Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sixothree's commentslogin

Commented something similar at the same time. I hate weasel wording like this. There is nothing that prevents this data from being used that way now or in the future.

edit: And to be clear, the cameras specifically recognize and record people for a reason. This does not appear to be a fault in the system. One reason might be off-camera facial recognition.


Apparently police are accessing the network via their personal devices. I highly doubt their security practices online are any better than this. I wouldn't be surprised either to see things that chinese manufacturers do such as intentional back doors.

Overall this goes from disappointing to fairly repugnant.


Allegedly you can buy credentials on the darkweb to perform national searches. Might explain why some of the logged reasons for recent searches were “LMAO”

The normal explanation is plenty, unless you’ve never met, read about, or heard anyone talk about, law enforcement officers (who are human beings - for better and for worse).

How many of us have had coworkers who put something like that into a commit message? And that's a message that's at least notionally supposed to be helpful to you or your coworkers, rather than existing purely for the purposes of oversight you don't want in the first place.

I would expect law enforcement coworkers to understand the law, department procedure, and public requests for their data. That’s expecting too much from the academy, I guess.

Those that fail to meet standards should be fired to spare the taxpayers from the lawsuits coming from AI-assisted complainants.

It’s also too much for Flock’s YC-funded technology to implement a field filter that rejects “LMAO” as a valid request.

At the very least, your local staff’s nationwide stalking credentials being harvested by phishing and abused by others should carry criminal negligence penalties. Governments should pass that liability onto this YC-funded startup company.


It’s a federally protected right to skip over law enforcement officers candidates because they rank too high on an aptitude or IQ test.

Reasonable people would expect what you expect. We are not reasonable people.


This meme will not die, and here you can see it blossoming into something even weirder.

There is one (1) case in the literature, back in the early 2000s, where a department rejected a candidate as overqualified based on a cognitive assessment; the rejected applicant took that department to court and lost.

That's it; that's all the evidence.

Against that: most police departments around the country administer written tests with general cognitive components for which there is a floor score and no ceiling (the POST, the NTN, &c). And virtually no departments --- none I'm aware of --- administer IQ tests.

From all this, we've now got "a federally protected right"?


Yes, that’s how court / legal precedent works - for better and for worse.

Feel free to consult an attorney.

Edit: I thought the case went further up - but, “persuasive precedent” for other jurisdictions now exists all the same.

Edit2: since I’m seeing the username of someone with a decent clue,

> and no ceiling

was there one on paper for the hiring standards of the dept in the case in question?

Does that matter?, if there’s no legal issue with using it as a disqualifying factor? - for any candidate - whether or not they even score well?


The thing is people knew. Coca-cola "aficionados" recognized the change for sure. Living in the deep south it was quite a thing.

I learned that Russia has 11 time zones because of Negativeland.

I would also not describe this music as timeless. It's incredibly hard for me to imagine people coming to this music fresh today.


You are referring to the former Soviet Union. Russia is currently trying to claw them back, which is why the US and the rest of the world are in a big 10-8 place.

I would believe them if they actually charged him with a crime. It seems like they want police officers to have access to this data but just don't want the public to know the extent of their inexcusable behavior.

Can we really trust it to honor your request to stop using the internet? After hearing them speak on this subject, I have my doubts it will honor your request so quickly and easily.

You can't change the laws of physics.

If it isn't connected to the network, it can't communicate.


What do you mean "the network"? Do you mean the wi-fi you told it to not connect to or something else? Because something else sounds like a secondary path. It's enumerating devices for a reason. How many of those devices are LG or an LG partner?

Wifi exists now lol, and if there are open wifi networks in the vicinity, it can use it.

Unless it is factory reset (and even then?) it presumably still has saved wifi credentials?

You're making a huge assumption that it does not remember wifi passwords and that it would actually honor your request. You're assuming it does not communicate with/via other LG devices owned by neighbors. You're assuming it does not communicate via partner apps on mobile and other partner devices over other protocols. You're assuming they won't eventually simply add cellular modems to circumvent all of this.

You're making a lot of assumptions that would be easy to find out if true.

Block the TV via its MAC address then?

If it does MAC spoofing, then just take it out back and shoot it. That's properly malicious.


> You're making a huge assumption that it does not remember wifi passwords and that it would actually honor your request.

I would expect an hn member to be able to change their own wifi password and assist members of their household in changing it on their device.

> You're making a huge assumption that it does not remember wifi passwords and that it would actually honor your request.

Has it been observed?

> You're making a huge assumption that it does not remember wifi passwords and that it would actually honor your request.

Like what? I don't think mobile apps can roll and implement their own protocol on an android or apple phone without specific authorization.

> You're making a huge assumption that it does not remember wifi passwords and that it would actually honor your request.

We are talking here about a specific, already owned device.


You really aren't paying attention. They weren't talking about distribution channels. They were talking about capturing user data - "we know who's in the LG household. We know which devices are there. We know what you're exposed to on TV and we know how to extend that reach into mobile."

Having a device that can distribute ads to consumers is a distribution channel. Measuring ad impressions is a core part of ad distribution.

You still aren’t paying attention. They capture data about people in (and nearby) the household that aren’t even using the product.

We really are in a bad spot aren't we. In so many ways, strategically, reputationally, introspectively. It's hard to imagine coming back from this.

You don't come back, you slide back to normal country status while 2 generations of people pretend you're still an empire until you really can't anymore.

Most European countries know this feeling. :)


> It's hard to imagine coming back from this.

You don't even need to try because it's not happening.


But it's literally not the name of the emoji.

Edit: It was my understanding the official name was "Smiling Face with Open Hands Emoji".


https://emojipedia.org/hugging-face#technical

The official URL is "hugging-face" and the technical page lists the Unicode Name as "Hugging Face" while calling it "Smiling Face with Open Hands Emoji". The original proposal was called "Gmail HUG FACE".

https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14174r-emoji-additions.pdf


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: