Hacker News Reader

Comment by MSFT_Edging | Hacker News Reader

This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak.

This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down.

Lives will be completely derailed, police and judges will not be held accountable. The wrongful arrestees will still be in debt to the local jail and court for various fees they racked up. Trust in the justice system will continue to degrade and more and more violence will be used against people to maintain order.

We hold police to high standards for search/arrest because they have the monopoly on violence. Even if they're wrong, you can't shoot back. Even if they're slamming your loved ones into the pavement, breaking their teeth, you cannot kick the cop in the head or else they have permission to murder you both.

Mass surveillance is a loophole to this contract.

View on HN

Someone that is innocent is going to get killed soon because flock flagged them incorrectly. I recall reading the auto journalist that got flagged for a stolen car while test driving a car. We have seen how often pull over/arrests can derail when a stupid cop that is aggressive pulls out their weapon first, fires fast and then investigates last. An innocent person that reacts wrongly is eventually going to make the news. :-(

https://www.jalopnik.com/2219072/auto-journalist-harassed-by...

Link for the curious

Link straight from the source (the actual journalist)

https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-flock-cameras-wrongly-trac...

flock's out, glocks out

https://abcnews.com/US/man-speaks-after-police-release-9-tra... He was attacked by a police dog after a flock camera misread his license plate. He was then charged for "obstruction", which was dropped 4 months later.

Police dogs are another insane thing we allow.

You can be mauled by a police dog and if you hit the dog, you get an assault on a police officer charge. It's bad enough a cop can permanently disable you if you can't follow 3 conflicting orders being yelled, but they can also send an animal who literally doesn't know better.

And the absurdity of a dog sniffing around the car for contraband. Crazy that’s allowed and taken seriously by the justice system

Well the courts said they need probable cause for a search, so they needed an on-demand probable cause generator, or else they wouldn't be able to do pretextual searches on "randomly" stopped minorities anymore, which would be a violation of they(the police)'re civil rights.

The best thing is that the dog's actions are taken seriously from a judicial standpoint, yet the dog obviously can't be held responsible, so if there's wrongful action, no one is ever at fault!

That might already have happened for all we know

Woman with SUV filled with minors pulled out by cops and handcuffed on the ground in Colorado based on flock ID'ing the license plate of stolen... motorcycle with same number (but from a different state). You can't make this shit up.

https://www.kxlf.com/news/america-in-crisis/aurora-police-de...

glad you posted this.

> "Why are you now placing these children on the ground face into the concrete? It's hot! In front of all of us? Screaming at them. They are telling you they are hurt," witness Jenni Wurtz said.

I cannot believe LE will use this technology within ethical bounds, since they are willing to force a very young child onto the asphalt of a hot parking lot, who cannot possibly have posed a risk to their safety.

I mean, even people who are guilty of many crimes shouldn't be summarily executed in the street. Stealing a television or driving a tractor trailer of illegal weed from coast to coast isn't a death sentence even after a jury trial & conviction, so we shouldn't really be all that sanguine about guilty people being killed either.

They have already destroyed at least one life. There was that woman arrest

"One California town found Flock's license plate cameras were wrong 71% of the time"

https://www.techspot.com/news/113320-one-california-town-fou...

and the saying OP is looking for is "You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride". A police saying since the early 70s.

Flock doesn't kill people. Cops do.

The systems we have in place kill people. Aiming to blame just one point of failure, in a complex network of systems, is a failure itself

that's why you don't give cops unaccountable tools which they can use to kill/harm/harass people even more effectively.

Cops need to be on a leash because the profession attracts the untrained pitbulls of humanity.

These people should be digging ditches half the time, yet they're the ones with qualified immunity and guns.

> We have seen how often pull over/arrests can derail when a stupid cop that is aggressive pulls out their weapon first

I'll bite. I'm sure it has happened. But how often?

Well, I'll bite. How often would it need to happen for you to find it outrageous?

"Even if they're wrong, you can't shoot back."

Depends on the situation. You'd absolutely be arrested. Get in front of a jury of 12 people and you might have a chance if you have enough evidence for a self-defense claim and the cop acting outside of the law.

