"Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on," Ellison said, describing what he sees as the benefits from automated oversight from AI and automated alerts for when crime takes place.
Ellison, Vance, Musk, Thiel, Luckey, Zuckerberg and many of the tech oligarch assholes want us to live in their surveillance state.
They're currently making good progress. What will you do to help stop them?
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/09/omnip...
> 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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plain_view_doctrine_0
might apply, though IANAL
Edit: it's got a Wikipedia article, which says it's a particular kind of incitement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
Still, I'm torn whenever I walk to the city center (Bavarian big city that is not Munich) and see how many rental bikes and rental e-scooters can be found thrown into the river that runs through the city. Or public trash cans that were actually put deep into the earth, with concrete too, lie broken with lots of earth and the long metal pipe with concrete attached because some people spent considerable effort to destroy public infrastructure. Or somebody must have jumped hard and repeatably on a weak point of a public bench, which has very thick wood and thick steel screws, but they still managed to destroy it.
I want those people to be found, I'm very angry. This is a frequent occurrence. If that means more surveillance, I would not oppose. I'm tired of seeing this happen again and again and again.
The city had to start using trashcans that look more and more like little war bunkers. They can't do anything for the bikes and scooters though, making them too heavy to lift and throw into the water is obviously not possible. Police do patrol, but they can't be everywhere all the time.
For illustration: Two bikes of a public bike rental service found in the river. They are not old, all of them are new, but this is how they look after a few days or weeks in the river:
https://img.mittelbayerische.de/ezplatform/images/4/4/8/8/40...
Divers are called regularly to retrieve bikes, scooters, and other big items thrown into the city's river: https://images.nordbayern.de/image/contentid/policy:1.132184...
Remember kids, if the invasive tracking is done by the government and a couple of companies, then it's the good kind of dystopia! /s
[0]: https://news.ucsc.edu/2025/09/pulse-fi-wifi-heart-rate/
Pretty bold statement without citing data to back that up. I have already received a speeding warning letter from one of these things. Does that count as a crime Flock solved?
I tire of all this binary thinking. It is true that surveillance helps victims. It is also true that the same surveillance can endanger civil liberties. We should have some say in how much we will allow our liberties to be endangered.
Sounds like someone watched too much Person of Interest
I'm about 98% certain understands why people are against this; other comments make this more clear, but even sentence right before the one you quoted to suggests this fact ("I understand people not being comfortable with Flock.").
By "I do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line" he seems to mean that, even if you ignore all authoritarians, there are plenty of smart people who believe the benefits (particularly when well regulated) outweigh the risks.
There are plenty of things that are wrong that are not "an obvious red line," so merely thinking that Flock is bad is not enough to make it "an obvious red line."
His argument for why people should not be against seems to be twofold:
1. If it could be made to work in such a way that isn't invasive, it could be a boon, particularly to the most disadvantaged[0].
2. If all of the places that regulate it well kick it out, then they lose political capital that could constructively be used to encourage their neighbors to also regulate it[1].
0: >>45475617
1: >>45475478
1. I am in San Francisco.
2. Upon further research Flock does not appear to be used by SFPD for ticketing. They have another camera system for that. That does not mean that Flock could not be used for speeding tickets or a host of other things like running red lights, littering etc. Microprocessors and CMOS cameras can do amazing things.
Regardless of what company is doing the surveillance the debate remains the same.
1. Pervasive surveillance has the potential to be used inappropriately by authorities. Discussion is needed.
2. The data collected by a company such as Flock but not necessarily Flock could be used inappropriately or sold for other purposes. Benn Jordan has a good video on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ&t=21s
3. The claim that Flock is responsible for %10 of solved cases seems dubious but without data it is difficult to know or believe. Given that Flock is in YC's portfolio makes it even more suspect.
Flock or a company like Flock may try and become pervasive and indispensable before a public discussion places any limits on their behavior.
Perhaps others have asked that question. I have not. Rather, I'm asking a different question:
Why should we believe that Flock is operating in good faith?
Especially given the anti-democratic (small 'd') and likely illegal stuff they pulled in Evanston[0].
That's not a rhetorical question.
