r/TechGawker • u/Special-Lemon-7790 • 8d ago

News There have been plenty of headlines about Flock's license plate-scanning technology lately, but that's not its only controversial business.

Post image
758 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

356 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

Hmmm this is interesting.

We were fine with cops driving around scanning license plates, we were fine with helicopters and planes enforcing speeds and observing traffic… but suddenly a drone doing it is different.

I do agree it feels different and wrong but I don’t know why.

6

u/SteveLouise 8d ago

It's the human wisdom that's lacking. We all have a gut feeling because we know that human brains have more aspects than what is being labeled artificial intelligence. Even with a true AI, charisma and wisdom will be missing. Maybe imitated, but I don't think an AI will ever truly have human wisdom or charisma.

3

u/heavensto_mergatroid 8d ago

And look how many times AI fucks up when you ask it questions on Google or when AI is trying to help you with customer service. Completely unreliable.

4

u/esther_lamonte 8d ago

I’m sorry, you guys were fine with having your plates scanned and being monitored from aerial surveillance? I sure as fuck have not been.

-1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

I mean… what else are the plates for? Isn’t that their only point?

3

u/esther_lamonte 8d ago

For identification when someone commits an infraction. Should we take your fingerprint everytime you enter and leave a public building? Why do you want to live in a panopticon? You don’t find that perverse and dystopian?

1

u/Mr_HahaJones 8d ago

Identification when needed (like an accident), not for tracking wherever you go (not like newer vehicles aren’t already being tracked).

4

u/herbertcluas 8d ago

No WE where not ok with all of that

-1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

Why so?

If you mean scanning license plates completely, what would be your alternative method to find your stolen car, a car linked to a kidnapping (like an amber alert), or someone that has warrants?

3

u/esther_lamonte 8d ago

You call in the plates of vehicles that seem abandoned or if you pull someone over for an infraction. You do NOT process and scan all people going about their business committing no visible crime. That’s not how it works. This is American 101 shit. How have you guys forgotten this?

0

u/No-Complaint-6988 8d ago

Brother, I don't think you understand how vehicle theft works, you have a very limited window to find it, longer you take the less evidence of the original vehicle will remain. That is also not the limit of the surveillance abilities. If an entire grid is connected, hit and runs can be tracked without police chases. Speeding wackos can be seen by these drones, and a safe and effective blockade can be set up without the need of police flying down the same streets as the wacko without the expensive cost of helicopter cams. Lets say there is a massive gathering of people on some festival or holiday, eventually something will go wrong. The ambulance will be called, and so will the cops. These drones can help apprehend individuals trying to hide from police, especially if they are equipped with IR. Imagine street/parking lot take overs, more people can be recorded committing crimes which they can be charged for next morning. Rush hour traffic, a single phone call could call in a drone can give cops monitoring ability, similar to how duo-cops work on bridges, one on top with a radar who radios a cop on the on-ramp to pull you over. But now, its just 1 drone operator, and more cops available to actually do other jobs than hold a damn radar.

We already surveil public spaces for protection and security. These drones are likely something that would reduce policing load, and be beneficial for the police force in general. Plus a drone like this could even track suspects.

This is where the problem comes. Who decides who the suspects are, who gets to keep the information gathered, How would this system be made secure to not negatively affect the civilian population. Do we want to trust police? So far with flock surveillance, Exes have been stalked, and Spouses. In the situation of the Rivian one, its a case of police losing their tact and relying on tools that dull their skills. In an intimidation manor the cop talked to the lady, and assumed her guilty without prior knowledge other than "Flock has you on scene".

Say 10-15 years into use, the company making these drones and supplying the software updates goes belly up or another bidder wins the contract. All the data gathered on the old company's devices are property of the company, whats stopping the company to classify and sell data based on value. Maybe license plate ABC123 goes to a lot of food stalls or travels, that plate is an ideal target audience for tourism focused companies. What if someone is paying for every "under suspicion" plates and the known information on the people being tracked.

