131–140 of 179 posts
Undecided on Flock. Totally decided against vandalism. Violations of the social contract suck. Edit to invite explanations. If you approve of vandalism to flock cameras, what are your feelings about vandalizing abortion clinics, mosques or opposition political headquarters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said it - they only care when it's a spree.
and one with a plate that's already reported stolen. trnslation: it's a zero effort publicity project.
Translation: you are wrong and seem to be making things up to fit your position, because this is exactly what people have a problem with — that this data is retained regardless of suspicion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take a lesson from the UK where there are cameras everywhere. 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 m…
Tell them someone said "from the river to the sea". They'll drop everything to look.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a nice idea. Everything is backwards right now. It should to be the other way around: random citizens should be essentially anonymous while all members of the government are surveilled 24/7. Surveillance should scale with power.
Yeah, this is really messed up. I think our instincts ("tribal leader is powerful and has extra rights") are doing us a disservice. In democracies, all politicians are our employees: They are supposed to do our bidding, and if they act on their own, only in our direct or indirect (no bullshit interpretations please) interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Total surveillance would be watching people all the time, indoors too aka Fahrenheit. It would absolutely end 95% of crime.
Again by this logic prisons should be free of crime, rather than hotbeds of it. Insisting that something is true because it makes sense to you doesn’t make it true.
Flock 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 .
It's a nice idea. Everything is backwards right now. It should to be the other way around: random citizens should be essentially anonymous while all members of the government are surveilled 24/7. Surveillance should scale with power.
And it was actually mostly meant to track corporations rather than individuals. That's why the full name of it was Corporate Social Credit System. It was supposed to increase trust in the Chinese market
Passed an old guy sitting on the side of the road with a lawn chair today, he was holding a pool skimmer with cardboard attached at the end to block a flock camera. There was a local news story about it [1]. Happy to see it. [1] https://www.cltampa.com/news/a-77-year-old-republican-man-is...
Didn't know about this! Pretty neat
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure my politics are very different than that man's, but at least we agree on the fact that Flock fucking sucks.
Despite differences in political beliefs you probably have more in common with this man than any of the politicians that claim to care about your or your values.
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…
See copypasta https://pastebin.com/GQBGWjv8 for full explanation of the four counter arguments below, too long to post here.
> > "You have nothing to fear" This is a very dangerous mindset. The argument is frequently raised in debates by pro-big brother hawks, and doing so is dangerous, cowardly and dishonest.
> > There are at least four good reasons to reject this argument solidly and uncompromisingly: the rules may change, it's not you who determine if you're guilty, laws must be broken for society to progress, and privacy is a basic human need.
> Guy takes his dog for a walk, doesn't pick up, boom, cameras plus AI finds the person and issues a fine.
In the 1980s depending on your jurisdiction there were some kind of sodomy or gross indecency law. Applying AI and surveillance to that. Guy goes for a walk, kisses his boyfriend, boom, cameras plus AI finds the person and issues a fine and/or jails them.
Most arguments boil down to not trusting current or future government because the government can commit violence against you, deprive you of liberty, or take away your possessions. With a combination of the rules may change, and it's not you who determines guilt.
From: https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Solove-2011-TheNothingToHideArgume...
> > in Friedrich Durren-matt's novella Traps, which involves a seemingly innocent man put on trial by a group of retired lawyers for a mock trial game, the man inquires what his crime shall be. "'An altogether minor matter,' the prosecutor replied .... 'A crime can always be found."'
Dave Eggers' The Circle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel) - also a movie - explores the concept of people going fully "transparent" effectively mass surveilling themselves