logoalt Hacker News

bmitch3020last Wednesday at 1:40 AM12 repliesview on HN

I don't want to stop Flock the company. I want to stop Flock the business model, along with all the other mass surveillance, and the data brokers. If the business models can't be made illegal, it should at least come with liabilities so high that no sane business would want to hold data that is essentially toxic waste.

Without that, we are quickly spiraling into the dystopia where privacy is gone, and when the wrong person gets access to the data, entire populations are threatened.


Replies

stevemk14ebrlast Wednesday at 1:55 AM

You want to stop the source, which is that the government and other agencies can purchase surveillance data that would otherwise be disallowed by the 4th amendment. We need to end this 'laundering' of information through third parties, and enforce the constitution by its intent.

show 7 replies
neyalast Wednesday at 7:53 AM

This should ironically start at the VC level - and that includes YC et al. Some one comes and says "hey, we got this idea, we collect facial recognition data for training proprietary AI models", the response from the VC should "I'm gonna stop you right there. This is unethical."

Not "Did you say I can 5x my ROI? Here, shut up and take my money!"

show 4 replies
Tangurena2last Wednesday at 12:37 PM

One simple remedy would be to make companies (that collect such private data) and their directors/executives jointly & severally liable[0] for any identity theft. It should come with "forever" liability equivalent to SuperFund sites[1]

Notes:

0 - Financial penalties would not be limited to "your share" of the penalty. If you have money, and the other parties don't, the plaintiffs can collect from whichever defendant has money.

1 - Everyone who ever owned the site with the toxic waste is liable for the cleanup. This is why when a gas station is sold (in the US), all of the fuel tanks are dug up and replaced - this way, none of the future leakage can be attributed to the previous owners.

0x10ca1h0stlast Wednesday at 2:37 AM

This is great sentiment. Companies can be stopped, and then the medusa grows another head. Kill the business model, make the brokering of data illegal, and if caught, fines would be paid directly to those effected. This would go a long ways to promoting privacy first.

someothherguyylast Wednesday at 3:14 AM

> we are quickly spiraling into the dystopia where privacy is gone

we are essentially already in that dystopia.

it is now more of a question of how bad it gets, and if the population will ever stand against it in any meaningful fashion.

show 1 reply
01100011last Wednesday at 6:12 AM

There is a weird fetish with Flock right now. Privacy advocates have been screaming at the public for 25 years now and suddenly the public cares and is obsessed with this one very specific company.

Nevermind license plate readers have been collecting your data for decades. Nevermind you literally carry a tracking device on your person, likely 24/7.

I mean, cool, stop Flock, but don't stop there. Flock is very much not the final boss in this fight. The cynic in me says we will all get bored once Flock is off the radar though.

show 3 replies
itomatolast Wednesday at 12:45 PM

Without their unique business model, what is the company? The product?

What is the addressable market for ubiquitous public surveillance devices? Who is the customer?

NegativeKlast Wednesday at 11:16 AM

Make HIPAA include PII.

That hits your toxic waste goal real fast.

show 1 reply
King-Aaronlast Wednesday at 2:18 AM

> I don't want to stop Flock the company. I want to stop Flock the business model, along with all the other mass surveillance, and the data brokers.

Then you want to stop the company.

Which is reasonable.

show 1 reply
boriskourtlast Wednesday at 8:41 AM

If we can set a legal precedent then this can cascade into policy, or an enforceable standard much faster.

heyethanlast Wednesday at 2:26 AM

[dead]