Not trying to convince your anything, just putting it out there for those that are plagued by this, but I had similar issues and memory foam tips solved this for me with airpods. For me they'll stay in if i'm basically motionless, but as soon as I move they're on the run.. With the foam tips I'm able to do basically anything and not worry about losing an expensive earbud.

I'm afraid to try expensive over the ear headphones again after a pair of XM3's started making the most hideous screeching noise right after the warranty expired.

The memory foam tips I've tried in the past get destroyed by the absurd amount of ear wax my ears generate when something is in them.

Yes, same. But these ones don't have eartips, so we are going to have to wait for the Pro version if we want these.

oh IDK how I didn't notice that.

Are the memory foam tips first party? Which ones did you get?

Not first party. the ones I get are "foam masters" brand on amazon.

Also, if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

I get the vibe they're using ALPRs to identify drivers, and then going from there to find crime? Seems like criminal investigations should start with an actual crime. At the minimum, I would think that there would need to be some suspicion of criminal involvement to obtain a warrant to get financial records. Apparently this administration considers driving down the interstate suspicious enough to toss the constitution out the window.

We've long since transitioned away from "identify the crime and find the person" Law Enforcement to "target the person and find a crime" Law Enforcement.

At long last we have achieved equality. Now everyone can know what it's like to be pulled over for DWB!

>I get the vibe they're using ALPRs to identify drivers, and then going from there to find crime?

This has gone on for a LONG time, but the change to empower it with AI tools that are presumed accurate is the new amplification.

The article doesn't seem to explain why the BP targeted these folks and not other license plates gathered by the reader. Presumably there's some pattern, right?

It doesn't event attempt to address any of those issues or anything real. American politics is all about keeping the working class distracted and pointing fingers at each other while the ownership class rapes (literally) and pillages.

I feel like if we can throw parents in jail for allowing their children to walk unsupervised, we can probably toss them in prison for giving them unrestricted access to the internet.

I'd say it's not so much "as secure as we know how" and a lot more "as secure as we're willing to pay for". I'm sure this company has competent sysadmins and devs who'd be happy to lock things down. Usually management doesn't want the expense or the hassle.

I hate it, but my guess is if they don't play ball here, they risk losing government contracts or worse, being blacklisted as a "supply chain threat" as they tried to do with Anthropic. Gov't/military canceling GCP and Gemini contracts probably wouldn't do well for their stock.

Doxxing is bad of course but does "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" apply here? Or is that only for us working folk?

I would typically agree with the statement, but I have a lot of trouble giving a flying shit about the people literally selling Doxxing-As-A-Service getting doxxed in return.

Question for me is "Will something you can do free now, be suspicious in the future?" Like voting, or taking your kids to a private school, or going to an EFF meeting?

As long as you feel fine having the government know absolutely everything you do, then keep supporting surveillance. I personally have nothing to fear, but I hate the idea that I am being surveilled by a private company.

Flock had some prompts (/queries or something like that) leak and apparently something as innocuous as visiting multiple gas stations after hours within a short period of time could have it's system mark you as an armed robbery suspect.

I think we all have to fear police responding violently because Flock's sycophantic AI system told them with 100% confidence that we're the bad guy.

The fundamental issue here is the same one that led inevitably to Google's corruption: profit motive.

Flock's customers are data consumers.

Flock has every financial incentive to knowingly over-represent the reliability of their predictive analytics and actively conceal any issues with it.

If legally empowered and often armed end users are taking those representations at face value... well, there's the fundamental problem with Flock's business model.

Companies. The system used to be somewhat fragmented, but it is slowly starting to coalesce.

doxxing is about pseudonymous internet accounts, not people who are very public with their real name and lobbying the government.

this is whitepages reverse lookup

if he was just a guy chatting on the internet about cameras, sure, it would be doxxing, but he isnt. paparazzi have existed sonce forever

Paprazzi take effort and money. It's laughable to say "because paparazzi exists, we should give up all our rights".

