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

If you own the pictures, or know who does.. arrange a DMCA? There's also several new laws about misusing some bodies likeness. (One thing everybody can pat AI on the back for)

> some fake pictures of someone likely AI generated

Mono. Not .net fw.

There's been multiple incidents of that. Including one where they wanted a per page fee for a DVD. Did not go well for the recording office.

Ah well, MERS (mortgage electronic registration system) has kicked recording offices out of the loop for all secondary market mortgage stuff. (Assignments, servicing, etc).


It rang more as "A/B deployments are pointless if you can't tell if a downstream failure is related." To me.

And when one gets bunt out on some basic social interaction.... You're completely screwed.

The real one is people coming up with minor, but recognized, reasons to request footage from different cameras.

Most everything is covered, as you mentioned. But there's a huge difference between things like Obama's birth cert(canned reply after paying the fee), and the entire US populations worth of people requesting a single 5min segment from a camera... But everybody wants a different camera, date, and time.

I suspect an organized campaign will sink the cities/flock, or they'll make the streams public and not retain anything. Public streams with no retention is how TXDOT handled this.


It's not really meaningfully different than existing closed-circuit cameras and bodycams, except for the ALPR plate/ID records they create, which states are simply going to exempt from FOIA, as Illinois did.

Sure. But until then, the US at large can hammer them to dust. And, I expect adding ALPR to an exemption was for simplicity's sake- since it's already general knowledge they don't have to create anything for a FOIA request. Easier to just make it explicit so they can point to the law/code.

> Public streams with no retention is how TXDOT handled this.

We know there's no retention because they say there is no retention and we believe them.

Why is this so hard to accept? Do you think people can lie?


Not sure where you got the idea I thought TXDOT was not being honest. No retention, live public views, only keep aggregate metrics needed for traffic flow (the official purpose for those cameras- PSA's for traffic jams and expansion plans.).

Besides, TXDOT is... Unlikely... To have a black ops budget, so if they lied it'd be public PDQ.


Public streams with no retention is how TXDOT handled this.

That seems like the incentive structure of the law working as intended.


This gets shot down PDQ. A significant case of this was a County charging $0.50/page for a title company requesting a CD of all their records (note: they're digital) going back a large length of time. The judge over the lawsuit ruled they could only charge costs (note, this isn't wishy washy 'going rate'- they have to expose salaries and actual times and the employees involved can be asked directly, under oath) which amounted to $100/per CD/DVD.

Kind of a teeth grinding win though, because title companies are absolute scum.


FOIA allows for "reasonable costs." For example requesting a copy of Obama's birth certificate is something like $20.

There's a real problem though- anybody (might need to be a US citizen) can FOIA any document anywhere in the US that's not excluded. When they can punt you to the paywall and then reply with a generic reply to a birth cert it's one thing.

When you have to actually find people to do the work of reviewing ALL video footage as $small_fraction of 200million people request every second of recorded footage from every camera... You're(as a city) kinda screwed. If they claim privacy they have to be able to prove it but can charge slightly more. But, if they don't then they have to provide the specific request (possibly a little more- say 1hr segments) at a cost representative of the labor involved... Which doesn't include the cost of trying to staff a FOIA center larger than your city.


winners bell SFX

I seem to recall FOIA provides pathways for overloaded clerks in situations where there's mass requests. But, it only grants an extended period in which to respond (eg, 14 days instead of 48hrs). But, you can take escalate with the State government like you can with denied requests.

This is tinted with my knowledge of my Locaal (long a), and the areas I've made FOIA requests with.

And, turns out if you want to affect change- you have to make the bureaucrats care- Not the officials.


The obvious fraud from the 90s?

But, the real issue seems to be that fusion has a large nuclear waste problem. Ironically, probably more so than fission reactors. It can be fixed, but probably not in first gen reactors. However there are companies pushing designs that solve it already


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

Search: