If Flock wants to be used by public services, it should be subject to maximum transparency. If you don't want your camera locations public, don't offer them to the public for their use.
It’s hilarious that the entire business model is based on aggregating information recorded in public, and now they’re objecting to having their information publicly recorded and aggregated.
Perhaps if they could explain why they don’t want that information to be available, they’ll understand how their victims feel.
IMO, when they have to hide, that's the beginning of the end. Too many people are aware of the what/why now. And above all else, once the tables turn on elected officials and they realize they're under the same surveillance, I bet their tune will change (likely due to a public egg-on-face moment involving illegal or suspicious activity). If people keep the pressure on, this will be a "remember when" rather quickly.
Some of that is already happening, in DC of all places, where the DC Police Officer's Union is protesting against use of Flock by ... the DC Police (albeit Internal Affairs).
Something about "this technology is invasive and violates the right to privacy of our members"...
Politicians are humans who knowingly choose to enter public office for the sake of exercising power, whether for altruistic or nefarious reasons (or some combination thereof).
The power is why politicians deserve greater scrutiny than the average person, and anyone who wants to keep their privacy intact can choose not to run for office. The loss of privacy (usually at the hands of the press) is already an implied cost of running for and holding office.
I think there's a balance that needs to be struck, in proportion to actual power. A senator or cabinet member deserves more scrutiny than a small town city clerk. Also, there are private individuals who knowingly exercise more power than that clerk.
I think you misunderstand the balance of power. If you're talking about power over you specifically, your local clerk almost certainly has more than your senator. If they both want to make your life suck, the clerk is the one with the relationship to the local PD, the ability to make your filings get lost in a pile for a couple days so they were technically filed late, etc. Your senator or representative is likely in 0 of the processes you are likely to engage in unless you're notable enough that you specifically get targeted by the state legislature.
Also, there are private individuals who knowingly exercise more power than that clerk.
This is partially a pet peeve of mine, but again, almost certainly not. I struggle to think of someone with more ability to kill a project than a clerk that refuses to do their job.
Kim Davis was a clerk that refused a literal Supreme Court order. As best I can tell, she did 5 days in jail and launched a million dollar speaking career out of it. Bezos or Musk can be absolutely sidelined by a clerk who is pissed off enough to accept eventually getting fired as a result.
Is that how you want your employer to behave? You want them to surveil you all day every day in case you are doing something that is counter to their business?
In my uninformed opinion that would be a dangerous precedent if there is no proven collusion or conspiracy to act together. I anal though so I'll wait for people who know the law to respond.
Highly unlikely (but hey, anything's possible when you're flirting with an authoritarian regime). They would need to demonstrate that the map was made TO destroy cameras if to have real merit.
Clickbait. The website proprietor received a 3rd party trademark infringement complaint. If people in the company would prefer the map to be offline, they are taking a very roundabout way of accomplishing it.
On Thursday, Michael was notified that Doppel, which describes itself as an “AI-native social engineering defense platfom,” filed a trademark infringement complaint regarding his site, claiming to be working on Flock’s behalf. Doppel says that the site is using the trademark “FLOCK SAFETY” without authorization, which “may cause customer confusion / harm.” Doppel requested the site be taken down.
The fact that they can't go to the court and say "It pisses me off that this guy is doing what he's doing" and instead have to, ya know, try a case based on the actual laws that exist, seems to be confusing you about what "direct legal action" is.
The article's headline is the claim: "Flock Wants the Most Detailed Map of Its Surveillance Cameras Taken Offline"
The basis for this is an undisclosed trademark letter from a 3rd party. The company in question may or may not want the map taken down. However, the article offers scant evidence for the headline claim. That is why it is clickbait. It promises something large and delivers something minimal.
The security researcher in question has certainly made a splash however. Promising new levels of people mad at Flock is definitely the way to create some bona fides.
Is it your opinion that the letter was likely not sent on behalf of Flock, and this Doppel company is lying about being affiliated with Flock?
If so, what do they stand to gain by doing this? Is it even possible for a company to file a trademark letter on behalf of trademark owner without being affiliated?
Is that the description of the law firm? Because it sounds like how a law firm would self-describe. Let's get some founders of law firms to put this in their mission statements.
