all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • 37 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 112 points 10 months ago

    Those surveillance capitalist fascists can go flock themselves

  • source
  • [–] 45 points 10 months ago

    Those sanctimonious FUCKS can go take a long walk off a short pier. Justice will be aggrieved until they all hang publicly.

  • source
  • [–] 44 points 10 months ago*

    I like to think if I was in a position to be working with data like that, that I could 'accidentally' forget to redact it one time and trigger a leak like this.

    They publicly released that data at that point though through their own failures, fuck Flock for trying to suppress it.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago

    That took longer than I expected.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Flock the Epstein files then lol

  • source
  • [+] -60 points 10 months ago (31 children)

    I've love to have private alpr's in my neighborhood. We've had mailbox thefts and people driving around breaking into cars, even had car stolen. These guys are changing their plates regularly, but it would be super cool to at least get a neighborhood wide alert if someone who's done done shit has rentered our neighborhood. I'm just not keen on giving that data to 3rd parties lock stock and barrel

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago

    would be super cool to at least get a neighborhood wide alert if someone who's done done shit has rentered our neighborhood

    So you could do what?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 10 months ago
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    Thw issue you'll run into is effectiveness at that small scale, so you'll be tempted to share data with other systems like that, and eventually you'll end up creating a different flock.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Thw issue youll run into is effectiveness at that small scale, sonyoull be tempted to share data with other systems like that, and eventually you’ll end up creating a different flock.

    I wonder if a segregated system design could address this. Similar in-system segregation like a TPM for the actual detection/matching part of the system separated from the command and control part.

    As in, the camera and OCR operations would be in their own embedded system which could never receive code updates from the outside. Perhaps this is etched into the silicon SoC itself. Also on silicon would be a small NVRAM that could only hold requested license plate numbers (or a hash of them perhaps). This NVRAM would be WRITE ONLY. So it would never be able to be queried from outside the SOC. The raw camera feed would be wired to the SoC. The only input would be from an outside command and control system (still local to our SoC) that and administrator could send in new license plates numbers to search against. The output of the SoC would "Match found against License Plate X". Even the time stamp would have to be applied by the outside command and control system.

    This would have some natural barriers against dragnet surveillance abuse.

    • It would never be possible to dump the license plates being searched for from the cameras themselves even by abusive admins. The only admin option would be to overwrite the list of what the camera is trying to match against.
    • The NVRAM that contains the match list could be intentionally sized small to perhaps a few hundreds plate numbers so that an abusive admin couldn't simply generate every possible license plate combination effectively turning this back into a blanket surveillance tool. The NVRAM limit could be implemented as an on-die fuse link so that upon deployment the size could be made as small as needed for the use case.
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (26 children)

    That's going to be unpopular to say around here, but the truth is that technology is largely amoral.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    While the tech may be amoral, its still implemented and utilized by pricks whose goal is control.

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

    Yup, and its important to communicate that or we risk losing our voice in the general public and look like Luddites

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 19 points 10 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I am aware, but i am using it in a colloquial sense. And you understood my point; which is exactly how the general public that needs to be swayed will interpret it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Uhh okay? Language and its use changes. If you want to be effective in getting your point across you need to keep up. The choir in lemmy isn't who needs to be persuaded.

    Feel free to be technically correct, but I would like to see the idea take mass adoption instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (16 children)

    Enabling a surveillance state is not amoral.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    Your phrasing seems to imply I said it was, but I never said that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    If you are in a discussion about the development and deployment of technology to facilitate a surveillance state, then saying “technology is neutral” is the least interesting thing you could possibly say on the subject.

    In a completely abstract, disconnected-from-society-and-current-events sense it is correct to say technology is amoral. But we live in a world where surveillance technology is developed to make it easier for corporations and the state to invade the privacy of individuals. We live in a world where legal rights are being eroded by the use of this technology. We live in a world where this technology is profitable because it helps organizations violate individual rights. If you live in the US, as I do, then you live in a world where federal law enforcement agencies have become completely contemptuous of the law and are literally abducting innocent people off the street. They use the technology under discussion here to help them do that.

