When people feel like their voice isn’t heard, this is the inevitable result.
[deleted]
The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras
71–80 of 179 posts
Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras
#72This isn't a vigilante movement. These cameras are being installed without any constitutional basis. And people don't need legal authority to correct an unlawful camera installation problem that cities are not handling.
eh? it's still vigilantism if they're 'correcting' something unlawful?
Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras
#73Flock was pitched as the triumph of technology over criminality. It's surveillance network was supposed to end crime. However, when people witness extreme criminality thriving unpunished at the top levels of U.S. politics, the lie becomes evident. Flock isn't about ending crime. It's a tool of control to be used by criminals. Who watches the watchers? Everyone .
[deleted]
Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras
#74I think I may have a minority view about surveillance. At least I need someone to explain something to me. Is the backlash really about privacy, or is the real problem a complete lack of trust in government? Because if I thought someone would actually use the cameras to enforce the law, that's not actually such a bad outcome. You aren't supposed to speed, you aren't supposed to let your dog poop without cleaning up a…
> Why would I not support a hypothetical police that enforced these rules?
Because such hypothetical police does not exist and cannot ever exist.
Humans are corrupted by power, basic human nature.
So if a system is staffed by humans, it must be designed to take human nature into account. It needs to be designed to be resilient against the flaws of human nature that will inevitably happen, such as corruption and bribery and self-interest.
Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras
#75I think I may have a minority view about surveillance. At least I need someone to explain something to me. Is the backlash really about privacy, or is the real problem a complete lack of trust in government? Because if I thought someone would actually use the cameras to enforce the law, that's not actually such a bad outcome. You aren't supposed to speed, you aren't supposed to let your dog poop without cleaning up a…
It’s hard to parse this, it’s like asking, apart from the murdering, what’s wrong with murder?
Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras
#76Flock was pitched as the triumph of technology over criminality. It's surveillance network was supposed to end crime. However, when people witness extreme criminality thriving unpunished at the top levels of U.S. politics, the lie becomes evident. Flock isn't about ending crime. It's a tool of control to be used by criminals. Who watches the watchers? Everyone .
This is a perspective I hadn’t heard or considered before. Often times common crime (petty/violent) is viewed as a totally different area as white-collar crime or corruption. But they’re related. As someone who’s had bikes stolen and car broken into, I sympathize with the desire for surveillance (especially in San Francisco). But Flock has no safeguards against cops using it to stalk ex-wives or misusing a partial ma…
> As someone who’s had bikes stolen and car broken into, I sympathize with the desire for surveillance (especially in San Francisco).
That isn't what it is being used for. That would still require cops to be investigating petty theft as if they cared about it.
Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras
#77Flock is definitely not the only provider of this kind of surveillance. What is the real reason that this is getting so much media attention?
Most are targeted ALPR camera systems that take pictures of license plates, check the plates against local hot lists, and then flush the data if there’s no hit.
Flock is building a giant camera network that records people’s comings and goings across the nation and maintains those records despite any link to crime for an indeterminate amount of time.
The other players like Axon and Motorola are looking to follow Flock's lead, but mass surveillance is the main problem.
Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a HUGE assumption about the ability of surveillance to succeed, and it goes against the evidence of the most surveillance-heavy states in the present and history. There are flaws in systems that go beyond collecting evidence, for example corruption can undermine any technical approach as we see in places like China where surveillance is omnipresent. Hell if "total surveillance" was the secret to ending crime,…
Total surveillance would be watching people all the time, indoors too aka Fahrenheit. It would absolutely end 95% of crime.
> It would absolutely end 95% of crime
It might solve much of existing crime, but that’s not the same as a net reduction in crime.
Bribery, blackmail, and coercion would just fill the crime vacuum.
Re: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras
#79Flock is definitely not the only provider of this kind of surveillance. What is the real reason that this is getting so much media attention?
I think Flock might be a "limited hangout" to distract from much more powerful surveillance technology.
There have been systems designed & deployed that make ALPRs look like kittens.