Interesting article with some info I didn't know about Flock. It feels like surveillance is increasing so quickly these days 🫠

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 55 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Flock Safety has told the public for years that its technology β€œcannot recognize, identify, or track individuals.”

But that's, like, the only thing it does, though...

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    A small thing keeps getting mentioned, but not explained. These things maintain a 'whitelist' of license plates they'll 'ignore.'

    Why? Who is on that list? And who gets to decide what licenses are placed on the list? Are these logged and audited?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    If there is no explanation one must assume the worst interpretation.

    Wealthy connected people. The police who ultimately manage the local contracts with Flock. Federal agents and their ancillaries.

    Why? "Because fuck you, we're your betters. Keep your nose down, citizen."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago*

    Pretty much this. I've been living under authoritarianism my whole life and such things are just clear as day.

    Same reason so many social media or tech CEOs don't really let their kids use the product: they know it sucks and it's not good for you nor does it respect you or your data, they know how important privacy is - just not for you your privacy and data.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    I received a job offer to work at Flock, as a security architect ensuring tenants don't see each other's videos... I'm declining. Flock it.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Yessss nice! But I wouldn't blame you at all if you decided to get that bag. Times be tough

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I don't know. There're limits to what can be considered an acceptable hustle imo. I get the whole American thing about not judging what someone works. but you gotta cut it at elbit systems or ICE.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Yeah, I do agree for the most part. I think anyone who has the option should avoid working at these places.

    But I guess I just don't have a fully formed opinion about whether it's less moral to work for an evil org or to throw away a chance to support loved ones. I'm tripped up by the hypothetical scenario where a job is the difference for someone's ability to put a roof over their children's heads.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    It's essentially this "conundrum":

    Work somewhere for the next two years and be able to lead what would've been middle class life 20 years ago. But your actions will be destructive.

    Or decline to do that and try to get by living a less comfortable life which destroys less in the end.

    I think the choice is clear. Other people have loved and just because you don't know them doesn't mean it's more "moral" to hurt them, which is what I am getting at when saying that one's actions are harmful.

  • source
  • parent
  • 5 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 14 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago

    From the article - this is some minority report pre-crime bullshit.

    β€˜One prompt Flock preloaded into the system reads: β€œFind me witnesses based on vehicles most seen in [neighborhood] during [last 14 days] during [daily timeframe] *(will not include whitelisted vehicles).” An officer would fill in the blanks and submit it. The output is a list of plates, which other tools in the product then convert into names and home addresses.

    Another prompt instructs the system to list everyone arrested more than twice in two years for β€œany offense,” exempting only narcotics arrests, and then says to map where those people live, retrieve the calls for service at their homes, and β€œdo a workup on the top three individuals.” The prompt begins with everyone in the area who has an arrest record and ends with dossiers on three of them, chosen by the software.

    One group of requests asks for vehicles that visited three or more retail locations in a city in three days, or multiple banks in a week, or multiple gas stations between midnight and 5 am. None of the five names a target or an incident.’

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Flock’s surveillance cameras have already sparked outrage. WIRED reconstructed its next-generation AI system, already in use by some police, to confirm it goes much further than tracking license plates.

    β€œReconstructed”? What does that mean here? Give me a repo link.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    It’s in the article. Login pages for the systems were left open to the Internet on their website. Using the objects delivered during that session, they were able to reconstruct some of these systems. Basically viewing the page source to get more information on what things could be.

  • source
  • parent
  • 5 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    How does the archive link still include the paywall that pops up as soon as you scroll down into the article? Thats the first time I've seen that.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Wikipedia put a paywall up on that too 🀣

    Edit: sadly not available for Firefox mobile

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Flock cameras are notoriously insecure. Why not hack them and put them to use against their primary operators?

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Source code?

  • source