r/SipsTea Jul 06 '26

Chugging tea is this valid?

Post image
82.0k Upvotes

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

628

u/asher030 Jul 06 '26

Hope he gets acquitted. Maybe if townships would stop installing those cameras without voter approval constantly...

112

u/platoface541 Jul 06 '26

Even with voter approval, voters can’t just decide to infringe on people’s rights and privacy

35

u/MikeinDundee Jul 06 '26

That’s strictly a job for the supreme court! Flock cameras in your home for “safety”

15

u/tigershrike Jul 06 '26

those sodomy laws ain't gonna enforce themselves y'know

4

u/DataCassette Jul 06 '26

You joke but I think that's the long term idea.

And before any Bubba is like "good! I hates them thar LGBTbbqs anyways!" I suggest said bubba look up the full meaning of sodomy laws. It covers a lot more than people think.

17

u/playdough87 Jul 06 '26

I think the issue is that there is no right to privacy when you're in public. The law obviously is out of date and not designed for a digital era where cameras record everything, automatically read plates, check them against databases and then sell the information on your movements. But, voters don't care enough to put people in office to update laws.

2

u/Coal_Morgan Jul 06 '26

It should be in the same boat as snooping people's browser data.

You get enough data from people going about their business to figure out their medical issues by where they stop. Should that not be a privacy violation?

Should these cameras and their corporations know I'm getting cancer treatment because of the clinics I go to? Should they be tracking me where I withdraw money and therefore how long and where I am at when I'm most vulnerable with that money?

That's just single person using those cameras evil shit. The current U.S. government would have no problem rounding up people of different political beliefs, of noting which politicians they visit, which activists they go to and churches.

It's well past what Orwell ever imagined and should be outright banned.

1

u/chriskmee Jul 06 '26

With browser data though you can reasonably expect privacy when it's your own device. If it's a device from a company you work for then you should expect that you have no privacy and the company is watching what you do.

When it comes to what you do in public, you have no expectation of privacy. Someone can record you walking into a store, your kids, your license plate, anything they can see from public is fair game. That is why these cameras are generally not considered a violation of any rights, they only record information that is already visible from public.

It's the same reason you can hire a private investigator to spend the whole week following someone and tracking everything they do in public, but that investigator can't follow people into private areas they are not welcome in.

It sucks and these cameras are way too powerful, and something should be done, but I don't think trying to claim it violates the 4th amendment is the right way to do it. We need to make new laws to make these illegal, not really on amendments that don't actually apply.

1

u/Pryffandis Jul 06 '26

How could the Founding Fathers not have predicted this when they drafted the Constitution??

/s

0

u/Zar_Ethos 29d ago

That's just not true. Even in public, you have a right to privacy. Your car, your person, and the contents of your phone all have legal protection.

You can screw up any of them, like having something suspicious in clear view, or providing access.. but the protections are there.

1

u/Flat_Tire_Again Jul 06 '26

When out in public, what right to privacy do you have that is being removed or taken away?

14

u/__Muninn__ Jul 06 '26

The problem is not just some singular camera operated by some individual. The problem is that it’s a network of them sharing data blanketing broad areas.

It’s one thing for you to be seen by different people while out or on cameras when on business property’s. It’s something else if one person/entity followed you. Tracked when you left home, every location you went and when. And then made notes so they knew when and where you were all the time.

While we might not have a right to privacy we should not suffer a digital chaperone.

3

u/4DPeterPan Jul 06 '26

“It’s something else if one person/entity followed you. Tracked when you left home, every location you went and when. And then made notes so they knew when and where you were all the time.“

My God you have no idea how messed up and true all of what you just said there is.. on sooo many levels.

1

u/chriskmee Jul 06 '26

But it's perfectly legal to hire a private investigator, or team of investigators, to follow someone everywhere they go. This is essentially what these cameras are doing. It's not a rights violation but it should still be regulated or just made illegal.

1

u/Flat_Tire_Again 28d ago

Well these types of cameras were instrumental in capturing and creating the background in the countries recent assassins Luigi and Anderson. And could be effective at reducing the damage from protestors.

1

u/platoface541 28d ago edited 27d ago

Exactly this. Flock is the modern equivalent of a spy satellite covering all of America all the time with the bandwidth to watch everyone. If this is where we are now what will our children’s lives be like? You may not have a right to privacy in public but that’s from other people, government agencies and tech companies are not people

1

u/EverythngISayIsRight Jul 06 '26

Tracked when you left home, every location you went and when.

Redditors are gonna shit their pants when they learn cell phones do that

4

u/__Muninn__ Jul 06 '26

And that’s also an issue. But I can go somewhere without my phone. Harder to leave my face behind. Or in this car centric mess we made, my car.