Furthermore, the EFF and Cory Doctorow could embrace this slogan. Especially the FSF. Richard M. Stallman would totally have adopted this description 35+ years ago.
for what it's worth, the DeFlock maps also include Axon/Motorola cams. they pick up my city's custom implementation too so the anti-surveillance movement is really benefiting from this Flock-focused hate
I am starting a surveillance company in the US. I'll sell the data to anyone who wants. I'll put cameras up wherever I like, call it protection of the people, the police will enjoy it doing a lot of work for them and then I'll point cameras squarely at my competition, 24 hours a day, 365 a year, until they ask for regulations.
That's not how investors think. They don't want to bet on one pony winning the race. Instead they bet on the whole race, on the off chance that one of them turns into a rocketship to the moon.
There's a clause in my company, once regulations around privacy that are al least comparable to the EU are enforced, we sell all assets and return money based on profits to share holders.
Then we start a new company creating just aggressive advertising patents so that they're not created by aggressive companies.
Hey just like my car, when it is in public you can't expect privacy. The cameras cam track us in public but we can't track the cameras in public? Sorry if you take away my privacy then I'll take away yours too. Everything tracked, logged, and cataloged.
It's public information. Courts have already ruled that if it's in public, you can photograph and document it. If anything, this will be a giant Streisand effect.
https://archive.ph/nEHf5
If Flock wants to be used by public services, it should be subject to maximum transparency. If you don't want your camera locations public, don't offer them to the public for their use.
It’s hilarious that the entire business model is based on aggregating information recorded in public, and now they’re objecting to having their information publicly recorded and aggregated.
Perhaps if they could explain why they don’t want that information to be available, they’ll understand how their victims feel.
IMO, when they have to hide, that's the beginning of the end. Too many people are aware of the what/why now. And above all else, once the tables turn on elected officials and they realize they're under the same surveillance, I bet their tune will change (likely due to a public egg-on-face moment involving illegal or suspicious activity). If people keep the pressure on, this will be a "remember when" rather quickly.
Some of that is already happening, in DC of all places, where the DC Police Officer's Union is protesting against use of Flock by ... the DC Police (albeit Internal Affairs).
Something about "this technology is invasive and violates the right to privacy of our members"...
Government officials should be highly transparent. Privacy for the people, transparency for the government.
There's a balance that needs to be struck, politicians are humans too
Not once they put themselves into the public sphere. They become chattel, bought and sold by special interests.
Politicians are humans who knowingly choose to enter public office for the sake of exercising power, whether for altruistic or nefarious reasons (or some combination thereof).
The power is why politicians deserve greater scrutiny than the average person, and anyone who wants to keep their privacy intact can choose not to run for office. The loss of privacy (usually at the hands of the press) is already an implied cost of running for and holding office.
I think there's a balance that needs to be struck, in proportion to actual power. A senator or cabinet member deserves more scrutiny than a small town city clerk. Also, there are private individuals who knowingly exercise more power than that clerk.
I think you misunderstand the balance of power. If you're talking about power over you specifically, your local clerk almost certainly has more than your senator. If they both want to make your life suck, the clerk is the one with the relationship to the local PD, the ability to make your filings get lost in a pile for a couple days so they were technically filed late, etc. Your senator or representative is likely in 0 of the processes you are likely to engage in unless you're notable enough that you specifically get targeted by the state legislature.
This is partially a pet peeve of mine, but again, almost certainly not. I struggle to think of someone with more ability to kill a project than a clerk that refuses to do their job.
Kim Davis was a clerk that refused a literal Supreme Court order. As best I can tell, she did 5 days in jail and launched a million dollar speaking career out of it. Bezos or Musk can be absolutely sidelined by a clerk who is pissed off enough to accept eventually getting fired as a result.
You are making a political statement there, does that not make you a politician?
But then you only elect politicians who don't care about privacy. I'm not sure those are the people I want crafting policy.
Selection pressure sure, but obviously worth it. Public servants work for us and we should be able to see what they're up to.
Is that how you want your employer to behave? You want them to surveil you all day every day in case you are doing something that is counter to their business?
I'm waiting to find out that Flock systems do not log the data when the plates are recognized as gov't issued plates.
Flock+ is only $29/month and can remove up to three plates per subscription.
And pass up blackmail - ahem lobbying opportunities?
