• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock, a network of AI cameras used by ICE, feds, and police

flock_drone.jpg

https://cnynews.com/ixp/10/p/drone-flock-cameras-lancaster-ny/
 
So long as people remember A) "Flock" is just one ALPR brand name which is just one type of surveillance program and B) advocate to have contracts on this and related tech canceled, as well as pushing for the privacy laws that we should have had 30 years ago, its possible to stop this progression. However this does mean not wasting time and energy on branding (ie those areas that cut contracts with Flock under pressure yet signed up with Palantir or a similar platform to do the exact same thing!), or stupid acts of vandalism that are limited, counterproductive, and play right into the hands of those framing anyone objecting to this stuff as 'terrorists, radicals, criminals etc". There's a smart path forward here , in an election year no less, provided people dont get caught up in doing stupid things that play well to those who already agree with you on social media, but risk sustained long term changes to policy which is needed to put an end to this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sherk
like this
RanceJustice said:
So long as people remember A) "Flock" is just one ALPR brand name which is just one type of surveillance program
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if they have certain patents are how they do what they do, although I imagine the could license the tech out to different companies and the same exact crap gets done under different naming conventions. Maybe one who actively hides cameras...
 
d3athf1sh said:
Join DeFlock for a national week of action against alprs August 16-22 2026
www.noalprs.com
Click to expand...

1_rick said:
I don't want ANY of them around. The idea that cops can drive up and down Walmart and look for outstanding warrants or whatever on every car there is disgusting.
Click to expand...
yeah, they've been doing that for years here where i live in VA where they were looking for people that hadn't payed their personal property tax and they'd put a boot on your wheel, which at that point you had till 4:30pm to get it paid or they'd impound the vehicle and you'd have a tow fee and daily impound tacked on before you could get it back. so not to mention what happened to all your groceries that went bad sitting in the sun from when you came out of the walmart. and this was back way before flock when they had those big boxes that looked like radars on the back of the cop cars. i think now they all have them built in, plus they all are suv's now too. not sure if they still do the skummy walmart thing but i wouldn't take any chances. heck all walmarts in america have facial recognition cameras inside not just looking for theives, but people that have warrants. that's why most walmarts, especially ones in high crime areas, have a cop car parked on the side walk outside the store and prob even give him a little office for him too?
sfsuphysics said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they have certain patents are how they do what they do, although I imagine the could license the tech out to different companies and the same exact crap gets done under different naming conventions. Maybe one who actively hides cameras...
Click to expand...
yeah there are already other companies putting out cameras that do the same thing. plus everybody that has a ring doorbell and/or surveillance cameras are tied in to the network too.

hopefully you guys take a look at that link i posted up at the top of this message. and also the DeFlock website
 
RanceJustice said:
So long as people remember A) "Flock" is just one ALPR brand name which is just one type of surveillance program and B) advocate to have contracts on this and related tech canceled, as well as pushing for the privacy laws that we should have had 30 years ago, its possible to stop this progression. However this does mean not wasting time and energy on branding (ie those areas that cut contracts with Flock under pressure yet signed up with Palantir or a similar platform to do the exact same thing!), or stupid acts of vandalism that are limited, counterproductive, and play right into the hands of those framing anyone objecting to this stuff as 'terrorists, radicals, criminals etc". There's a smart path forward here , in an election year no less, provided people dont get caught up in doing stupid things that play well to those who already agree with you on social media, but risk sustained long term changes to policy which is needed to put an end to this.
Click to expand...
dude if you think you're going to get them taken down by voting, you got another thing coming. they'll use crime stats, but the money they rake in with redlight cameras, toll cameras, etc, etc. just look at the UK they've had cameras up for years and actually here too. i remember after 9/11 they said they had some of the *errorists living it up in Virginia Beach a couple weeks before 9/f11 that was the first we'd known about ANY facial recognition cameras in the area, everyone was in shock. but that was the end of the story and everyone just went about their buisness, we never found out how many cameras there were or how long they'd been there but that was 2001 and they already had this kind of crap up. It's going to take a movement of the people to get them removed. and heck i wouldn't be surprised if at some point they put camera's up to watch the other camera's that get vandalized regularly.

and after seeing them in the UK for decades we always said "at least they'd never do that here"... and here we are. and it's only going to get worse the longer we let it exist.
 
tordogs said:
Now, now you know we're all guilty until proven innocent--have some sympathy. /s
Click to expand...
Your /s is noted, but my objection is rooted in the fact that before ALPRs and stuff, it wasn't possible for a cop to do that. I have a lot less problem with cops assigning bodies to watch cars come in and out and call in plate checks, because it's rate-limited.
 
