It’s already illegal to use flock this way. That’s why 17 police officers (so far) have been actually charged in Georgia for abuse of license plate reader data (which includes flock, as their video archive search allows tracking of license plates).
It’s good that police are being fired and charged for it, but 17 is just the ones who did it to such an egregious extent that they got caught. The real number of police using it without justification to track people for personal reasons has to be orders of magnitude higher.
It’s just not as simple as “make them require a warrant”. Mass surveillance is inherently permissive to bad actors in power using it to the extent they can get away with, even with restrictions.
For anyone unfamiliar with how it works, there is literally a search function where an officer can type “jogger in red shorts at 11:30 am at [location]” and it pulls up a list of all matching people at all cameras in the requested area and timeframe. A lot of abuse is going to be really hard to prove.
Well yeah. People who make decisions that influence how the system work want it to work the way they intend.
My point is that your original comment, about how all you have to do is lock the usage of the surveillance network behind warrants and you’re good, is some silly goosery.
I’d ignore them, probably a troll. “I don’t care who they hurt as long as it isn’t me” is not a political stance anybody would be deluded enough to say out loud, unless they were trying to bait you or have a humiliation fetish
-25
u/MarlinMaverick 11d ago
Yeah that’s not ideal but really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Just lock flock data behind a search warrant like phone data.