Could the map's creator be held liable if Flock can demonstrate this map in particular was used to destroy cameras?
In my uninformed opinion that would be a dangerous precedent if there is no proven collusion or conspiracy to act together. I anal though so I'll wait for people who know the law to respond.
Highly unlikely (but hey, anything's possible when you're flirting with an authoritarian regime). They would need to demonstrate that the map was made TO destroy cameras if to have real merit.
Can Google/Apple/et al be held liable if demonstrated that any criminal used maps in prep for any crime?
I still want to see a driving game, perhaps using Google maps, where you try to get from point A to point B and not pass any Flock cameras.
That would make for a “fun” (if depressing) Glider environmental hazard.
I’m working on an OpenStreetMap-powered map generator in Godot, this would probably be quite easy to build.
I'm guessing it might be less easy to physically drive, though.
I'm sure the wildly circuitous routes generated will be useful for rhetorical purposes though.
I would like to point out that the website in question has a button to download the entire dataset. Probably would be a good idea to save a copy.
Clickbait. The website proprietor received a 3rd party trademark infringement complaint. If people in the company would prefer the map to be offline, they are taking a very roundabout way of accomplishing it.
Actually that seems pretty direct.
The article says it's a trademark dispute. A cease and desist letter is a normal part of the process.
The fact that they can't go to the court and say "It pisses me off that this guy is doing what he's doing" and instead have to, ya know, try a case based on the actual laws that exist, seems to be confusing you about what "direct legal action" is.
The article's headline is the claim: "Flock Wants the Most Detailed Map of Its Surveillance Cameras Taken Offline"
The basis for this is an undisclosed trademark letter from a 3rd party. The company in question may or may not want the map taken down. However, the article offers scant evidence for the headline claim. That is why it is clickbait. It promises something large and delivers something minimal.
The security researcher in question has certainly made a splash however. Promising new levels of people mad at Flock is definitely the way to create some bona fides.
Is it your opinion that the letter was likely not sent on behalf of Flock, and this Doppel company is lying about being affiliated with Flock?
If so, what do they stand to gain by doing this? Is it even possible for a company to file a trademark letter on behalf of trademark owner without being affiliated?
Is that the description of the law firm? Because it sounds like how a law firm would self-describe. Let's get some founders of law firms to put this in their mission statements.
Furthermore, the EFF and Cory Doctorow could embrace this slogan. Especially the FSF. Richard M. Stallman would totally have adopted this description 35+ years ago.
Axon and Motorola must be pretty satisfied with all this.
for what it's worth, the DeFlock maps also include Axon/Motorola cams. they pick up my city's custom implementation too so the anti-surveillance movement is really benefiting from this Flock-focused hate
worth something! I wasn't aware that they picked those up.
flock CEO's last name is "Langley" ? you can't make this stuff up.
Jimmy CIA here to sell you a new security product.
Interesting that the site is only available in the US. I wonder why that is.
I am starting a surveillance company in the US. I'll sell the data to anyone who wants. I'll put cameras up wherever I like, call it protection of the people, the police will enjoy it doing a lot of work for them and then I'll point cameras squarely at my competition, 24 hours a day, 365 a year, until they ask for regulations.
If anyone would like to kickstart let me know.
Y Combinator had no problem backing Flock, you should give them a try.
Flock are competition, their investors would never like my idea.
That's not how investors think. They don't want to bet on one pony winning the race. Instead they bet on the whole race, on the off chance that one of them turns into a rocketship to the moon.
There's a clause in my company, once regulations around privacy that are al least comparable to the EU are enforced, we sell all assets and return money based on profits to share holders.
Then we start a new company creating just aggressive advertising patents so that they're not created by aggressive companies.
Edit : Hypothetical company, this is all satire.
I wonder what fraction of Flock cameras will be destroyed during National DeFlock Day (Halloween).
Hey just like my car, when it is in public you can't expect privacy. The cameras cam track us in public but we can't track the cameras in public? Sorry if you take away my privacy then I'll take away yours too. Everything tracked, logged, and cataloged.
It's public information. Courts have already ruled that if it's in public, you can photograph and document it. If anything, this will be a giant Streisand effect.
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of?
Flock: We’re supposed to be the surveilleurs, you see.
[delayed]