1_rick said:
Your /s is noted, but my objection is rooted in the fact that before ALPRs and stuff, it wasn't possible for a cop to do that. I have a lot less problem with cops assigning bodies to watch cars come in and out and call in plate checks, because it's rate-limited.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how something being more efficient somehow makes it not ok. Plate scanners exist to make their job easier and less distracting. Plate scanning tech has been around for over 10 years, kind of late to the party to be mad about it now. Plus if you have a smartphone you really don't care that badly about privacy anyway.
 
Gideon said:
Plate scanning tech has been around for over 10 years, kind of late to the party to be mad about it now.
Click to expand...
I was mad about it 20 years ago, which is how long it's been around.

It's assymetrical. It turns people into an ATM, along with red-light cameras and all the other things. And now with Flock, they can follow you around. I don't see how anyone can be so blase about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sherk
like this
1_rick said:
Your /s is noted, but my objection is rooted in the fact that before ALPRs and stuff, it wasn't possible for a cop to do that. I have a lot less problem with cops assigning bodies to watch cars come in and out and call in plate checks, because it's rate-limited.
Click to expand...
I'm OK with a cop having a handheld or dash mounted camera that can check warrants / insurance status on cars. It is in my interest to get uninsured and illegal drivers off the streets.
What I don't want is permanent cameras on every street corner that can be used to create a profile and record the movement patterns of every innocent driver. That's warrantless surveillance.

unnamed.jpg
 
Gideon said:
I fail to see how something being more efficient somehow makes it not ok. Plate scanners exist to make their job easier and less distracting. Plate scanning tech has been around for over 10 years, kind of late to the party to be mad about it now. Plus if you have a smartphone you really don't care that badly about privacy anyway.
Click to expand...
People keep pointing to smartphones when this is discussed but that's a bad argument. People make a choice to buy a smartphone and leave it turned on. I can take turn the thing off and stick it in a drawer and the tracking from that thing stops. People have not entered into a contract or made a choice to be tracked by these cameras. It is being done by agencies who often hide what they're doing. Choosing to give up a portion of your privacy to a company is a far different beast than your government tracking you without your knowledge.
 
M76 said:
I'm OK with a cop having a handheld or dash mounted camera that can check warrants / insurance status on cars. It is in my interest to get uninsured and illegal drivers off the streets.
What I don't want is permanent cameras on every street corner that can be used to create a profile and record the movement patterns of every innocent driver. That's warrantless surveillance.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If a cop chooses to physically follow a person around because they are the subject of an investigation that is a far different creature than having cameras follow everyone regardless of investigations in case one of us commits a crime and they want to search the database. The second you sweep up all the innocent people with the guilty and put them in one bucket you are crossing a line.

This also plays into cops using flock to track an ex-wife or anyone else. If he physically has to follow her around then he stands a chance of being spotted doing so by her or someone she knows. Taking time out of his day to follow her around also stands a higher chance of someone in his department noticing that he's doing it. Running a quick profile check in Flock and getting a map of her movements is a far faster activity that he stands a better chance of doing it discreetly. It allows abuse to happen at a far greater scale than when cops have to physically do the following themselves. Abuse of power will happen. The goal should be to minimize how much it can happen and how easy it is to do.
 
d3athf1sh said:
dude if you think you're going to get them taken down by voting, you got another thing coming. they'll use crime stats, but the money they rake in with redlight cameras, toll cameras, etc, etc. just look at the UK they've had cameras up for years and actually here too. i remember after 9/11 they said they had some of the *errorists living it up in Virginia Beach a couple weeks before 9/f11 that was the first we'd known about ANY facial recognition cameras in the area, everyone was in shock. but that was the end of the story and everyone just went about their buisness, we never found out how many cameras there were or how long they'd been there but that was 2001 and they already had this kind of crap up. It's going to take a movement of the people to get them removed. and heck i wouldn't be surprised if at some point they put camera's up to watch the other camera's that get vandalized regularly.