I'd highly doubt that. I've actually been on scene of a few LE-involved shootings (ex-paramedic).

If LE "just" shoots at you (i.e. you're not actively firing or an immediate threat - and without commenting on the "should" of that) then... you might be "fine", once you're disabled.

If you're actively firing at LE, they're going to hit you with "overwhelming force" (ever seen a news story where there's 50+ bullet holes in a car, or a suspect shot 15 times, by police? That's "overwhelming force") and any survival on your part is going to be sheer dumb luck and "not very likely".

Only if the jury believes in nullification, which isn't common. The jury is instructed to follow the law. The selection process asks "even if you think they were right, if it's against the law and they were guilty would you issue a guilty verdict?" and people answer "yes" consistently.

"Only if the jury believes in nullification, which isn't common. The jury is instructed to follow the law."

Not true. There is case law that allows for self-defense against unlawful use of force, or when when you reasonably believe the force was not coming from an officer (didn't announce, were not uniformed, believed to be imposters, etc).

The boyfriend in the Breonna Taylor case had charges dismissed, so you're right on this. Somehow none of the hail of 32 shots hit him.

But - to the OP's point, if you're trying to defend yourself against what appear to be police officers illegally shooting at you, the situation is just going to escalate. One police officer firing at you will shortly become many police officers firing at you. Taking cover or running is preferable to firing back at police.

* (didn't announce, were not uniformed, believed to be imposters, etc).*

Okay, but what if they just wear masks and use unmarked vehicles?

Then do they get a pass for shooting you in the back?

As I rudely learned when I was preparing to use the "I'm gonna do jury nullification" thing during a jury selection, there are a few states, including mine, where jury nullification is explicitly "not-stated" but not a uniquely acceptable reason to strike a juror, despite what our juror handbook might claim about violating an "oath" (you cannot be punished for "violating an oath" if you are selected).

I was lucky that for unrelated reasons the trial didn't happen and none of the jury selection stuff went through, but in a few states you cannot just rely on this as an easy out. This is awesome, because for true believers, you can actually do jury nullification. This was actually somewhat recently and notably used: https://www.eenews.net/articles/bundys-acquitted-in-huge-set...

My last stint on grand jury we had a case that none of us felt great about. It was a felony theft charge where the thief likely used the vehicle regularly but took it in the middle of the night to return home. He was at a logging camp where he pays for accommodations but they had no work for him. After 3 days he got frustrated and left in the middle of the night. Camp foreman called the law reporting the vehicle stolen. The officer went and checked at the now missing guy's house and the vehicle was parked in his driveway.

The whole group felt the felony charge was too much for that series of events. Somebody said "I don't want to vote on this". I suggested that is a valid option. The vote was the weakest of all the cases we covered. Several abstentions but just enough to send the case to trial.

To me that is nullification in practice. It is "the community" deciding that they don't believe the State is right in pursuing conviction. Juries are meant to be a randomized "council of elders" type body not just cogs in the machine.

Using your belief in jury nullification as a tool to get out of your duty as a citizen rubs me the wrong way. You have to participate in the functions of civilization if you want it to reflect your beliefs.

If they are going to seat me on the jury after I loudly proclaim my willingness to nullify - I'm game for the trial!

The main problem is the idea that I'm held captive by some fake contract to the state. I'm lucky that where I am the law is more just/libertarian than in most other places - meaning that in general the average arrested person is more likely to be actually guilty, but especially in places that are ultra authoritarian (i.e. Virginia), I need all the power I can get to protest their unjust system or I'm not going to have my time wasted.

So, uh, was the guy planning on bringing the vehicle back to the logging camp? It's not obvious to me that this wasn't in fact vehicle theft.

Yes, it was technically theft. Officers found the vehicle at his house shortly after it was reported missing. Not really an opportunity to return it. If all laws were prosecuted to the exact letter of the law we would not need juries. The DA will prosecute any case that they feel has enough evidence to secure a conviction, as this case had. It is the juries that determine if prosecution in each case is "just".

Steal a car to rush somebody to a hospital then return it after and the letter of the law will convict you as a felon. It is the jury that could decide, as representatives of the community, that you should not be a felon for saving somebody's life even if you technically stole a car.