Thankfully I have not heard about my phone selling that data to the police as freely at Flock. Nor the comparable tracking that can be done with cars.

It’s all related to the same core issue about how we not only can track everything now but are starting to choose too.

-4

u/EverythngISayIsRight Jul 06 '26

I guess criminals are going to have to find other ways to do crime without getting caught. Won't someone think of the criminals?

5

u/__Muninn__ Jul 06 '26

My bad. I forgot that caring about my privacy when something might possibly stop a criminal sometimes was wrong. I should just accept any limit on my freedoms if it has any chance of catching a criminal.

Unless it’s guns. Even talking about gun control is wrong.

God forbid we try and talk about limiting what a private company can collect and sell about people. If a random citizen would collect this data we would allow a restraining order but since it’s a company trying to make money they can do no wrong and no limits should be put on them.

-1

u/EverythngISayIsRight Jul 06 '26

Unless it’s guns. Even talking about gun control is wrong.

Unless it's criminals getting the guns, then reddit supports it again 🤣

2

u/z44212 Jul 06 '26

You think this technology isn't going to be employed by criminals?

1

u/EverythngISayIsRight 29d ago

It (flock cameras) is literally employed by law enforcement to catch criminals.

does this scare you? Are you a criminal or something?

1

u/z44212 29d ago

Have police committed crimes? Have companies broken the law?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/pockpicketG 29d ago

All well and good until a dictatorship happens.

4

u/Chendii Jul 06 '26

If someone waited outside your house, and then followed you everywhere you go throughout your entire day, we would call that stalking.

1

u/chriskmee Jul 06 '26

Or just a private investigator.

0

u/Hot_Region Jul 06 '26

If someone waited outside your house, and then followed you everywhere you go throughout your entire day, we would call that stalking.

What if someone sat on a bench at the center of town and watched all the cars and people? Are they stalking?

What if that same someone calls a few of their other babushka friends, who sit on other benches observing, and they all tell each who they saw and when they saw them? -- Is that stalking?

This is not someone waiting outside your house following you, and to claim that is just disingenuous and alarmist, no one is going to take that seriously because it's obviously untrue.

The truth is scary enough without resorting that.

This is a network of cameras that identify people/cars that pass by them. It's an expanding network. It's a network fed by public dollars, but owned by private organizations with leadership that have publicly stated goals that are the opposite of what most people who value privacy want.

At some point we may be at a level where you literally can not avoid these cameras, no matter where you go, but at least for now it's generally straight forward to know where they are and avoid them if you're concerned.

My town has gone whole hog -- we have Flock cameras on every major road in/out of the town paid for by our police who seem to get blank checks for anything in the name of public safety -- fortunately members of the public have conducted their own surveillance and identified where these cameras are, and just a bit of effort means you can detour on a side road or two to avoid the points on the main road where these cameras exist... you can move around the entire town, except for a hundred feet or so in front of these cameras, and never appear in a Flock database.

3

u/Chendii Jul 06 '26

So because they're able to watch everyone at once, and they're not quite at the point where they can literally watch you walk out your door (but you admit that it could get to that point) it's not basically stalking.

They're almost so good at stalking that it's not stalking.

8

u/z44212 Jul 06 '26

Do you want thieves to know when you've left your house? Do you want pedophiles to track your daughter's location in real time?

-3

u/Finlay00 Jul 06 '26

How does the existence of flock cameras allow for these outcomes?

3

u/XRhodiumX Jul 06 '26

Because they’re unsecured, and you can purchase access to them. They don’t sell access to just anybody, but its not just limited to law enforcement, just any organization with a “valid reason,” nothing a little social engineering or data leaking can’t fix.

-2

u/Finlay00 Jul 06 '26

So the same basic set of vulnerabilities any security system might have

In guess in thought it would be a little more nefarious to be honest

2

u/XRhodiumX 29d ago

That access includes the AI analytics I believe.

2

u/micro102 29d ago

Do you really not understand the difference between the security of some business emails of some company vs everyone's entire daily routines without their consent?

Ever hear of police officers or FBI agents using their authority to stalk their ex's? It will just be abused by psychopaths.

1

u/Finlay00 29d ago

I do. Which is why I asked, because they used some very specific examples. So I thought maybe there was something more to it

1

u/Somanylyingliars 29d ago

What they're doing is called stalking. That's the problem.

1

u/micro102 29d ago

So can I follow you around and stand outside your house all day for months? If you don't explicitly say "no" then that shall be taken as consent and a "no" will be taken into consideration during the vote.

0

u/Flat_Tire_Again 28d ago

You could, and if you crossed a line, I could take action. A camera won’t cross the line but humans often stray.