and after seeing them in the UK for decades we always said "at least they'd never do that here"... and here we are. and it's only going to get worse the longer we let it exist.
Click to expand...
Everything you described happened because people basically showed up once every 4 years to vote for the lesser of two evils, questioned little, and then went back home and shrugged. The "movement of the people" that's actually effective you're talking about, is not just doing that, but showing up at the local town hall and state legislature meetings that used to have only 1 old guy asking for a pothole to be fixed. That's where a lot of this stuff got implemented in the first place, every so often there was a city, county, state law discussion period and nobody was really there except the lobbyists and others who said "Hey elected officials, you want to be Tough on Crime (tm)? Then make a pact with Flock, or Palantir or whatever the heck else and vote for a bill to put their cameras in your highest crime zones and 'empower your law enforcement officials with predictive analytics' and all our other benefits". That's a lot different then if there are 50 people who live in that town showing up as a bloc to object to this etc. Hell, in the middle of last decade this is exactly how a bunch of busybodies showed up and got books they found offensive pulled from libraries and schools, because a bunch of them showed up, some ran as school board candidates or the like, and they managed to give the perception that a huge part of the community was very upset about some random book where one of the ten vampire couples was gay or whatever else it may have been. This is before even getting into bigger issue like getting involved in elections at the primary level or before, when you can put up and support candidates that are willing to push for real change of policies.

This, as opposed to simply complaining online mostly to people who already agree with you, passing around videos of 'instructions for NOT vandalizing Flock cameras' or even recordings of those doing so, advocating that some twit with a laser , spraypaint, and a crowbar screaming about power to the people in a 30 second tiktok video is going to lead to long term change. You're right, they're absolutely going to put up twice as many cameras to catch the vandals if people do that stuff, plus it will be a very easy justification for the powers that be to demand more invasive laws. Now some kid who thinks he's doing petty vandalism is being charged with felonies for terrorism and destroying police equipment, impeding an active invetigation and some other set of crimes, especially when they go through the guy's social media and other connections and now deem he's part of a "x'ist cell that is dedicated to overthrowing the government'. So of course people should not go around doing these sorts of things, its only going to mean that the companies providing these cameras are going to say "Hey, you better contract for twice as many, don't worry the network can support a few going down once in awhile and now we have this other service you can use to catch the vandals which we'll give you free of charge!".

If people want things to change "voting" can absolutely make it happen, but it doesn't mean that's ALL you have to do once every couple of years when the President is about to change. That's what I was saying - you have to focus on the effective policies and procedures , not the stuff that gives a lot of social media clout yet is at best preaching to the choir and and worst actively counterproductive. Most of these cameras came in through the legal process in local municipalities and they can be removed in exactly the same (or similar - for instance, most have sunset provisions or contract terms that you simply have to let expire rather than re-up etc) ways.
 
Last edited:
DukenukemX said:
They are often one and the same.
Click to expand...

No. One is a choice I can make, and unmake, at my own discretion. I would have no power to stop the tracking if the government puts up these cameras in my area and starts tracking my every movement. If they want to give citizens the ability to turn off flock cameras, or make ourselves invisible to them, then and only then would they be the same as owning a smartphone.
 
M76 said:
I'm OK with a cop having a handheld or dash mounted camera that can check warrants / insurance status on cars. It is in my interest to get uninsured and illegal drivers off the streets.
What I don't want is permanent cameras on every street corner that can be used to create a profile and record the movement patterns of every innocent driver. That's warrantless surveillance.
Click to expand...
Buddy, they're BOTH warrantless surveillance.
 
1_rick said:
Buddy, they're BOTH warrantless surveillance.
Click to expand...
I'm not your buddy, GUY. :LOL:

By that definition using a speed gun is also warrantless surveillance. But it's not, it would only be surveillance if they had a permanent camera at the entrance that checks and records every vehicle entering and leaving and stores or forwards that to a database (which FLock does). A cop driving by once or twice a day to check for vehicles with bolos or expired registrations without storing anything is just doing their fucking job, that's why we keep them around.
 