In most states the jury instructions are to make their judgement based solely on the evidence presented to them. These instructions make a jury a cog in the prosecution machine. The purpose of a jury is a final check on the government's execution of the law by members of the community.

> If all laws were prosecuted to the exact letter of the law we would not need juries. The DA will prosecute any case that they feel has enough evidence to secure a conviction, as this case had. It is the juries that determine if prosecution in each case is "just".

I think you're think of grand juries. They decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial, I.e. if the prosecution is just.

Even without grand juries, we'd still have juries that decide the verdicts. They decide if a conviction is just.

I was referring to both grand and petit jury in general but yes, that is correct.

If they had previously allowed him to take the vehicle home, then I would presume he probably was planning to bring it back. Once you explicitly allow a person to do something, it becomes harder to claim harm when they do it again.

Obviously. It sounds like the kind of question you always say yes to unless you're trying to get out of jury duty. And yet, people aren't machines.

No one who has answered "no" made it thru the selection process, so there might be some survivor bias at play here.

I'm referring to the first selection process.

Tons of people who smoke weed and had to say "yes" to the "are you not a drug user" and lied on a form to get guns were just found by the US Supreme Court 9-0 to not be violating the law:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-backs-chal...

Hunter Biden trial would never have happened now too because of this - many people at the time wanted him to fight it out and be the poster child for this rather than the Pakistani guy in this version of the case.

So actually, you can indeed just say "yes" and than "vote your conscious" anyway, even openly - at least in the case of the few states that don't have "willing to nullify" as an acceptable reason to strike a juror during jury selection.

Note in this case guy was in an illegal state and also had cocaine.

If you survive to get in front of a jury. That's a big if. Plus, even if you were falsely arrested and wounded by police and your rights clearly violated... were they violated in that EXACT same way in the past establishing precedent that it isn't ok to stalk/injure people? No? Qualified Immunity. FTP.

The exceptions to the rule are very rare. I can think of one case where a person shot back during a no-knock raid on the wrong address and had charges dropped because police didn't announce their presence well enough.

As long as they shout "police", they can knock down your front door, throw a flash-bang into your infant's crib and disable them for life, then go "whoops" when they realize they have the wrong address and you'll be on the hook for replacing the door they destroyed.

Honestly getting arrested would be lucky. If recent years have shown anything, they don't need to be particularly concerned about removing you from the picture more permanently regardless of the circumstances.

You absolutely do have a chance to get acquitted: https://www.police1.com/legal/articles/man-cleared-in-deputy...

Good luck living long enough to see a jury

The choice in this hypothetical scenario is to be killed initially through the unlawful use of force or potentially be killed at some later time before reaching trial.

How do the municipalities "own" this data if anyone from any agency outside of a jurisdiction is allowed to access the data?

worse than that, federal agencies - which can't access it directly - do so via their "law enforcement partners". So now you've got DHS and ICE using it for their own pseudo-law activities.

I went on a grand jury in early 2025, and it was eye opening to see that under my state's laws the "smell of weed" is enough to justify a traffic stop and search of a vehicle.

I am playing devil's advocate here, but mass surveillance can also save you.

Let's say your just broke up with your girlfriend, shortly after, her house get burgled and a bunch of jewelry is stolen, including some you gave her when you were together. A surveillance camera catches the burglar, a drug addict with a criminal record, he gets caught, tried and sentenced to 2 years in prison. The kind of case that won't get a news article, you may not even be aware of what happened.

Without the surveillance camera, you would be a prime suspect, and even if you don't get convicted in the end, there is a good chance for the police to give you a hard time.

Here is the asymmetry, if a surveillance camera prevents a wrongful arrest, no one will notice, because you don't notice things that don't happen. Only wrongful arrests caused by surveillance cameras will be noticed.

More surveillance doesn't mean more arrests, trials and convictions. These are limited by the availability of police forces, magistrates and jails respectively. Even with a total surveillance zero privacy dystopia, you can't have more arrests without the means to do so. What will change is on what grounds the arrests are made: video footage, a witness testimony, etc...

It doesn't mean I support mass surveillance (I told you I was going to play devil's advocate), but that alone doesn't mean more wrongful arrests as a whole unless something else in the system is promoting wrongful arrests.

