zlacker

>>hhs+(OP)
> You're thinking Chinese surveillance

> US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims

— Garry Tan, Sept 03, 2025, YC CEO while defending Flock on X.

https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955

I admire Garry but not sure why there can’t be a line that we all agree not to cross. No weapon has ever been made that was not used to harm humanity.

>>scotty+Aj
I spent several years doing a bunch of work in my local muni that drastically restricted, and eventually booted (I'm not happy about this; long story) Flock. I feel like my Flock bona fides are pretty strong. I understand people not being comfortable with Flock. I do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line.

People disagree about this technology. I live in what I believe to be one of the 5 most progressive municipalities in the United States† and I can tell you from recent experience that our community is sharply divided on it.

† (we're a small inner-ring suburb of Chicago; I'm "cheating" in that Chicago as a whole is not one of the most progressive cities in the country, but our 50k person muni is up there with Berkeley and represented by the oldest DSA member in Congress)

>>tptace+Jo
> do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line

ALPRs are not an obvious red line. Federal police ignoring court orders with microphones on street corners is.

>>JumpCr+zv
The premise of these cameras is that the operating LEOs control sharing. If you assume the federal government is going to ignore those controls extralegally, then ALPRs themselves aren't acceptable. The red line you're proposing here isn't coherent.

Again I want to be clear that there's a difference between "bad idea" or "bad public policy tradeoff" and "red line". I believe it's pretty clear that when something is a live controversy with no clear winner in a municipality like Oak Park, whatever else it is, it isn't a "red line".

>>tptace+Uv
> I believe it's pretty clear that when something is a live controversy with no clear winner in a municipality like Oak Park, whatever else it is, it isn't a "red line".

Shouldn't it be the opposite? A thing is tested when it's put under stress. It's a red line because it's not to be crossed even when the temptation to do it increases.

>>Anthon+kG
To me, calling something a "red line" implies that there's near-universal agreement that something is bad (or, at least, on the proper weighing of the underlying values: here, freedom from surveillance vs. law enforcement).

>>tptace+jI
It's an interesting point.

I see your point that something cannot be a red line if it has significant support. Because a red line is something that people universally agree is unacceptable, and if there is even a significant minority who disagree then it's not universal.

Equally, for any horrible thing you will find a minority who support it. Hitler certainl had wide support for deporting Jews, if not worse. Does that mean it can't be a red line? In fact there is no point having red lines that are universally accepted, because they are already, well, universally accepted. There is little point stating that killing babies and eating their flesh whil livestreaming is a red line because no one wants to do it.

I don't have a view on Flock itself.

>>rich_s+zj1
> Because a red line is something that people universally agree is unacceptable

No? Just those who are decisionally relevant. Most people are incapable of civic action, for example.