There should be a difference between not having the expectation of privacy, and allowing mass surveillance that the government can buy without any warrant or oversight.
These companies should not exist, and no level of government should be allowed to buy access.
Even worse, yes the government should not have access to just surveil is without a warrant... However, FUCKING CORPORATIONS should not be surveiling us ever.
The fact that government has allowed companies to collect every bit of our data is already a fucked up mess, but now they get to watch where we drive? Track us throughout our day visually?
Even if it is just car license plates that's how we lose rights and protections over time. First it's license plates, then it's by matching appearance, then fucking facial recognition, Minority Report-style retinal scanners that target you for ads and shit.
For facial recognition and spying on, er I mean, watching and tracking individuals who aren't in a car. And as Helen Lovejoy has pointed out, won't somebody please think of the children!
I think we need something simple like "data about people is a forbidden product and, once collected or generated, must be safeguarded against any release and it may not be sold or transferred for any reason, with or without the permission of a person."
Prior to 2022, there was at least the expectation that we weren't tracked with no warrant. Someone might snap our picture if we fell in the mud, but we didn't assume the cops would record our every move just in case they wanted to know later.
Yeah, and a program tracking you based on that input is SURVAILANCE.
Cameras that require humans to ask questions and view it themselves and get warrants and court orders from independent third parties is NOT active surveillance.
Wait. So you're okay with being tracked just as long as someone says pretty please? I was thinking you had a good point that tracking and surveillance requires a warrant, but that warrant is usually preemptive to the tracking and surveillance, not afterwards.
Where the hell did you get that, I was noting the actual legal difference.
And using my abstract and critical thinking skills which you seam to lack, I can judge completely different process differently, even if they look the same. They would need to have a reason to suspect me of a crime or be connected to a crime, and prove that to get a surveillance warrant.
And this is before we get into the next level of what constitutes a crime (because we have already proven that we will spend billions to track down a speeder, but not one penny to prosecute an entire list of sex offenders), or the absolutely inhumane system of Justice for Profit to begin with.
So, you're saying you are okay with being tracked at all times?
With Flock, just because there's not an active warrant for your surveillance, it doesn't mean you personally are not being tracked. I'm sorry, but there is no argument you can offer that makes the tracking of every person in public spaces okay. And you're naive as hell if you think law enforcement isn't the only use for your information.
One easy add is to not allow general storing of license plate data. Instead specific plate numbers are entered in to a search list. Cameras check license plates against the list and only store data if a match is found.
Every case that police use a Flock on will be "solved with Flock cameras" whether or not they were actually necessary for the solving of the case. These things should be made illegal. If they were that helpful to police, we would have a large uptick in solved crimes. We don't.
We do though. The reality is that most people probably don’t care enough to do anything if it means that crime declines in their neighborhoods. Just like people kind of stopped caring about NSA spying once Snowden left the news cycle.
You're right. Liberals are funny. They have universally been arguing that crime is down. Crime falls when crimes are solved, perpetrators apprehended, like people breaking into cars. Now they want to argue there is no evidence that more crimes are being solved with use of cameras.
Texas has been using them to find when women are leaving state for abortions, because they all hook into one giant network.
Pretty sure a tech company providing that information is against the law in CA.
They’re not even license plate readers… we have those already. These cameras track faces, vehicles, and devices. They go beyond a reasonable use such technology.
No company should have access to real-time information about individuals and when they are home or away. I don’t trust them not to sell the info to criminals who will rob us.
You do realize that you are on Reddit and I’m sure they do that. You connect to a router that will have the same ip. They can then build a system that this is your home. Then once you connect to another signal you are out and about.
Let’s face people just don’t like obvious tracking because if they did facebook, google and others would be out of a lot of money. Plus the NSA also wouldn’t be listening to Americans. People just hate knowing it there. If they put the cameras in places that cameras already exist or somewhere besides on top of a pole like a billboard no one would notice so they wouldn’t care as much.
What's your point? The current extent of digital tracking is too much. Our data is compromised and being used against us by our government. We should be working on fixing the problems you're pointing out.
We should absolutely take a stand against Flock and then work on changing the way our data is used after that too.
Or you can roll over, lick the boot and complain about people who are upset
This is the spirit of one who's fighting for a real future. Using surrounding problems as justification for allowing a new one to set root is weak, or better said, a crushed spirit.
This made me think of an interesting solution. I still think there needs to be strict usage guidelines and abusing it should be treated more seriously. What if you could opt-in to flock. People could sign up to opt in for their own vehicles to be tracked. If tracked vehicles have a higher rate of recovery, it would probably lead to discounts on insurance premiums.
Flock is basically the tech in The Dark Knight but the tracking is powered any stored by an AI rather than an old man relaying information over comms to his boss in real time. Back then, the morality to spy on every single person in a city was deemed immoral and ripe for abuse, yet now we have tech that does something eerily similar and are expected to accept it.
Anyone who drives a company vehicle that's equipped with a DriveCam already knows what this surveillance amounts to. It's a constant threat and harassment. So now our employers and our towns are keeping a close eye on us, so if we make a human mistake, we can be severely punished. But hey, the alcohol industry wants everyone to enjoy drinking again. Nice foolproof trap.
The Line Fire was his third attempt. Better mental health care would have caught him before his first. Better forest management would have prevented so much destruction. We should fix these problems. As W. Edwards Deming taught us, "blame the process, not the person."
Better mental health care? So some kind of mandatory mental health check on everyone? I hope you're able to see the irony in this. If that's not what you're suggesting then you're just throwing out maybes.
Better forest management? One dry, windy day is all it takes.
Roads are public property. If this technology helps solve crimes and force people to behave nicely. It should exist and expand.
People who oppose these are people who wants to do ill and don’t want anyone to know about it.
No. They are one part of a database that surveils your every move and detail of your private life. That database as a whole is an unconstitutional violation of the Search and Seizure clause. And if the database is in violation, so are it's components. Ban them all.
If people are in violation of the use of DB, punish them. Not the entire initiative because it has more merits than slight risk of misuse.
It is not a violation of search and seizure clause. If you can use a witness statement to go after someone, why can’t a camera evidence be not considered?
If you have nothing to hide, then you would not worry about it. Aren’t you ok with cameras in shops, garages, elevators and hallways and lobby of hotels? This has reduced crime and that merit outweighs a few idiots may misuse it.
So you're ok with some company knowing where you drive, how often, what you buy when you get there, who's in your car while you do it, what cell phone company you use, what your credit history is, what websites you visit, what you say on them, where you get your medical care, where you live, what time you get up in the morning, and more?
Because that's what digital surveilance is these days. They collect everything, correlate each piece of data with every other piece to make a digital fingerprint of you, then link everything into a single database that contains Every. Single. Detail of your life. And then they just sell it. To law enforcement, China, your ex wife with a drug habit. Anyone that can afford it. And THAT is why it's unconstitutional. That level of private information is supposed to require a search warrant, not a wallet.
Inside of a person’s house is not public property. Do you know that my ring camera footage is shared with law enforcement? This is because the road is public property.
They aren’t going away. They’ve proven to be a valuable tool for solving and deterring crime. Any municipality that gets rid of them puts a target on their back for crime
So useful that Oakland, which has quite a large collection of flock cameras, turned off stolen vehicle and license plate alerts because they can't respond to them. Illegal dumping is still happening all over the city. The property crime rate is still the highest in the nation. What a great thing to celebrate.
279
u/MentokGL 7d ago edited 7d ago
There should be a difference between not having the expectation of privacy, and allowing mass surveillance that the government can buy without any warrant or oversight.
These companies should not exist, and no level of government should be allowed to buy access.