    That a piece of tech might potentially be used for a not-immoral purpose is completely irrelevant to how it is actually being used in the real world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    to make it easier for corporations and the state to invade the privacy of individuals.

    And that is what we need to focus our messaging on. The evil people and institutions enabling this as those are permanent. Tech comes and goes (and should not be anthropomized). Focusing on the tech just means in institution looks for another path. Focusing on the institution is to block the at the source.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    “Technology is neutral” is a bromide engineers use to avoid thinking about how their work impacts people. If you are an engineer working for flock or a similar company, you are harming people. You are doing harm through the technology you help to develop.

    The massive surveillance systems that currently exist were built by engineers who advanced technology for that purpose. The scale and totality of the resulting surveillance states are simply not possible without the tech. The closest alternatives are stasi-like systems that are nowhere near as vast or continuous. In the actual world the actual tech is immoral. Because it was created for immoral purposes and because it is used for immoral purposes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (10 children)

    You are doing harm through the technology you help to develop.

    All technology has that potential. Some more than others. The issue is that institutions, like flock, exist solely for the evil applications.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    As I said before: In a conversation about technology as it actually exists, talking about potentials is not interesting. Yes all technology has the potential to be good or bad. The massive surveillance tech is actually bad right now in the real world

    This issue with asserting that technology is neutral is it lets the people who develop it ignore the impacts of their work. The engineers that make surveillance tech make it, ultimately, for immoral purposes. When they are confronted with the effects of their work on society they avoid according with the ethics of what it is that they are doing by deploying bromides like “technology is neutral.”

    Example: Building an operant conditioning feedback system into a social media app or video game is not inherently bad, you could use it to reinforce good behaviors and deploy it ethically by obtaining the consent of the people you use on. But the operant conditioning tech in social media apps and video games that actually exists is very clearly and unambiguously bad. It exists to get people addicted to a game or media app, so that they can be more easily exploited. Engineers built that tech stack out for the purpose of exploiting people. The tech, as it exists in the real world, is bad. When these folks were confronted with what they had done, they responded by claiming that tech is not inherently good or bad. (This is a real thing social media engineers really said) They ignored the tech—as it actually exists—in favor of an abstract conversation about some potential alternative tech that does not exist. The effect of which is the people doing harm built a terrible system without ever confronting what it was they were doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (8 children)

    This issue with asserting that technology is neutral is it lets the people who develop it ignore the impacts of their work.

    I don't see how that is the case. The tech is neutral, but the engineers know what the application they are hired for is. That is determined by people and subject to morality.

    Would you say openCV or the people working on it are evil? I wouldn't. I would say that once someone takes that project for flock is evil.

    I think this framing is more important when talking with the general public as they are likely to walk away thinking that its the tech that creates problems and not the for profit corporations who will be free to continue doing the same, so long as they don't use that tech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    I don’t see how that is the case.

    It is literally the case. People who have literally made tools to do bad things justified it by claiming that tech is neutral in an abstract sense. Find an engineer who is building a tool to do something they think is bad, they will tell you that bromide.

    OpenCV is not, in itself, immoral. But openCV is, once again, actual tech that exists in the actual world. In fact, that is how I know it is not bad, I use the context of reality—rather than hypotheticals or abstractions—to assess the morality of the tech. The tech stack that makes up Flock is bad, once again I make that determination by using the actual world as a reference point. It does not matter that some of the tech could be used to do good. In the case of Flock, it is not, so it’s bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    People who have literally made tools to do bad things justified it by claiming that tech is neutral in an abstract sense

    Bold a keyword there for you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    At no point in this conversation have I ever said that tech in an abstract sense is inherently good or bad. The point that I am making— and this is the last time I will make it— is that it is not interesting to talk about the ethics of some technology in an abstraction in cases where the actual tech is as it is actually implemented is clearly bad.

    Saying “tech is neutral” is a dodge. People say that to avoid thinking about the ethics of what it is they are doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    that it is not interesting to talk about the ethics of some technology in an abstraction in cases where the actual tech is as it is actually implemented is clearly bad.