M76 said:
I'm not your buddy, GUY. :LOL:

By that definition using a speed gun is also warrantless surveillance. But it's not, it would only be surveillance if they had a permanent camera at the entrance that checks and records every vehicle entering and leaving and stores or forwards that to a database (which FLock does). A cop driving by once or twice a day to check for vehicles with bolos or expired registrations without storing anything is just doing their fucking job, that's why we keep them around.
Click to expand...
I'm not your guy, PAL. :)

I should've said "warrantless mass surveillance", and I'm against it in any form. A cop standing on the side of the road with a radar gun? Fine. 5 of them on a road known for speeding? Not loving it, but fine. Speed cameras hidden behind trees? No.

Robots checking every car that goes into a parking lot, or every car a cop car passes? No, it's the Panopticon and I'm amazed anyone's OK with it.
 
ThatITGuy said:
Nah, in 1984 the Government controlled everything. We have contracted it out, and "opted in".
Click to expand...
vegeta535 said:
Honestly I trust a company more then the government. As unfortunate as that is.
Click to expand...

Think Rollerball.

Corporations really are our government. They're the privatized government which controls the public face, which is our representative government.

And as far as you've voluntarily opted in when you purchased your smart phone, yes, but to a degree. It's near impossible to live in modern society without "voluntarily" purchasing stuff which spies on you. Yes, you can buy dumb appliances, but you have to go out of your way for it, and often it will be more expensive in the long run.

No smart technology (phone, TV, etc.) No internet. No credit cards, debit cards, customer loyalty cards. No modern transportation (whether using someone else's vehicle or even owning one yourself). Etc. Basically, you have to live off the grid and never interact with modern society at all.

How about, rather than giving up privacy by default and having to go out of your way to get privacy, we have privacy as default, and having to go out of your way to give it up?
 
RanceJustice said:
Everything you described happened because people basically showed up once every 4 years to vote for the lesser of two evils, questioned little, and then went back home and shrugged. The "movement of the people" that's actually effective you're talking about, is not just doing that, but showing up at the local town hall and state legislature meetings that used to have only 1 old guy asking for a pothole to be fixed. That's where a lot of this stuff got implemented in the first place, every so often there was a city, county, state law discussion period and nobody was really there except the lobbyists and others who said "Hey elected officials, you want to be Tough on Crime (tm)? Then make a pact with Flock, or Palantir or whatever the heck else and vote for a bill to put their cameras in your highest crime zones and 'empower your law enforcement officials with predictive analytics' and all our other benefits". That's a lot different then if there are 50 people who live in that town showing up as a bloc to object to this etc. Hell, in the middle of last decade this is exactly how a bunch of busybodies showed up and got books they found offensive pulled from libraries and schools, because a bunch of them showed up, some ran as school board candidates or the like, and they managed to give the perception that a huge part of the community was very upset about some random book where one of the ten vampire couples was gay or whatever else it may have been. This is before even getting into bigger issue like getting involved in elections at the primary level or before, when you can put up and support candidates that are willing to push for real change of policies.

This, as opposed to simply complaining online mostly to people who already agree with you, passing around videos of 'instructions for NOT vandalizing Flock cameras' or even recordings of those doing so, advocating that some twit with a laser , spraypaint, and a crowbar screaming about power to the people in a 30 second tiktok video is going to lead to long term change. You're right, they're absolutely going to put up twice as many cameras to catch the vandals if people do that stuff, plus it will be a very easy justification for the powers that be to demand more invasive laws. Now some kid who thinks he's doing petty vandalism is being charged with felonies for terrorism and destroying police equipment, impeding an active invetigation and some other set of crimes, especially when they go through the guy's social media and other connections and now deem he's part of a "x'ist cell that is dedicated to overthrowing the government'. So of course people should not go around doing these sorts of things, its only going to mean that the companies providing these cameras are going to say "Hey, you better contract for twice as many, don't worry the network can support a few going down once in awhile and now we have this other service you can use to catch the vandals which we'll give you free of charge!".