There are legitimate concerns about Flock that don't involve wrongful arrests, such as misuse of data by operators, like for stalking, data security, which may leak to criminals, and usage for purpose other than law enforcement, like marketing. The fact that it is a private company funded by public money with dubious contracts is another concern.

Assuming cops actually present the evidence they have and don't hide it from the defense. The police and DA don't care if they put a guilty or not guilty person in jail, the 'tough on crime' faction that tends to get people elected cares about the number of people thrown in jail. The more the better. Throw 10,000 people in jail, you must be a damned good elected official and you get re-elected.

>you can't have more arrests without the means to do so.

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say... you can always have more arrests. Make more things crime. Pre-crime, thought crime, speech crime. When you run out of physical space you start stacking the prisoners 10 deep. When that runs out of space you start executing them and putting them in ovens.

What I was trying to say is that if no one is available to make an arrest, you can't make an arrest.

Why do you think people get away with minor traffic offenses all the time, something right in front of an officer? There simply isn't enough means to deal with these, so they just ignore most of them.

I mean, in an electronic prison, you just issue the ticket and wait. Eventually people have to do things like renew licenses and they are arrested there. This is very similar to systems states are using now preventing the renewal of expired things like licenses.

Unless the footage didn't show guys face clearly.

Then you get hella hard time because technically it's an evidence and arguing against evidence is always way harder, even if the argument is "if you squint and imagine that this guy wore a wig and painted his face, here's an expert opinion that height and figure difference could be an illusion from camera position". Court almost always defaults to evidence and experts.

Or it wasn't a burglary in your girlfriend house, but face/plate-matching algorithms screwed up.

It's hard to choose between "police give hard time to victim and victim relatives" and "police randomly decides who fit the bill and get this person sacked"

This is what the presumption of innocence is supposed to do. If you have an alibi, then big brother doesn’t get involved. These are cultural problems that we do not need big brother’s benevolence to solve for us. We need better cultural systems of accountability; the problem is that those are _way_ harder to build

Police regularly ignore evidence that disproves their claims. They will not prove your innocence for you. It will still be up to you to pay the lawyer 1000s of dollars to do the discovery against flock cameras to attempt to prove your innocence.

You don't have to prove your innocence; innocence is assumed. The prosecution has to prove you guilty, and inform the defense of all the evidence that they have. If they have evidence that exonerates you, they would be stupid to even bring a case to trial as it would be a waste of everyone's time.

We live in a world where, routinely, police plant evidence and prosecutors fail to bring forth exonerating evidence. They don't have to be stupid when they are being deceptive.

Search "Brady violation" on youtube for some examples.

Of course. Our entire concept of government relies on everyone acting in good faith, even with checks and balances. Reality is often messier.

Too many people will see this type of thing and go "I don't smoke weed so this is not a problem for me"

Maybe the goal isn't really to protect the public's interests, but to protect a privileged class of people.

> This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak.

This sounds like a problem with an unaccountable police force. London has had a CCTV system for 60 years.

And it's the least free western country.

Necessary reading: "Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime"

https://ir.law.utk.edu/utklaw_facpubs/468/

>This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down.

Yes. That's exactly the point. Comply with every little thing, no matter how absurd, or else your life will unravel.

Look through a historical comment (especially from back when "big data" was the buzzword) thread on any subject where HN is pro regulation and pro government. This is EXACTLY what the useful idiots want.

They want some NYC liquor store owner to pay a hundred grand to the state because that one time he visited NH he loaded up his van with tax free henny to sell back home.

They want that exurban undeveloped lot owner to lose their house for letting their buddy with a tree service dump there and fill in a few hundred square feet over the course of half a decade.

They want some random industrial employer that makes nuts and bolts or something to be fined millions of dollars because their maintenance employees spray painted a piece of equipment in the parking lot without the PPE and pollution compliance measures befitting a commercial paint operation.

They want the jackboot on the throat of everyone who steps out of line on any axis that they care about.

They see the way the banking industry tries to stay away from weed, porn and guns because the upside isn't worth the risk of being combed over by the enforcers. And instead of seeing it as cautionary, they see it as a model that needs to be scaled down to the small businesses and the lowly individual peasants.

