Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock, a network of AI cameras used by ICE, feds, and police

Nicklebon said:
LMAO ... Absolutely nothing 100% works. Never has and never will. As far as tracking an individual, sure a phone works and is actually often used. FLOCK is more often used to track a vehicle because that is what was spotted. Witnesses supply a vehicle description and maybe part of plate. /out
Click to expand...
Guess what? People made an app called FlockHopper and that is upsetting Police. Why is he upset when cell phones, cars, and Flock can all track people? If you're right then why do we have Flock? Clearly we're being tracked by everything including our refrigerators, so why have Flock?


View: https://youtu.be/oFV0pibdmdo?si=hpDxBFELWPSr8Ef1
 
They mean Flock misidentifies the man. Dude doesn't match the description at all and the Police convince themselves he has a hookup in the DMV. The Officers are convinced that the "software" can't make mistakes. Now the dude is suing the Officer and the city of Reno.
 
DukenukemX said:
They mean Flock misidentifies the man. Dude doesn't match the description at all and the Police convince themselves he has a hookup in the DMV. The Officers are convinced that the "software" can't make mistakes. Now the dude is suing the Officer and the city of Reno.
View attachment 833823
Click to expand...

The problem is that the company selling the services (Flock) goes into police agencies and really talks up how great the system is. Like any sales person they don't talk about the problems they only praise the technology. The people listening to the praise then buy it, trust it to be as good as what the sales guy says, and then trusts it 100% because the sales guy didn't talk about misidentification risks.

Now, at this stage in the game it is just pure laziness that the cops are still believing this technology. There is more than enough evidence that it makes mistakes so if they're still believing it is perfect it is because they want to believe it is perfect. They want to believe it is perfect because they make mistakes and it is easier to blame those mistakes on the technology than it is to blame themselves for being lazy. The story will go that the technology was "forced" on them and they're "supposed to trust it" and they're just innocent victims of a situation they didn't control. It is all bullshit, of course, but that's the story they usually spin to avoid personal responsibility for blindly believing the software. If you want to blindly believe software when you're doing your own hobbies? Go nuts. When you're putting someone in jail you are just being a lazy ass.
 
Ididar said:
The problem is that the company selling the services (Flock) goes into police agencies and really talks up how great the system is. Like any sales person they don't talk about the problems they only praise the technology. The people listening to the praise then buy it, trust it to be as good as what the sales guy says, and then trusts it 100% because the sales guy didn't talk about misidentification risks.

Now, at this stage in the game it is just pure laziness that the cops are still believing this technology. There is more than enough evidence that it makes mistakes so if they're still believing it is perfect it is because they want to believe it is perfect. They want to believe it is perfect because they make mistakes and it is easier to blame those mistakes on the technology than it is to blame themselves for being lazy. The story will go that the technology was "forced" on them and they're "supposed to trust it" and they're just innocent victims of a situation they didn't control. It is all bullshit, of course, but that's the story they usually spin to avoid personal responsibility for blindly believing the software. If you want to blindly believe software when you're doing your own hobbies? Go nuts. When you're putting someone in jail you are just being a lazy ass.
Click to expand...
This is why we have lawsuits. If the Officer wants to be lazy or is forced to believe Flock then someone is should be forced to lose their home. The town should be forced to pay millions for their mistakes. We've seen AI screw up so many times that it doesn't seem to register with people. An Entire Swedish TV Show Got Deleted, and AI Got Blamed.
 
DukenukemX said:
This is why we have lawsuits. If the Officer wants to be lazy or is forced to believe Flock then someone is should be forced to lose their home. The town should be forced to pay millions for their mistakes. We've seen AI screw up so many times that it doesn't seem to register with people. An Entire Swedish TV Show Got Deleted, and AI Got Blamed.
Click to expand...
Better if Flock is forced to pay for them and the town removes the cameras and/or fires anyone involved with escalating it to such a degree.
 
Prince Valiant said:
Better if Flock is forced to pay for them and the town removes the cameras and/or fires anyone involved with escalating it to such a degree.
Click to expand...
Flock would gladly pay because this would be considered collateral damage. Flock can easily afford a lawsuit or two but not the towns and cities. It's the towns and cities that decided to use an AI powered camera.
 