If people want things to change "voting" can absolutely make it happen, but it doesn't mean that's ALL you have to do once every couple of years when the President is about to change. That's what I was saying - you have to focus on the effective policies and procedures , not the stuff that gives a lot of social media clout yet is at best preaching to the choir and and worst actively counterproductive. Most of these cameras came in through the legal process in local municipalities and they can be removed in exactly the same (or similar - for instance, most have sunset provisions or contract terms that you simply have to let expire rather than re-up etc) ways.
Click to expand...
The problem is that people have been showing up to town meetings and are ignored. Not just with Flock but on data centers and they even brought a guillotine. There's even Tech Jesus going to his local town to talk about Flock, which the guillotine thing is from a TikTok user. Destruction of Flock cameras is because peoples voices are not being heard. Tech Jesus might change things in his local town due to his fame, but most towns don't have a Tech Jesus. Hit them where it hurts which is cutting down Flock cameras.

View: https://youtu.be/FCtAYZYMSaY?si=43AxS-bOl6ESKxf5
https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.jpg

vegeta535 said:
Honestly I trust a company more then the government. As unfortunate as that is.
Click to expand...
It's a company that's pushing our government, or you think Flock is a victim here? Flock isn't the only one where they go to the government and offer them extra revenue while claiming to be good for the people. The government doesn't pay Flock for the good of the people, but for more revenue. Remember when Mike Johnson said the reason lawmakers trade stock because they make a measly $174,000 a year, and got meme'd for it? There are mayors that make $200k to $300k, and that's just getting started. Some elected officials make far too much money and it's based on where they live. This is why gentrification is every elected officials wet dream, but every citizens nightmare. Police that give tickets are also a source of revenue, and Flock turbo chargers this.
M76 said:
A cop driving by once or twice a day to check for vehicles with bolos or expired registrations without storing anything is just doing their fucking job, that's why we keep them around.
Click to expand...
Towns keep them around to give speeding tickets while we expect them to protect us. Turns out, they're not legally required to protect you. Remember the whole Uvalde school shooting where people expected the police to go in guns blazing? Yea, Police are not legally required to do so, but sure speeding tickets.

View: https://youtu.be/jAfUI_hETy0?t=247
Ididar said:
No. One is a choice I can make, and unmake, at my own discretion. I would have no power to stop the tracking if the government puts up these cameras in my area and starts tracking my every movement. If they want to give citizens the ability to turn off flock cameras, or make ourselves invisible to them, then and only then would they be the same as owning a smartphone.
Click to expand...
Why do you think there's age verification laws now? I don't have to legally tell you my age, and that pissed off Mark Zucherberg who through Meta has successfully lobbied to require your age before logging into your computer. It breaks the constitution but that doesn't stop lawmakers from passing it. This is why I say they're one and the same. Flock does break the forth amendment which is unreasonable searches. The constitution is basically toilet paper at this point.
 
DukenukemX said:
The problem is that people have been showing up to town meetings and are ignored. Not just with Flock but on data centers and they even brought a guillotine. There's even Tech Jesus going to his local town to talk about Flock, which the guillotine thing is from a TikTok user. Destruction of Flock cameras is because peoples voices are not being heard. Tech Jesus might change things in his local town due to his fame, but most towns don't have a Tech Jesus. Hit them where it hurts which is cutting down Flock cameras.

View: https://youtu.be/FCtAYZYMSaY?si=43AxS-bOl6ESKxf5
View attachment 820072
Click to expand...


Do you think that showing up to a meeting with a guillotine is going to be perceived as well reasoned, level-headed individuals that other should take the time to listen to for cogent policy prescriptions? If anything its quite the opposite, no matter how reasonable your arguments may be people are going to be fixated on the implied threat of violence given by such a performance. . Not to mention big performative stuff is great for online clickbait but rarely gets far in terms of actual policy change, without sustained grassroots support even once the 'show' leaves the area.

It seems you're looking at this from a very online viewpoint; famous streamers or creators showing up are not necessarily the way to widespread success as spectacle can only go so far. There have been many times when local gov'ts have, rightly or wrongly been convinced not to listen when someone perceived to be a big entertainment or otherwise visible figure and their followers show up, because a thousand streamer's followers showing up at some random town doesn't necessarily carry with it the will of the people who actually live there; if you had 100 locals show up instead, consistently even when there wasn't a big shit-stirring event, that can go much farther. This isn't to say that getting the word out there or having a central figure draw attention is necessarily bad, but its only part of the long term strategy; otherwise, the opponents know they can simply "wait out the hype" and frame it as an outsider not represenative of local interest.

