91–100 of 179 posts
If they then try to get them taken down using legal action they could sue under equal protection clause.
Edit add: Make data stream of cameras public for general population but charge if LEO or aggregate data search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it would be kind of different if people were having cars broken into less often or bikes returned after being stolen But it's clear that increased surveillance hasn't been leading to stolen property being recovered.
Yea, that's the thing: I could almost get behind mass surveillance if it actually solved crime. Probably not, but almost. But it doesn't! Having a camera on every street corner doesn't do anything to solve crime if the police won't look at it and actually follow up. So we get the downsides of mass surveillance without any upside. Same thing with things like "find my iPhone". Great in theory, but if your phone actuall…
This is location-dependent.
I 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…
> I want to know if there's a reason beyond that why widespread surveillance shouldn't be a thing.
Mass surveillance like Flock is basically one of systems you need to create low trust authoritarian country.
If you build it, they will come. Except this time it's gonna be authoritarian leaders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theyll see no effect of their speech, and try something else. Like voting, protests, and violence. In thay order
... or infighting, or self-destruction, or doomscrolling... the pressure will go somewhere but not necessarily into channels that relieve it. That takes more effort and persistence, and also a society (our consumer societies hardly rate as such in my books).
This is touching at the debate of "should social media be regulated or treated like the commons when it gets so large?"
You have a single company with the power and size of a country. Humans were never intended to be using something privately controlled with such an expansive reach & power differential, and then be told "they're private, if you're banned go elsewhere" except well this could be more like a public resource when it becomes that large. We haven't found a good answer to this in a capitalist system because the solution is non-capitalist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it would be kind of different if people were having cars broken into less often or bikes returned after being stolen But it's clear that increased surveillance hasn't been leading to stolen property being recovered.
Yea, that's the thing: I could almost get behind mass surveillance if it actually solved crime. Probably not, but almost. But it doesn't! Having a camera on every street corner doesn't do anything to solve crime if the police won't look at it and actually follow up. So we get the downsides of mass surveillance without any upside. Same thing with things like "find my iPhone". Great in theory, but if your phone actuall…
Brothers van parked in London. Window broken, bag stolen off front seat. Right under camera.
He calls police and miracle of miracles they actually attend. Must have been in the area.
Plod:"Shouldn't have left your bag on view"
Bro:"Can you check the CCTV"
Plod:"You watch too much TV mate, we don't have time for that"
But cameras will one day help catch a murderer and suddenly everyone will want them everywhere.
Flock is definitely not the only provider of this kind of surveillance. What is the real reason that this is getting so much media attention?
Trends are random. This one has a large underlying informed group, deflock, centered in a Discord server. It then became common internet opinion to be opposed to it.
When people feel like their voice isn’t heard, this is the inevitable result.
Violence and destruction are perfectly natural ways of communicating. Some animals use sounds and almost all use body language. One could even argue communicating over the phone or internet lacks the destructive component. Irl behavior is heavily modified by it. Verbal communication is a work in progress. We really want it to work. Sometimes you have to make people listen. Get them back in the program :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action What about if the speech is censored, shadow-banned, limited etc in some other ways? Where the governed does not know their speech was limited in reach, censored etc? (which btw is a real approach social media companies are taking today).
You’re getting at the distinction between the right to speak and the right to be heard. There are tons of time-and-place limitations that make perfect sense. I can’t interrupt a city council meeting to give a speech about, well, anything not on the agenda. And of course social media companies have no legal obligation to allow free speech at all, which is their own right to speech. Core freedom of speech means the gov…
and if you can't get your issue onthe agenda....?
Or, you arent aware of jury nullificaton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Or your pockets aren't deep enough to influence the police, city manager, council members, etc...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had this thought just the other day. It is not possible for any governing body to completely ignore the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action. There will always be a petition/revolt/exodus which results in the governing body hearing the governed.
> the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action What about if the speech is censored, shadow-banned, limited etc in some other ways? Where the governed does not know their speech was limited in reach, censored etc? (which btw is a real approach social media companies are taking today).
Congratulations, Flock, on establishing the most successful honeypot of all time! No matter what the level of corruption, no matter which side of the surveillance state you support, no matter which side of the cameras you're on, Flock has a way to shine a spotlight on you and bring you out of the closet! Currently following a YouTuber who knows all the roadside regulations for signposts and he points out how the Floc…
No way man that award goes to cloudflare