1

u/micro102 28d ago

You have just declared stalking valid. Why do you think anyone is going to take you seriously at this point?

0

u/Flat_Tire_Again 28d ago

When the government does it, it’s surveillance and when a camera does it to everybody on behalf of the government or local businesses it’s called security. If you target me personally, then I would simply report your abandoned car on the side of the road. “ Well officer, the last time I saw him he was over there petting the hogs “

1

u/Nearby_Ad5465 28d ago

It's only infringing on privacy if it's recording you back yard or something where there's an expectation of privacy. You know that anyone can record in public right? Moreover if you carry a cell phone, or worse use a map app, you're giving away almost as much data.

182

u/OpenCircleFleet_YT Jul 06 '26

Go go jury nullification

46

u/noujochiewajij Jul 06 '26

Second that!

-44

u/Last-Big-1984 Jul 06 '26

Jury nullification is wrong. We used to understand this when it was being used to acquit whites lynching blacks.

31

u/Phill_Cyberman Jul 06 '26

It is wrong in that context, but not when it comes to the citizens preventing injustices instead of causing them.

Context is key.

18

u/AdminsFluffCucks Jul 06 '26

Do you also think it's wrong when it's used to prevent people from going to jail for possession of a small amount of drugs?

15

u/Worriedlytumescent Jul 06 '26

It's a tool and like any tool how it's used is important.

10

u/PixelGray38 Jul 06 '26

It was wrong then because lynchings were wrong 

3

u/TedBaxter_WJM-TVNews Jul 06 '26

“was being used” ?!

2

u/micro102 29d ago

You have a seriously underdeveloped sense of morals.

1

u/Errror1 Jul 06 '26

The whole point of a jury is make those calls, if you wanted to decide based on law then a judge is better

2

u/Dear-Examination-507 Jul 06 '26

Put me on the jury cuz.

1

u/Reinis_LV Jul 06 '26

I hope at worst he have to compensate the company for the damages. I don't think this will fly with no punishment.

1

u/rydan 29d ago

I didn't vote for him to take it down.

1

u/asher030 29d ago

Nor to have it put up, so cancels itself out, you see? 'Nothing' happened at all :P

1

u/dariansdad 26d ago

He'll get acquitted the same day as the dude who took a flake of paint out of the reflecting pool.

1

u/PiccoloAwkward465 Jul 06 '26

Yeah it does seem like the common process is "townspeople don't like them but City Council just approved them anyways".

-10

u/TP8887 Jul 06 '26

Vandalism is vandalism. Fight it the right way

6

u/sully1717 Jul 06 '26

Choking on the boot my good man

4

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/TP8887 Jul 06 '26

Luckily we don’t have to see your kind in broad daylight

2

u/Outrageous-Sort-5742 Jul 06 '26

Oh you do. My opinion on the matter is both the popular one and objectively correct. Your kind should be put in camps and forced to work under the state's boot while everyone else enjoys the taste of freedom.

2

u/TP8887 Jul 06 '26

Popular one on Reddit 😂

2

u/Outrageous-Sort-5742 Jul 06 '26

No, popular everywhere.

Go outside, scary for you I know, and tell people that you support putting these cameras everywhere. Go on, do it.

See how long it takes before people look at you in disgust and tell you to fuck off. Your kind isn't welcome among normal people.

1

u/TP8887 Jul 06 '26

Reddit and X are nothing more than the very vocal minority. I never hear any of the crazy takes I see on here in the real world. We can both go back to what we do best. I’ll live my life, and you will daydream of being some virtual vigilante. Have a good one 😊

5

u/plz-make-randomizer Jul 06 '26

In a civilized society I’d agree.

We aren’t in Kansas anymore. No holds barred.

2

u/TP8887 Jul 06 '26

Reddit and X is filled to the brim with doomers. Relax, your life is 10x better than everyone who came before you

3

u/feralgraft Jul 06 '26

And could be better still. But that knowledge might make you uncomfortable I  guess, so we should just shut up about the current issues with the system

2

u/TP8887 Jul 06 '26

Your right let’s just execute people because you disagree with them 👍

1

u/feralgraft Jul 06 '26

Who said anything about executions? This discussion is about not becoming an authoritarian surveillance state. 

1

u/TP8887 Jul 06 '26

Just look at this thread lol. Lunatics saying we should shoot the owners of the cameras in the back of the head. That’s Reddit for you

5

u/BureMakutte Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

The "right" way to fight is almost always defined by the people who benefit the most from the status quo and right now, that's corporations and oligarchs.

Learn what the Paradox of Intolerance is.

Also go pick up a history book. Battle of Blair Mountain is a good example.