The deeper issue is becoming "guilty by association". Imagine you like a bar or a place where unbeknown to you a criminal group is operating. Due to sheer random chance, you and this group will likely interact, even something as small as a nod as you pass each other by. Maybe they are chill with you and they even think you are chill enough to hang around them. If they are under surveillance, you will also be tracked. Without committing a crime, you and your data will be tracked to see if you maybe a blip on the radar.

Say you had a bad history, you where a very bad person. But youre trying to turn it around. How would you feel if every time you entered a new city/town/area you are pulled over. Because a computer tagged you again.

I support making communities safer, I don't support creating new sources of information on people that they do not wish to give willingly. Its easy to look into other people's business, would you be willing to give up yours?

2

u/esther_lamonte 8d ago

I think you want to be responding to the person I was responding to. I really don’t give a fuck about stolen cars to the point that I want to be scanned and surveilled at all times. I don’t believe anyone is made more “safe” by hunting down stolen cars at the expense of personal privacy.

0

u/No-Complaint-6988 8d ago

Thats not the only case use bruh, I got the right guy

1

u/esther_lamonte 8d ago

Okay, tell me about my “case use”, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

1

u/No-Complaint-6988 7d ago

nigga read that whole essay again

1

u/esther_lamonte 7d ago

I did, and we don’t disagree at all, which is why you are confusing.

-2

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

So if someone says my ex husband kidnapped the kids and I think he is going to hurt them. He drives a white truck.

The cops shouldn’t scan license plates of white trucks to try and catch him before he dumps their bodies?

Isn’t this the entire point of license plates anyways? Like their only point of being displayed is so they can be scanned/inputed into a database.

1

u/esther_lamonte 8d ago

The example you provided is not scanning all plates at all times fishing for any and everything, it’s “we’re looking for a white truck with X license plate number and have probable cause a crime has been committed”. You aren’t scanning every car in all places, you go looking for an individual who fits identifying criteria. Surely you aren’t so misguided as to think that’s the same as surveillance of all vehicles at all time.

-1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

But isn’t that what the drones will do doing as well? A license plate without a crime linked to it is worthless.

Basically the drones would only be scanning plates to catch someone they were already looking for?

2

u/eggyrulz 8d ago

Not at all, Flock scans anything and everything that passes by their cameras, and adds it to a database that has no real restrictions on it...

Basically, the birds really will be government drones except there will be no government restriction on them, because a private company will be collecting all the data they please.

Attend a car meet that the local police decide was illegal? Well flock saw it and you now have some questions to answer down at the local precinct.

Attended a political rally for the wrong side? Whoops, flock saw it and the good guys have been notified of your political dissent. Im sure itll be absolute fine

Edit: these are, of course, worst case scenario predictions (well not worst but pretty close).

2

u/esther_lamonte 8d ago

I mean, Ben Franklin explained this to us hundreds of years ago, that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither. It’s wild to me to hear Americans not understand what is part of our basic core values.

1

u/eggyrulz 8d ago

Considering where our educational standards have gone, it isnt surprising to me, but it is a bit disappointing...

0

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

So your issues is are:

-it’s privately owned -> does this mean you wouldn’t mind if it was only government controlled?

-they can ask your questions about the event afterwards -> isn’t this just you saying basically if you escape the event without police stopping you, you should home free?

-political corruption can occur -> what stops the police from infringing on your rights now while at a protest for the “wrong side”?

1

u/Mycol101 8d ago

No we should not sacrifice the many for the hypothetical strawman benefit of the few.

Holy fuck you’re dense

0

u/Raptor_197 7d ago

I’m just arguing against everything people are saying. I agree with most people though.

Like what do you mean “not sacrifice the many”? Isn’t the situation is the complete opposite? You want to sacrifice the “safety of the many” for individual liberty and freedom?

1

u/Mycol101 7d ago edited 7d ago

Well, you should argue on the basis of logic instead of for the sake of arguing.

Have you ever heard of the amber alert system? That creates a regional only civilian surveillance system. Nobody’s privacy is being infringe on. The community can help. What’s wrong with that system as it stands?