Cutting down Flock cameras isn't happening because "people's voices aren't being heard", its usually some individual or group angry about it regardless of how many voices may be in support. This is not to say that the majority is right in my opinion, but its important to realize how these policies come into action and how they are curtailed. Keep in mind that many of the times it is because of local elected officials and the populace support these elements. Now the reasons (believing propaganda etc) you may consider unjustified, but it takers changing the minds of people and who they elect; in areas where this happens you've already seen improvement!

Where I live now has a moratorium on new data center construction and many municipalities that previously engaged with ALPRs and other camera tech have voted to end their contracts or to preempt funding/pass laws that prohibit their use one way or another (ie one city required that any cameras must be directly owned, managed and installed by the local municipality as opposed to being in the hands of a contractor; they also are prohibited from providing any footage captured to other groups without a warrant, and other restrictions etc. ). Much of this happened because, in preparation for the election year , people started showing up at various meetings and have been supporting elected officials who oppose these sorts of overreach or other bad policies. Its 'boring' but it works. Simply cutting down cameras is more likely to push things the other direction, incense those who are vulnerable to various political types of rhetoric, and put the elected officials in a position where they have to "do something" to distance themselves from the "criminal, vandal, terrorist, etc..." element.

Its counterproductive, and isn't "hitting them where it hurts" , its playing right into their trap. They want to have endless footage to suggest that the people who are against data centers, these cameras, surveillance etc.. are exactly the stereotypes they wish to convince everyone else necessitates these measures in the first place. Our economy (and far far too many of our tax dollars) are wrapped up in this, so the replacements (now billed 2x because you exxpect them to be vandalized) are going to come out of the municipal budget on one hand, or perhaps on the well heeled insurance policies offered by the banks to these large surveillance corporations who have both been deemed "too big to fail" and along with "AI" in general, integrated into our economy at the behest of the current administration. You're not going to be able to vandalize these cameras fast enough to do financial damage sufficient, and far worse your presence here is going to give exactly the justification they need for even more draconian policies. Pretending as though all other opportunities have been exhausted except violence is only going to be shooting yourself in the foot, especially when in many cases not only have there been many other opportunities to effectively lobby for your alternatives, yet they end up ignored by those who want to "do something faster that isn't boring" , showing they care more about signaling anger for clout than actually making beneficial change.

I expect that if there's a significant "wave" in the upcoming election there will be more focus on these issues and others, as well as the newly elected officials implementing policies meant to curtail their expansion given the focus of the current election cycle and (especially for local and state legislators in areas where there is a lot of local grassroots opposition) it being a relatively easy way to deliver on a campaign promise.
 
Last edited:
RanceJustice said:
Do you think that showing up to a meeting with a guillotine is going to be perceived as well reasoned, level-headed individuals
Click to expand...
You assume anyone there is a level-headed individual. That's your first mistake.
that other should take the time to listen to for cogent policy prescriptions?
Click to expand...
I already told you they don't listen. You also don't listen. Is this not listening inception? Questions for later.

If anything its quite the opposite, no matter how reasonable your arguments may be people are going to be fixated on the implied threat of violence given by such a performance. . Not to mention big performative stuff is great for online clickbait but rarely gets far in terms of actual policy change, without sustained grassroots support even once the 'show' leaves the area.
Click to expand...
It's called a deterrent. If you want to play dumb then fear is the alternative.

It seems you're looking at this from a very online viewpoint; famous streamers or creators showing up are not necessarily the way to widespread success as spectacle can only go so far.
Click to expand...
I'd go for voting but we don't like that here in USA. Also, don't dilute this down to streamers and creators. Flock is universally hated.
Cutting down Flock cameras isn't happening because "people's voices aren't being heard", its usually some individual or group angry about it regardless of how many voices may be in support.
Click to expand...
Considering it's happening often, I say there's a lot of individuals.
Keep in mind that many of the times it is because of local elected officials and the populace support these elements. Now the reasons (believing propaganda etc) you may consider unjustified, but it takers changing the minds of people and who they elect; in areas where this happens you've already seen improvement!
Click to expand...
Which propaganda should I listen to? In California Flock is getting it wrong 71% of the time. Who's seeing an improvement here?