    But that is what you are doing and I am saying that it is people who are responsible for the implementation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Saying “tech is neutral” is a dodge. People say that to avoid thinking about the ethics of what it is they are doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    People are the ones who do things with tech; hence they are responsible for the actions. Tech is just an object with no will of its own to do right or wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Last attempt, I swear.

    By digressing to abstraction, good people can and do justify building tech for immoral purposes. It is irrelevant that tech is not inherently good or bad in cases where it is built to do bad things. Talking about potential alternate uses in cases where tech is being used to do bad is just a way of avoiding the issues.

    I have no problem calling flock or facebooks tech stack bad because the intentions behind the tech are immoral. The application of the tech by those organizations is for immoral purposes (making people addicted, invading their privacy etc). The tech is an extension of bad people trying to do bad things. Commentary about tech’s abstract nature is irrelevant at that point. Yeah, it could be used to do good. But it’s not. Yeah, it is not in-and of-itself good or bad. Who cares? This instantiation of the tech is immoral, because it’s purposes are immoral.

    The engineers who help make immoral things possible should think about that, rather than the abstract nature of their technology. In these cases, saying technology is neutral is to invite the listener to consider a world that doesn’t exist instead of the one that does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    I have no problem calling flock or facebooks tech stack bad because the intentions behind the tech are immoral.

    And did those assemble themselves to be evil? Or did someone make them that way?

    To go back go my openCV example it is just tech. It does not become a lpr with a cop back end until flock configures it that way

    The engineers who help make immoral things possible should think about that

    Yes, exactly my point.

  • source
  • parent
  • 8 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] 59 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Their quote very much sounds like it was written by Noem or one of the other orange stooges:

    Flock told 404 Media in an email “That website that is doxxing cops during active investigations. Today, we're busy working with journalists to cover the fact that our technology was pivotal in cracking open the case that found the Brown university / MIT serial killer in New England. If you'd like to report the news that matters, we'd be happy to speak to you about bringing justice to victims instead of activists trying to let murderers go free.”

    DARVO

    (Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender)

    Pretty typical of this administration's malignant narcissism and the concomitant authoritarianism.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Flock is a terrible company that repeatedly blames security researchers instead of working with them like everyone else. Laughable and abusable product, which is the point. It's always morally ethical to sabotage flock hardware

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    It’s a pattern with the most desperate of douchebag tech CEOs for the coming technofascist takeover.

    Jensen Huang, Satya Nadella, Garrett Langley, Palmer Luckey…all of them pivoted from at least somewhat decent, if super corporate, products into the worst enshittified, bait and switch, industry sellout, profit grabbing trash. They all had platforms that normies had latched onto and then they shredded them for cash. Yeah yeah “same as it ever was” but I mean egregious this time.

    Then they DARVO and whine on social media anytime anyone dares criticize it. Dunno how people keep falling for it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 10 months ago

    The link for those who just want that: http://haveibeenflocked.com/

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Millions of surveillance targets

    Really makes you think. Can't help but wonder how many millions of crimes these guys are solving.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago

    I don't think it's really an error. I think that's just a handy cover for the real message. You are being watched, you don't get privacy, and if any police or other group wants to follow you, then you will be followed.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Wait, you mean to tell me that the surveillance dragnet system was absused by snivelling, petty and corrupt bureacrats who actually don't give a fuck about any kind of equality becore the law?

    Well I mean they should welcome this self induced negligent discharge of a leak, after all, they have nothing to hide.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/privacy@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    paywall bypass: https://web.archive.org/web/20260113155013/https://www.404media.co/police-unmask-millions-of-surveillance-targets-because-of-flock-redaction-error/

    also, reposting my comment in a thread last month about this:

    in b4 haveibeenhaveibeenflocked.

    they have a list of their current collection of 239 .csv files but sadly don’t appear to let you actually download them to query offline

    they now have 519 sources, some of which are downloadable from muckrock but many aren't.

    i still don't understand why this website isn't open source and open data, and i strongly recommend thinking carefully about it (eg, thinking about if you'd mind if the existence of your query becomes known to police and/or the public) before deciding if you want to type a given plate number in to it.

  • source