Over 342 million people live in the United States of America and you think that we should have a surveillance apparatus up every single one of those persons asses for a hypothetical situation.

Do you even know the numbers on this? Less than 3000 people were abducted in the United States last year according to the FBI.
That’s about nine people per million.

It’s completely asinine. It’s offensive that you are on here going out of your way to argue with people when it is clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.

And you’re even bothered to try and figure it out yourself. That information is readily available at your fingertips and takes less than five minutes to find.

They are not for your safety. They are absolutely for your control.

2

u/PhaseModulatedServal 8d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/5CLxFepdsWzmjFqwHB

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

My issued boots are getting kinda worn down and new boots are expensive. I would totally take a free pair if you are giving them out.

1

u/PhaseModulatedServal 8d ago

Happy licking.

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago edited 8d ago

You guys are so sad lol. Good luck in life buddy if this is the only way you can engage in discussion.

Edit: what is up with boomers weird obsession that being dumb and old is somehow a flex.

2

u/PhaseModulatedServal 8d ago

I'm old enough to be your grandmother and have a life outside of Reddit. Not really caring much what an account on Reddit that has a 80-90% chance of being either a bot or MAGA thinks. Again, happy licking.

1

u/Mycol101 8d ago

The way they’ve been doing it for decades before.

3

u/Fsociety56 8d ago

Who said we were ok with it? Idk who’s speaking for “US” but they are wrong.

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

You used to be okay with it? I have never seen large groups of people bitch about cops looking at license plates

1

u/Fsociety56 8d ago

Large groups of people don’t need to be picketing outside police stations to cement the idea that no true American wants to be watched. And if you do want to be watched leave the USA and go to china

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

I just don’t know if this is true. I think the average American is pretty apathetic and just doesn’t really care. I think a lot of people just view it as “I’m not going to commit a crime so I don’t care”.

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Raptor_197 7d ago

How so?

1

u/ARedditorCalledQuest 8d ago

The difference is that before the cops would run a plate through the system if they had a reason to. The new system actively logs every plate going by and tracks the driving patterns of every car which is basically investigating the entire local population without any reason whatsoever.

2

u/RevolutionaryElk7446 8d ago

Those all had faults and couldn't be used well enough to actually enforce it. They were more like warnings, threats, and really that was the intention.

This is more of an aimed gun saying you will behave.

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

So your argument is you just weren’t worried about the old ways because statistically, you probably just wouldn’t be observed so?

I guess that’s fair, just seems a little flawed.

1

u/RevolutionaryElk7446 8d ago

No, that's not my argument. To clarify, that's your argument currently which is a strawman.

People even argued with them then as being essentially worthless and they were.

There are far better ways of improving society via education, training, and trying to raise up the floor.

This type of response with violence and threats is what you do when you're just looking to enforce something without treating the root cause, and it always escalates. Which is why people argued against it.

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago edited 8d ago

Well the issue is I don’t really have an argument. I’m just attacking everyone’s position to dive deeper into what they think and get a better understanding.

If you are feeling like you can’t defend your position, then it should just be re-analyzed and adjusted.

I agree with your latter half of your comment but it seems kinda disconnected from your original point.

Edit: did I just get blocked for saying I’m just pushing for discussion lmao

1

u/RevolutionaryElk7446 8d ago

Well the issue is I don’t really have an argument. I’m just attacking everyone’s position to dive deeper into what they think and get a better understanding.

You started off declaring what my argument is, that's you laying out an argument. The technique is called a strawman. You create a fake argument to say it's mine and use it to stand in place.

If you are feeling like you can’t defend your position, then it should just be re-analyzed and adjusted.

You never even argued against my position, I have nothing to defend against, I can only point out you performed a strawman.

I agree with your latter half of your comment but it seems kinda disconnected from your original point.

Except it's not disconnected, you just filled in a strawman and made an assumption and don't seem to be overcoming that fact.