Of course they don't lay it out so plainly. They use words like "negative externality" and "antisocial" and "dis-incentivize" to whitewash it but that doesn't change what it is.

All very terrifying but you're building a "Hollow Man" by using an "Appeal to Extremes".

Instead of arguing against actual regulatory policy, you are mind-reading malicious intent into hypothetical scenarios (and people) you just invented. Or real examples that you're broadstroking against a "they" which is somehow "HN."

I am not sure how you can justify trying to paint so broad a stroke across an entire community, or feel justified in creating a bucket of "useful idiots" into which you just throw whole classes of unnamed people without engaging with any particular argument.

I get you're angry, my man, but maybe you should question exactly who it is you're angry with.

This argument goes too far to the other end. Never name a group, cuz by golly you’re broad stroking. Only specific character assassination is allowed or keep quiet? Like a Cancel Culture Wittgenstein.

We don't need Canadians telling Americans that we're wrong to worry about American police, or that we need to be more specific with our concerns.

American police kill over 1,000 civilians and 10,000 dogs per year.

They routinely wrongly arrest people, and create life-ruining situations, especially as American workers do not enjoy as much job protection as Canadian workers.

I get that you want to be offended by his post, but maybe you should question why exactly you're offended at a post that has, at its heart, a lot of actual reality about life in America.

Because said person is sitting here saying "HN is stupid", it has nothing to do with the police, but the audience he's going after.

Read what he wrote and I wrote again. Nobody is excusing American police. I'm griping about his attempts to smear random people on this forum.

Nowhere did I tell you you're wrong to worry about American police. FFS, I worry about American police and I don't live there. Hence why I won't even go there.

>Because said person is sitting here saying "HN is stupid", it has nothing to do with the police, but the audience he's going after.

I said that if you go into policy discussions where HN is pro regulation you can see all sorts of commenters cheering for the pro-jackboot takes and peddlers thereof.

It's a subtle distinction between that and "the whole place is stupid" but it's there.

> I'm griping about his attempts to smear random people on this forum.

Want me to name names? I can go right down the leader board saying who wants jackboot applied and on what policy axis. I don't think that's productive.

What you describe could pass for the USSR all over again.

> Mass surveillance is a loophole to this contract.

More like a hammer to your head.

You started out right but this:

"This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down."

No. The 'domestic violence and prohibited substances' is the part that will ruin lives directly.

Domestic violence, bad. The drugs, debatable, but that's a matter of getting 'weed' made legal, not a surveillance issue.

It's not 'destroyed lives from crime' - it's the 'destroyed civic fabric from an authoritarian surveillance state' ... that is the problem.

It's not the 'incident' that is the problem, because Flock is not helping cops be 'dirty cops' or anything.

It's the totality of it - and the pernicious grinding away of common civil liberties.

Probably we should not be able to use this 'interstate' unless for 'in pursuit of violent criminals leaving the scene of a violent crime' ... which is so rare that it wouldn't make sense.

The only place this should be tolerated is in 'acute areas of high crime, with annual review and judicial warrant' - aka where there is literally that much crime that it's a serious civic concern - and it has to be part of an overall civic plan by the municipality, in conjunction with social services, investment etc - never as a 'lone tool'.

> Flock is not helping cops be 'dirty cops' or anything.

Yes it very much is, there's plenty of evidence

Note that all the other charges against this person were dropped.

No, there's nothing specific or inherent about Flock that is specifically helping cops bad bad.

This is not like something that helps them cover their tracks, or hide behind some tool.

I don't like Flock, but it's the 'surveillance state' part of it that is bad.

In terms of 'cops being bad cops' - that's a separate thing.

Also - Flock for sure should not be allowed to be used in this kind of speculative kind of thing.

So "this kind of speculative thing" isn't cops being bad cops?

What about when they stalk and pull over women they're infatuated with? That's not being a bad cop? You know they do that, right?

This literally does help them hide behind some tool. They can get away with all sorts of rights violations by the nature of "we didn't collect the data, we bought it" in the first place.

Yes, I litereally indicated they should not be able to use the tool that way.

