Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

So you’re going with: equating breaking the law by impersonating a police officer and reckless endangerment, to passive data collection with a camera? And not because it breaks the law, but because the police don’t like it?

Very brave man, good for you.

There are things that cops are allowed to do (surveillance) that citizens are restricted to do.

It's not complicated or some gotcha. I'm fine with police cameras that whose access is strictly controlled, monitored and used to fight crime, rather than some creep taking pictures of me and doing God knows what with it.

Flock is however not a law enforcement agency. Legally they are no different from that YouTuber

This is Canada so there is no Flock. Try again.

I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic but that’s not really comparable.

Police do have privileges that ordinary citizens do not. That’s understood, and part of the reason they should be held to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary citizens.

Using their emergency lights and ignoring traffic rules in order to get to a real emergency is one of those privileges.

Widespread, automated mass surveillance is not one of those privileges.

Yes, they are held to a higher standard. That's why the surveillance tools police rely on are strictly controlled and monitored, unlike what this guy is doing.

So it appears we agree.

But then if what Flock (a private company) is doing is acceptable then what this guy is doing is acceptable under the same standards.

After all, they are doing the same thing: recording license plates in public view.

A related but different question is if police use of a private dragnet violates the fourth amendment. I believe that it does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com