DukenukemX said:
Flock would gladly pay because this would be considered collateral damage. Flock can easily afford a lawsuit or two but not the towns and cities. It's the towns and cities that decided to use an AI powered camera.
Click to expand...

Yep. I read an article on the weekend where a town cancelled their contract and notified Flock .. and Flock just ignored them and left the cameras in place. The local police eventually had to go out and unplug every one of them because Flock just left them running. Flock wasn't getting paid by that town, but they were making more money by leaving them in place and having the data for other places that are doing searches.

But, as you said, they just account for that as the cost of doing business. Just write it off as an occasional expense and keep going.

I've read it before that the only way to stop this stuff is going after police pension funds but they're too protected by the legislation involved to go at. The cops involved won't take the time because they rarely have to pay the price and the companies have the cash to settle the bill. It is like the rich guy speeding. He can afford the ticket so why bother obeying the rules? As long as the fine is within the budget then it is no deterrent at all.
 
Nicklebon said:
So what? Who cares if you're tracked outside your home by a camera system vs someone following you? It has never taken a court order to follow someone. Are you really trying to make the argument about cost and convenience?
Click to expand...

Cost and convenience were limiting factors that kept abuse in check. To tail someone you needed an actual human to follow them around. That costs a lot of money and there are only so many people available to do the work. You can't tail everyone as there isn't anywhere near enough manpower or financial resources to do it.

That forced the tails to be used on actual people of interest that were actively suspected of doing something outside the law. Flock and similar camera systems remove the cost and availability barrier and make mass surveillance possible. This is not s good thing.
 
TordanGow said:
Cost and convenience were limiting factors that kept abuse in check. To tail someone you needed an actual human to follow them around. That costs a lot of money and there are only so many people available to do the work. You can't tail everyone as there isn't anywhere near enough manpower or financial resources to do it.

That forced the tails to be used on actual people of interest that were actively suspected of doing something outside the law. Flock and similar camera systems remove the cost and availability barrier and make mass surveillance possible. This is not s good thing.
Click to expand...

The key element here is that people understood that, in the past when evaluating acceptance of "surveillance" what the limitations of it were. Every law, rule, regulation, etc is created in the context of the methods and means of compliance. When new methods and means arise that can dramatically expand the scope of the original action then the regulation or rule authorizing it should be (and usually is) re-evaluated. So just because you can be surveilled by the cops in the past, they had a chance of being seen and the resources were limited to surveil mass numbers of people. So everyone went along with it because they accepted the limitations. But, as the technology becomes available to mass surveil everyone in the country the second they leave the house and build patterns of behaviour then all of a sudden it isn't JUST tracking you, but building a database of where you go every day and how long you spend there. Your work schedule, lunch schedule, how many trips to the various stores you visit, where your kids go to school, what sports they play, who their friends are, and so on and so on. Every time you visit someone that is tracked and catalogued. So they might not be able to see into your home but they know every last thing about you, all without any oversite at all. That is not something that has been decided is legitimate.

When court cases decided that you had no expectation of privacy outside your home that wasn't based on the level of data that can be generated today, and in the near future, about your life. And, there have been cases where you are expected to have privacy in public. The cops, for instance, can't use a parabolic mic or planted listening devices to listen to your conversations without a warrant. If they happen to be standing 5 feet away from you in a crowded mall ... that's fine because there's no expectation of privacy with that many strangers around. But, if you're in a park with nobody within hearing distance you absolutely can have an expectation of privacy. No reasonable person, up to recently, expects that the police would have access to a database of your every move outside your home.
 
Ididar said:
The key element here is that people understood that, in the past when evaluating acceptance of "surveillance" what the limitations of it were. Every law, rule, regulation, etc is created in the context of the methods and means of compliance. When new methods and means arise that can dramatically expand the scope of the original action then the regulation or rule authorizing it should be (and usually is) re-evaluated. So just because you can be surveilled by the cops in the past, they had a chance of being seen and the resources were limited to surveil mass numbers of people. So everyone went along with it because they accepted the limitations. But, as the technology becomes available to mass surveil everyone in the country the second they leave the house and build patterns of behaviour then all of a sudden it isn't JUST tracking you, but building a database of where you go every day and how long you spend there. Your work schedule, lunch schedule, how many trips to the various stores you visit, where your kids go to school, what sports they play, who their friends are, and so on and so on. Every time you visit someone that is tracked and catalogued. So they might not be able to see into your home but they know every last thing about you, all without any oversite at all. That is not something that has been decided is legitimate.

