81–90 of 574 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think flock would prevent those crimes?
Just a few examples: https://www.wbrc.com/2026/09/04/moody-bessemer-police-credit... https://www.fox13news.com/news/flock-cameras-help-find-kidna...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>China, which is a country with very little street crime, grafitti, vandalism etc And very little ability for anyone or any group of people from any walk of life to resist getting screwed by the government if the government chooses to screw them. The long term cost of putting locks on doors and bars on windows and all the other things that need to be done to deter small scale crime is peanuts compared to the cost of…
> And very little ability for anyone or any group of people from any walk of life to resist getting screwed by the government if the government chooses to screw them. Sorry to break it to you but if the Feds in the US have it out for you, it won't matter how squeaky clean your record is. They'll fuck you up and ruin your life without batting an eye.
It's pretty clear to be that governments shouldn't be able to 'subcontract' their way out of the limits placed on them via the constitution. Thankfully the supreme court seems to agree here in two ways: 1) Just because a third party (Google in Chatrie case but Flock here) collects the data and the government requests it from them, doesn't mean that that isn't a 'search' which requires a warrant ("obtaining someone's…
Edit: Note that this is not an endorsement, rather stating that recent supreme court cases may not be applicable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been to many places in Italy that have scary much CCTV.
A bunch of CCTV is one thing. If the police have to come and knock on each business owner's door to ask "hey, you got some footage from 2 days ago, someone was shot in the area", that's fine with me. But what's not fine is that capability in a fully automated, fully remotely accessible way, because that openly invites abuse of all kinds.
Already a reality in mainland China, which is a country with very little street crime, grafitti, vandalism etc.
If the benefits can be had at too high a price, that doesn't make the price worth paying.
Already a reality in mainland China, which is a country with very little street crime, grafitti, vandalism etc.
It's pretty clear to be that governments shouldn't be able to 'subcontract' their way out of the limits placed on them via the constitution. Thankfully the supreme court seems to agree here in two ways: 1) Just because a third party (Google in Chatrie case but Flock here) collects the data and the government requests it from them, doesn't mean that that isn't a 'search' which requires a warrant ("obtaining someone's…
A reasonable regulation, focusing on personal freedom, would just forbid building such a network in the first place.
Hey HN ... use your mega brains to make the following kind of thing realistic, effective, and widespread for all: https://urban-privacy.com/pages/anti-surveillance-clothing fock flock