopefully, addressing!
If we interpret OP's question in good faith, I don't think they are implying that it should be legal, just asking if it is.
I think the annoying part is that it is clearly illegal under most understandings of the Fourth Amendment but because our legal processes are so byzantine and stuffed full of moldering corpses of prescriptivism past, it's unlikely we'll see any legal recourse here.
The additionally annoying aspect about the question is that this is something privacy advocates have been going on about for years. Ever since I started following the EFF in 2012, they've been warning about the rise in private sector mass surveillance and how it would lead to government CCTV. And now here we are, with Ring doorbells sharing data with LEOs and Flock everywhere.
So to hear 'is this illegal' says to me, at minimum, that a dearth of basic internet sleuthing has been done about this issue and the question was posed out of a complete lack of curiosity and self-driven exploration. Especially now with LLMs, research like this is vanishingly easy to do (as is the adversarial review of it, and the eventual dialectical synthesis). To not do so seems lazy, at best, and that's not addressing how the 'if it's not illegal, it's fine' thought-terminating cliche has been pervasively used to justify detention centers, military black sites, NSA wiretapping, police brutality, etc in a way that seems to universally be a bad faith practice.
I don’t think anyone is implying that it not being illegal would make it ok.
It doesn’t seem like any criminal charges being brought in this case. So sure, an argument could be made that this violates the 4th amendment, but under the current application of the law this seems legal. Which means all and ICE agent needs to get access to flock data is a friend with access. Surely trying to understand that isn’t lazy or justifying anything?
I've heard bad faith 'if it's legal, it's fine' quite a few too many times to see it as anything except either intellectual laziness or simple bad faith. This is a rhetoric that always seems to pop up whenever anybody advocates for the ethical practice.
I also think it's a pointless exercise to understand the legality of it. Unless you're an actual civil rights attorney, a legislator, or some kind of judge, you, me, and everyone else here has effectively zero power over how the law is interpreted. We can debate all we want but it's a dance in the ivory tower, removed from realworld consequence.
The only real way to push against these forces is to join up with a community organization local to you, volunteer groups that often struggle with basic tech setup and resource tracking. Folks from HN could be a huge boon to the movement if they simply had the initiative to get involved.
There is a certain degree of irony in entirely misrepresenting my point by asserting it's somehow "bad faith."
I don't think it's fair to say that trying to understand if something is legal is a "dance in the ivory tower." Isn't a pretty important part in enacting change understand WHAT needs to change?
My point is this: Flock does not provide access to ICE, if using another person's login is a legal loophole around this then it needs to be specifically addressed and closed.
In no way am I justifying mass surveillance by arguing "if it's legal, it's fine."
So how would you change it now that you understand the legality?
I can't really follow. You say "I think the annoying part is that it is clearly illegal under most understandings of the Fourth Amendment," but at the same time say "I also think it's a pointless exercise to understand the legality of it."
I get the feeling the question being asked a bit leading, since you've been pretty hostile to me so far. I don't have a great answer, civil engagement and supporting politicians that also think it should be illegal for private companies to create gigantic mass surveillance dragnets?
The question is - how would you individually contribute to the movement of limiting mass surveillance? In the same way that we can all comment on a play made at a sports game, the actual effect of our commentary is nil except here the stakes are real and much higher.
I'm not being hostile and you're reading a lot of intent here for my frustration at apathetic armchair quarterbacking that I didn't direct at you.
I think I answered that question, note I didn't say "comment online" as a solution.
I guess I don't know who else it's directed at. I think it's important to understand the legality of our law enforcement's actions. I don't think that's an especially controversial take.
So your answer was "civil engagement and supporting politicians that also think it should be illegal"? Has that worked in the past on this issue? I asked that previously. What about in a post-Citizen's United world? How much an effect does your personal political speech have?
What's your answer?
I answered quite a few comments ago. Feel free to revisit.
What will a community group change?
"I think the annoying part is that it is clearly illegal under most understandings of the Fourth Amendment"
Source?
I think the legal understanding are different than the colloquial one you are thinking of.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6127775-fourth-...
If your work gives you access to an Anthropic account, can you give it to your spouse just because they also happen to be a programmer?
Sure why not? Anthropic may be unhappy about potential lost customer, but if I had extra inference, I don't see anything wrong with this.
Your employer probably would, and Anthropic as well.
—
In any case, these Netflix and LLM subscription comparisons are utterly beside the point, the equation is hilariously different when it’s a surveillance tool used by the state violence monopoly that we’re talking about. The standard should be absurdly higher than "no big deal, everyone shares their Netflix".
Sure, then let the criticism be about that. Not password sharing.
In this case, the customer utilizing the data without authorization also is known for killing Americans, and the data facilitates stalking their victims and their families.
We should be advocating for more accountability from the government and its representatives, not less.
Wht