When court cases decided that you had no expectation of privacy outside your home that wasn't based on the level of data that can be generated today, and in the near future, about your life. And, there have been cases where you are expected to have privacy in public. The cops, for instance, can't use a parabolic mic or planted listening devices to listen to your conversations without a warrant. If they happen to be standing 5 feet away from you in a crowded mall ... that's fine because there's no expectation of privacy with that many strangers around. But, if you're in a park with nobody within hearing distance you absolutely can have an expectation of privacy. No reasonable person, up to recently, expects that the police would have access to a database of your every move outside your home.
Click to expand...
what if they all start rolling on each other and flocking each other?

might happen
 
between your pc, cell phone, car, credit cards. They already know everything they need to know about you. Flock is the cherry on top.
 
erek said:
what if they all start rolling on each other and flocking each other?

might happen
Click to expand...
With all the recent use of AI that lets people hack devices, what makes people think Flock is immune to this? It does happen.
mullet said:
between your pc, cell phone, car, credit cards. They already know everything they need to know about you. Flock is the cherry on top.
Click to expand...
Again, if true then Flock is a waste of money.
 
mullet said:
between your pc, cell phone, car, credit cards. They already know everything they need to know about you. Flock is the cherry on top.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they need judicial oversight on you to get at that data. Those would be perfect legal mechanisms and there would be a paper trail on why the request was made. Flock is becoming the justification for getting the warrant. Track all your movements, classify them as suspicious because you visit a business a block away from a drug dealer, and then go get a warrant. The "cherry" on top becomes the entire basis of the case whether that basis is valid or not. They've made it stupid easy for the police to harass people they don't like by providing them data out the ass to manipulate into whatever they want it to look like. Previously they had to justify the man-hours following someone around town to a boss that would ask why the heck they were doing it.
 
Ididar said:
Yes, but they need judicial oversight on you to get at that data. Those would be perfect legal mechanisms and there would be a paper trail on why the request was made. Flock is becoming the justification for getting the warrant. Track all your movements, classify them as suspicious because you visit a business a block away from a drug dealer, and then go get a warrant. The "cherry" on top becomes the entire basis of the case whether that basis is valid or not. They've made it stupid easy for the police to harass people they don't like by providing them data out the ass to manipulate into whatever they want it to look like. Previously they had to justify the man-hours following someone around town to a boss that would ask why the heck they were doing it.
Click to expand...

or.com%2FgaiKIUG-zNoAAAAM%2Ffriends-joey-tribbiani.gif
 
Ididar said:
Yes, but they need judicial oversight on you to get at that data. Those would be perfect legal mechanisms and there would be a paper trail on why the request was made. Flock is becoming the justification for getting the warrant. Track all your movements, classify them as suspicious because you visit a business a block away from a drug dealer, and then go get a warrant. The "cherry" on top becomes the entire basis of the case whether that basis is valid or not. They've made it stupid easy for the police to harass people they don't like by providing them data out the ass to manipulate into whatever they want it to look like. Previously they had to justify the man-hours following someone around town to a boss that would ask why the heck they were doing it.
Click to expand...

Once again, if you think the police have nothing better to do than harass people, you're an idiot. I say that with the caveat that in every profession there are "bad apples" but the average police officer (of which there are some 900,000 in the US) doesn't care or have time to manipulate data to harass people.

Most respectable departments already have a "paper trail" of sorts for Flock data in that you have to provide an incident number linking the search to either a criminal event or investigation. It isn't "let's look at all this Flock data and see who we can arrest." The most recent Flock camera "incident" I assisted with recently was a hit and run crash. A victim related a license plate of a trailer that had struck her vehicle. The trailer did not belong to the owner of the vehicle pulling the trailer. The Flock camera captured the plate of the suspect vehicle in the time frame of the crash, and the lady was able to get insurance information for the vehicle that hit her car. At no time did the investigating officer pull up unrelated data and start looking for things to arrest people for. At no time was the man "harassed," and he was in fact involved in a criminal incident. No sensible judge is going to issue an arrest warrant for someone solely on the basis of their vehicle was a block away from a drug dealer on a Flock camera. That's just nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top