No one took away private detectives or paprazzi. But if you replace both with a 24/7 never resting and no additional money tracking system, everyone will be tracked. It's litterally the business model because the mass tracking of americans without a warrant is what makes these companies money, not the hardware.

I don't think they were arguing for flock, they were excusing doxxing the CEO, because if you're famous, you can't really get doxxed

Reminds me of the "if you don't want people to know, you probably shouldn't be doing it" comment from Eric Schmidt, the Google executive.

It was hilarious and well deserved when people immediately started digging up his dirt in response and exposing stuff like extramarital affairs to the point he had to deploy lawyers. Even before that quote, journalists were using Google itself to search and discover his personal information, and Google's response was to blacklist the journalists. Funny how angry these billionaires get when their privacy gets violated, huh.

It's extremely obnoxious that these big tech executives subject us to surveillance only to turn around and buy back their privacy with their wealth. They should have exactly zero privacy. Doxxing? It's called sousveillance.

You are equating installing personal security camera(s) to knowingly selling extra-judiciary mass-surveillance hardware and software to law enforcement. What's the point you're trying to make with this, exactly?

1. Installing a yard camera.

2. Building a mass surveillance dragnet and purpose-built tracking software and marketing it heavily to random local authorities.

Yep, totally the same thing...

I don't. But I do think the CEO of a company who sells spying as a service to cops should have a taste of his own medicine.

So much for privacy should be a human right lol.

Privacy absolutely should be a human right. But currently it isn't, and part of why is there is lots of money to be made with surveillance on ordinary people. And things will not change unless the people who exploit the privacy of other for monetary gain feel the effects of their privacy being violated.

Like the CEO of Flock.

Human rights are routinely revoked from those that impede on the rights of others. This is the premise that underpins prisons. Privacy being a human right still holds true.

From which I conclude that prisons are wrong, but also if I don't like someone I can revoke his rights and push him downstairs.

What is the morally correct approach to dealing with murderers?

Maybe it should be one. Until it is, I'm all for giving the powerful the same consideration they give me.

It sounds like you think Flock is just another home camera system, but it’s not and you could read up on that.

I think the point is these home systems are controlled centrally and can be used the same way flock can. I personally removed ring and installed my own system that doesnt export video out of concern with the governments lack of checks and balances anymore.

Scale matters. The “well technically an army of tens of millions of cops could achieve the same thing” argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

If they are sharing the footage with a dragnet, tracking people across the country, and giving access to unaccountable cops with a history of abusing that data?

Yes.

If they are using it to see when their amazon package got delivered, or for bog standard security purposes?

No.

Are you asking if a public registry of where you're being observed by security cameras is a good thing? Sure. I wouldn't mind that.

I have no issue banning ring and nest cams, actually. They hand the data to cops too

Context matters. Without it, very foolish things can be said.

>The problem was never power or water

Correct. The problem isn't just data centers or power or water, it's that left unchecked these greedy people will risk the power grid, drain rivers/reservoirs/aquifers, and destroy our natural environment (and cities) with pollution because it's more profitable than doing things the right way. I think more than anything we want responsible, friendly neighbors who are mindful of the impact they have in the areas where they operate.

They're callous, reckless, have no concern for anything but their money. And "self-funded" isn't even true, the tax breaks and negative externalities of these data centers will be paid by the people (see: xAI and Memphis.)

inb4 i'm a chinese operative because I mentioned water. Get bent, I think grass farmers in the desert should be forced to get real jobs instead of exporting our water to China/Saudi Arabia as cattle feed. And people who farm real crops should be forced to convert to less water-intensive methods or shut down.

>And people who farm real crops should be forced to convert to less water-intensive methods or shut down.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, you want to export the negative externalities of a theoretical water shortage to poor countries who will move to replace the food gap caused by farmers shutting down.