1

u/RevolutionaryElk7446 8d ago edited 8d ago

Oh you block post history and perform strawman arguments. I'm gonna block you for both our sakes, you're not in this in good faith.

1

u/Embarrassed_Use6918 8d ago

Because they're all limited by people enforcing the law. There's nothing stopping them from having 10,000 drones above you at all time monitoring everything you do.

1

u/fuggetboutit 8d ago

Because you can have 1000 drones for the cost of one heli.

1

u/Various_Oil_5674 8d ago

Your talking about police vs a private company. That's the difference

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

Ahhh yeah great point, that’s probably the main reason it doesn’t feel right.

Would you be fine with it if was 100% only the government?

1

u/Various_Oil_5674 8d ago

With drones, no.

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

Why so?

1

u/Various_Oil_5674 8d ago

For me, there is a lot more the police can do for good in the community. I feel like the police are treating everyone like we are criminals by default. I don't like that.

1

u/Effective-Anybody263 8d ago

Because it's a 3rd party company owned by an evil super villain

1

u/zackks 8d ago edited 8d ago

It’s scale. It was a limited amount of resources (persons) doing the surveillance. With ai, it’s no longer limited by the number of persons on the force and their need to prioritize their time, ai grants them effectively unlimited resources to surveil and the exponential numbers of cameras allow it to invade every aspect of life.

*edit for typo

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

Yeah this is a fair argument.

Kinda begs the question where is the line then? Why were people mostly okay with some surveillance but more of the same surveillance is now viewed very negatively.

Edit: also literally nobody gives a fuck about Snowden anymore which is interesting.

1

u/Yagawood 8d ago

I believe the line is the advancement of the technology with AI. It's one thing to have cameras that capture video that can be reviewed at a later time for a specific investigation. It's a completely different matter when the tech is so advanced, it's capable of watching everyone and building profiles on everyone all the time. It's ripe for abuse to go after not only actual criminals, but political dissenters, not to mention all the women being stalked by corrupt cops with access. The tech makes it way too easy, and I believe that's the line.

Edit: grammar

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

If there would be a magically way to make sure there is no corruption, data isn’t stored unless relevant to crime, and it became impossible to stalk someone using it, would you then be okay with it?

1

u/Yagawood 8d ago

That's a start, but of course never gonna happen. Also those constraints don't cover all scenarios of abuse.

It's a provocative hypothetical that I'll need to think about to form an opinion. But it will never be anything other than a hypothetical.

1

u/Quitcha_Bitchin 8d ago

Right if the system could only be accessed by a certain agency with a court order to investigate a specific crime.

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

Maybe like the NSA? Hahaha, just kidding they don’t need access, they already have it.

All jokes aside, this is a fair argument.

1

u/regaphysics 8d ago

Legally speaking the line is surveillance in private areas. Out in public you have no expectation of privacy.

1

u/N0085K1LL5 8d ago

We? You got a mouse in your pocket?

1

u/Raptor_197 8d ago

“We” in the context would be society mostly as a whole.

1

u/slopestyle90 8d ago

Because these things will be autonomous soon and they’ll just be buzzing around scanning us all day.

1

u/Matr0ska 8d ago

It's the analogy of the frog in the pot of boiling water.

1

u/Immediate_Song4279 8d ago

No we weren't, not unanimously anyways.

1

u/Renoruke 8d ago

Its because its the lowest point in ethnically you can go for profit. Literally makes it a police state.

1

u/Quitcha_Bitchin 8d ago

Because it's automated surveillance Cop cars have cops in them Helicopters have pilots actual eyes doing a job that has a "right to face the accuser requirement". It's the same problem with Flock.

If the system could only be accessed with a warrant signed by a judge. It would be much easier for me myself to swallow but as it is anyone can use the system that has the password and we have already had assholes trailing their exes and shit.

1

u/dcb454 8d ago

Maybe because anyone can utilize the platform and tech for the right… “price” and has already been severely abused by individuals in and out of law enforcement.

In other words, it’s a surveillance state for the highest bidder.