Hacker News Reader

Comment by vatsachak | Hacker News Reader

It's just that flock is insecure and is also used in a negative manner by those who wield it.

I mean functionally, given cell phones and ring doorbells we're already in a surveillance state.

Right, and I think that part of Flock should be fixed. But I don't think in general it is a bad idea. Do these same people also think it is bad that the police can get a warrant to read your text messages?

If the warrant is a real warrant, not some rubber stamp or FISA court, then I'd have less of a problem with the Flock cameras. However, that's not how America works.

They certainly think it would be bad for police to read your text messages without a warrant.

I agree with that too. So if the argument is: "Flock is good in principle but right now it doesn't have the necessary safeguards", well, that's exactly what I said in my original post.

The problem is that the safeguards will inevitably be bent, ignored, parallel constructioned, or repealed. As long as the cameras are there, they are a threat.

You also said you "honestly don't understand the hate Flock gets". Which seems to suggests that the status quo is really no big deal, even with the current (lacking) safeguards.

My real argument would probably be that this system is probably not unconstitutional but is very problematic and easily abused. Flock gets the hate that it does because it can be abused, and has been abused, and will in all likelihood continue to be abused.

All kinds of ideas - especially involving having a very powerful government - would be great in theory if we could have "the necessary safeguards", but the necessary safeguards do not exist and I am not sure if they can be made to exist, at least in a practical realistic way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com