121–130 of 179 posts
This 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.
Lets instead talk about the growing vigalante action by Flock corporation refusing to allow cities to remove cameras from their property after the contract is cancelled. Some cities have been forced to cover the cameras with trash bags. https://www.404media.co/flock-objects-to-our-removing-their-... https://www.wmtv15news.com/2026/06/05/dane-county-covers-flo...
If I were a city government, I would just start charging Flock rent.
Someone should start a surveillance company and put up their cameras pointed at the politicians houses. 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.
I'm going off personal research though so I could be wrong.
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 .
I put privacy over ending crime. That’s the unspoken stance everyone needs to decide on. Ubiquitous surveillance will end most crime but do we want that if the cost is our privacy?
How, praytell, will surveillance end wage theft?
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?
Someone should start a surveillance company and put up their cameras pointed at the politicians houses. 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.
I've done a lot of thinking on this, even crowdsourcing the coverage with people standing on sidewalks using their phones with a specific app, which collects similar data. Stand near the court house, politicians homes. However Flock tends to say that the people that contract them own the data to get around a lot of the liabilities, so they themselves "don't own the data". That is the hard part to emulate as a citizen…
How does the claim that the people whom they contract with own the data square with Flock sharing data with Federal government and not disabling cameras when contract ends.
https://youtube.com/shorts/t_ewIN7YhYI?is=08KRHQK3AMYA0FJn
It would seem that the cities would be able to sue Flock in these cases since Flock is accessing their data without authorization. I am sure that there are some state laws that mirror the CFFA...Google tells me all 50 have something.
That would be a fun avenue for someone motivated to pursue.
Edit add: You could do the same as Flock. Each person uploads/streams their videos and they own it, data resides in their data bucket. You are only providing extra analysis of their(and everyone's in aggregate) data...
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…
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.
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 .
I put privacy over ending crime. That’s the unspoken stance everyone needs to decide on. Ubiquitous surveillance will end most crime but do we want that if the cost is our privacy?
If the cost is freedom. Privacy is an abstract technicality to many, but it's necessary for freedom, and freedom rings everywhere.
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 .
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…
You might disagree on the punishments or protections, and that’s not to say it couldn’t happen, but it seems false to say there are no safeguards.
I do not “support” Flock. I would have less issue if there was mandated data retention policies (by law) that limited to thirty days without a court order. Afterward, Flock should be welcome to perform mandated anonymization/obscure biometrics/obfuscate identifiers to retain anonymous data at that point. Either someone is suspected of being a criminal and a judge agreed it warranted access and retention, or they are an ordinary private citizen in public. The government’s position that because the government doesn’t own the company they can get data from at any time, it isn’t government surveillance, is…
Well, I think it’s just lying but that is an opinion.