Just like cops should not be able to ram their cars into people , or pepper spray peole in the face just because someone refused to show their id?

Like - you people have any sense at all of the difference between laws, policy, training, tools, rules of engagement etc?

Some tools are more amenable to abuse than others.

Some tools are far more dangerous (guns) than others.

Some tools are more easily abused without repercussion.

Some tools (Flock) can have audit trails aka information access - and also therefore limitations - like 'warrant' and 'court order', and 'access history' etc..

The moment the system has access registry, and the law says 'can only be used for such and such' - then defense lawyers can request access to logs to show unlawful access.

That's a great feature, and it will aboslutely curb lazy or bad cops from doing bad things.

That doesn't mean flock is good or bad, it's characterizing.

You can't stalk a woman via her licence plate if her license plate isn't being tracked!

> It's not the 'incident' that is the problem, because Flock is not helping cops be 'dirty cops' or anything.

That's exactly what Flock is doing. It's just the latest variation on "power corrupts".

Then your argument is we should have no police 'because power corrupts'

I don't think this is reasonable or principled.

The evidence here is that Flock can be used maliciously, I don't think anyone doubts that, the question is it a tool that is inherently bad in it's normal functioning, and I don't think so.

Like ... 'pepper spray' can be used maliciously by cops, since it's 'less apparently extreme' they can get away with more shenanigans. But it's not 'inherently' bad tool, and perpetual use won't change policing.

If you see a story where cops use pepper spray maliciously, and it harms someone ... that's evidence of an incident, not of a bad tool.

The 'evil' of flock is the surveillance state, not in bad apple cops.

> Then your argument is we should have no police 'because power corrupts’

That’s an uncharitable strawman.

We have checks against police abuse in place. Probably not enough in the US, but they exist. There’s no meaningful oversight in the US of Flock camera usage, though. And frankly, meaningful oversight will kill Flock’s business model - which it should. Nothing Flock is doing should be allowed in a democracy, in its current form.

Maybe they can start enforcing the law when it comes to blatant offenders that terrorize large cities. Illegal blocking of sidewalk selling fake handbags, selling untaxed marijuana on street corners, violating traffic laws on e-bikes. A lot of wood to chop before they get to my jay walking so I think I’m safe for the time being. But I welcome more enforcement

> terrorize large cities

Oh I wonder what kind of terror he's talking about

> Illegal blocking of sidewalk selling fake handbags

Jesus Christ. If this is what brings you to a surveillance state with open arms maybe you should talk to people outside of your bubble.

It doesn't have to be like this. Why do you accept it? Serious question. You don't need a surveillance state. How many indignities do you stomach for what exactly? Some false sense of freedom? Freedom to buy illegal unlicensed untaxed weed? Freedom to get run over by a delivery ebike?

> How many indignities do you stomach for what exactly?

People selling handbags neither threatens my dignity nor makes me indignant.

When I think of "terrorize", I think of things like.. y'know, people strapped with explosives, blowing up buses full of civilians. Or something like the Rape of Nanking, where Japanese army killed and raped their way across the city. The Japanese terrorized the city, literally instilling a nightmarish-level of fear.

I can't place "they're terrorizing me by selling handbags" anywhere in the same universe. If you're genuinely frightened by this, I would like to gently suggest you talk this through with a therapist.

> Why do you accept it?

I don't. I work every day to help my community and I hope you do the same.

> You don't need a surveillance state

Then don't call for one. If you'd like to change your community, again, I'd recommend you to stop being scared and just start talking to more people around you.

I promise you're way more interested in handbags and sidewalk obstruction than any LEO anywhere in the whole world.

Lets not give up our freedom because of annoyances, please?

You seem to think everyone should conform to one homogenous way of life. This was tried in Europe a little under a century ago and it did not turn out well.

Ah yes, the sheer terror of someone selling handbags.

If you consider that terrorizing, you need help.

This comment is satire, correct?

take a quick scroll through their substack, there's even funnier stuff than fake handbag outrage

Brother, you want mass surveillance because of bikes, handbags, and weed.

I guarantee there is _some_ group that finds some aspect of you, your life, or that of some of your loved ones at least as annoying as you find those things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com