[0] >>45382434
How does keyword detection work?
HALO Smart Sensor listens for preloaded distress keywords and triggers real-time alerts when detected, ensuring quick emergency response without recording conversations.
What keywords can HALO detect?
HALO Smart Sensor comes preloaded with distress keywords and can be updated with additional phrases to fit specific security needs.
Does HALO record conversations?
No, HALO Smart Sensor ensures privacy by only detecting keywords and aggression patterns without recording audio or storing voice data.
I can understand if there were emergency keywords like yelling "Help" or "Call 911" and extremely limited phrases like that. Essentially a voice activated fire alarm. But uploading new keywords and not being explicit of what keywords trigger the thing is really not a good look. If you can upload arbitrary words then there is no meaningful difference between spying. The thing has an occupancy sensor and it's not like it is hard to combine that data with camera data. What are the keywords? If a kid talks about someone else smoking a joint does that trigger the system? Where are kids going to get some safe place to talk about things without fear of surveillance?
The words keywords being hidden just furthers concerns of surveillance. If you can't know what words you can't use then you have to be very cautious with your speech, least you set off false positives and get in trouble. This really is too far.
HOLY FUCK! THEY *SUGGEST* YOU INSTALL THESE THINGS IN BATHROOMS! How is anyone okay with that? It's way more than a smoke detector! https://halodetect.com/blog/school-bathroom-vandalism/
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun...
My birth, as someone who is bi, is now declared to be tantamount to terrorism in the USA. My belief that race shouldn't matter, is now extremism.
The red line, is systems like this, enable those who would happily hunt me down and gut me like a fish. There are preachers in the government, who frequently say that I am not a person. The government is attempting to move to an extrajudicial procedure where it concerns people the government oppose.
We shouldn't gladly be making it easier for a better Dehomag to be put together - that is the red line.
And discussions of ALPRs and the issues around them are absolutely important.
My point was that the City of Evanston required their contractor (Flock) to remove their equipment from city infrastructure. Flock did so and then promptly reinstalled that equipment on city-owned infrastructure, flouting the will of the legitimate civil authority -- because they wanted to get paid by another government agency, against the express orders of said civil authority.
I don't know where you come from, but that sort of behavior just reeks of bad faith to me.
Feel free to disagree. And if you do, given your significant policy experience why Flock acted in good faith in Evanston. I'd be quite interested in your thoughts.
>I really don't think the "rhetorical" thing is going to work with me.
Huh? a rhetorical question[0] is (often) one that isn't actually trying to elicit information. My question, on the other hand, was specifically attempting to ascertain whether or not you think Flock is acting in good faith given their history.
So no, I wasn't trying to "gotcha" you (as in "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of thing), I genuinely wanted your take. But that doesn't seem to be forthcoming, so I'll back off. Have a good day.
I hope it's worth it.
And I wouldn't say that's a widely held definition. For example:
> The red line, or "to cross the red line", is a phrase used worldwide to mean a figurative point of no return or line in the sand, or "the fastest, farthest, or highest point or degree considered safe." [0]
If adopting these practices means they stick around and people will always argue for bringing them back if we stop... We've crossed the point of no return.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mirta-Gordon/publicatio...
> a lot of normal, reasonable people see these cameras as a very good thing
That sums up tptacek's "argumentation". It can be used to justify just about any type of surveillance. I mean does breaking E2EE and monitoring every communication really do any meaningful harm in Oak Park?
It really brings into focus how people who were raised in "good times" just can't wrap their heads around how easily the cookie can crumble into "bad times", and how people who found moderate success in their field believe they can now control everything. The kind of hubris that overrides any history lesson, or boiling frog fable.
And don't even get me started on what self-proclaimed "reasonable people" believe about other topics.
Contrast with the counter-arguments of what lies behind the curtain, here: >>45476100
It was a good way to bring someone down a couple of (dozen) notches in my eyes. Not that it matters, this won't do any meaningful harm in Oak Park.
- Support https://eff.org, https://fsf.org
- Use GNU/Linux phones (Librem 5 and Pinephone)
- Use https://qubes-os.org on desktop.