Simply cutting down cameras is more likely to push things the other direction
Click to expand...
If cameras cost money then I'm sure the direction is to stop using Flock.
I expect that if there's a significant "wave" in the upcoming election there will be more focus on these issues and others, as well as the newly elected officials implementing policies meant to curtail their expansion given the focus of the current election cycle and (especially for local and state legislators in areas where there is a lot of local grassroots opposition) it being a relatively easy way to deliver on a campaign promise.
Click to expand...
Flock plans to expand to Lyft and Uber. I don't see Flock worried about elections. Meanwhile, Police continue to abuse Flock.

 
vegeta535 said:
Honestly I trust a company more then the government. As unfortunate as that is.
Click to expand...
The issue is that they're one in the same thing now, they've effectively merged. The regulatory state, and all branches of government are paid by the same corporations, those corporations are often subsidized by the state. It's why we have the "revolving door" metaphor, where the regulators are industry insiders. There is a potential for government to be responsive to constituents, but it'd take a massive overhaul, which we're currently not capable of doing. Corporations under no circumstance are obligated to responsive to the public if it goes against their profit motive. I read a book a year or two again that serving the interests of the wealthy is in-built to our governmental structure, it was built to keep democracy at a minimum. The theory essentially posited the founders understood they needed protection from democracy, so the branches beyond congress are checks on the public to protect their power and wealth, which makes more sense than the myth we've been told about checks and balances when you dig down into it. The intent was to give people a small stake by having a representative body, but everything else is a check beyond that. People are too easily divided by culture war issues and silliness for us to create any kind of meaningful push-back, the media capture of the american mind needs to be studied in history books in the future. It's an interesting time, the older I get the more I realize our limited perspective and our inability to live for very long makes things almost impossible to contextualize. I had a co-worker ask me what experiencing 9/11 was like, and I realize I'm an old, and he asked like 7 years ago.

The reality is that flock will win this battle and eventually people will passively accept it, our rights have continually been encroached on my entire life. The Snowden revelations changed absolutely nothing for example.
 
1_rick said:
I should've said "warrantless mass surveillance", and I'm against it in any form. A cop standing on the side of the road with a radar gun? Fine. 5 of them on a road known for speeding? Not loving it, but fine. Speed cameras hidden behind trees? No
Click to expand...
no you were right the first time. it's warantless surveilance. some people have these things pointed at their houses or in the entrances and exits of their neighborhoods. that's 24/7/365 surveillance on everyone and everywhere they go and with who. it's all bullsh** and these "if you're not doing anything wrong" people are gonna be the death of us. or if nothing else our freedom. just look what they're doing now in london, the first big city to setup mass surveillance, now they have 15 minute cities. where EVERY TIME you drive within 5 miles of your house you get a $15 fine. so all the people that work actual jobs, now have a $30 ticket EVERY DAY THEY GO TO WORK. not to mention if they want to go out after work, or they go in and out of the zone twice. and then they get on toll roads that cost money and got redlight and speed cameras all over the place. then when you get out of your car you got facial recognition cameras tracking everything you do. JUST LIKE COMMUNIST CHINA.

talk about a SLIPPERY SLOPE. you got to be a total putz to support this crap.
 
1_rick said:
Robots checking every car that goes into a parking lot, or every car a cop car passes? No, it's the Panopticon and I'm amazed anyone's OK with it.
Click to expand...
They already do that with radar, checking the speed of every passing car. IMO That's worse than checking warrants or registrations or insurance automatically. I don't care if someone is slightly over the speed limit, or even significantly over it, as long as they aren't clearly dangerous. But I Do care about getting wanted criminals, and people with no insurance who if they crash into you cause you a lot of headache. Not as if crashing wasn't a big enough headache in of itself, but you don't even get compensated because the fucker didn't have insurance. So no, I'm not just OK with it, I actually want it.

It's not surveillance because the cop car does not follow you around, and does not record where did it see you every day. I'm only OK with it as long as there are no records kept of cars with no flags. Nothing. If they want to put a flock camera in cop cars, HELL NO, because I don't trust them not to keep every ounce of data possible, including that of clean vehicles.
 
I remember on this forum 10 years ago all the US folks laughing at the UK having so many Govt/police security cameras everywhere.

I said at the time..."It's going to happen to you too!" and I got told "No way cos...freedom and 2A and stuff!"

Yeah...ah well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top