Hacker News Reader

Comment by nyc_data_geek1 | Hacker News Reader

The law can be utterly egregious and an affront to morality. Legal behavior can thus be an utterly egregious affront to human decency. See: Apartheid

There is no handwaving away the moral implications of these technologies, and who they empower to do what to whom.

View on HN

Im saying its a normal, predictable use of flock. Not that it's OK. Many readers might not know that abortions for the most part aren't legal in Texas. You should expect flock to assist law enforcement in catching people doing something illegal.

These specific abortion laws and systems of surveillance are new and unprecedented, as is the use of them together. So we should very much like to be aware of when they are being used.

Knowing abortions are illegal and flock cameras exist is sufficient information to know they are being used for such a purpose.

The amount of people you know who understand Flock can be counted with your right hand, and most likely can be counted without. This is not common knowledge.

See sibling comment. It's not at all shown that the person did something illegal, in fact they did something quite legal, have an abortion in Washington state in a manner that was within the parameters of Washington's abortion laws.

They don't catch people doing something illegal. They might record someone's car being near some place where maybe something illegal happened. That's not the standard of "reasonable doubt" required for a criminal conviction, and at best is (weak) circumstantial evidence.

There is no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence in US criminal law.

Just to be clear you believe it is normal and predictable for law enforcement officers in one state to follow your movements in another state to see if you violated state law in a state where it does not apply? That kind of normal?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com