Redmond, WA, turns off Flock Safety cameras after ICE arrests

Post by notepad0x90 » Mon, Nov 10, 2025, 9:13 PM UTC

Izikiel43 wrote: post #73

notepad0x90 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on the books immigration law has been broken for decades. do you expect people across the border wait a decade to get their turn for an immigration interview only to be turned down, when they can just cross the border? When laws become impractical, they create 11 million law breakers.

> do you expect people across the border wait a decade to get their turn for an immigration interview only to be turned down, when they can just cross the border? Well yes, that's what following the law means. They can't complain about it, it's not their country, and they don't have a say on the rules. In a similar vein by your logic, if you are in a hurry, why should you obey traffic laws when you can just run a red…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 10, 2025, 9:14 PM UTC

dwattttt wrote: post #93

QuantumFunnel wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

"Those (the Penn family) who would give up essential Liberty (money & power), to purchase a little temporary Safety (a veto over a taxation dispute, trying to raise money from the Penn family), deserve neither Liberty (said money & power) nor Safety (the defense that said taxed money would've bought from the present French & Indian wars)"

Post by mothballed » Mon, Nov 10, 2025, 9:18 PM UTC

Eisenstein wrote: post #123

cipehr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its an interesting question indeed. You're saying there might be some expectation of privacy even in public? The line here is a little different. I could point a camera out my window and record every license plate that drives by my house, and that would be allowed because its recording public activities, and the data I collect would be private—its mine from my camera. The question here is if a public/government agenc…

If your neighbors were across the street and had their blinds open could you point your camera at their window and take pictures? License plates were designed to be read and visible and they show that the vehicle is registered, but what about inside the vehicle? Do we have privacy in there? What exactly does 'in public' mean? And why shouldn't someone have privacy from being recorded and their movements tracked even…

Post by notyourwork » Mon, Nov 10, 2025, 9:26 PM UTC

brookst wrote: post #106

notyourwork wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reactivity isn’t proactively protecting what you belief. It’s reacting to public outcry for the original premise.

Are you proposing everyone make the optimal decision in advance, when outcomes are all speculative, and just be sure to get it right so there’s no need to learn and adapt to circumstances?

Post by antonvs » Mon, Nov 10, 2025, 9:27 PM UTC

jajuuka wrote: post #119

pton_xd wrote: post #12

What did they think would happen? Installing surveillance systems to monitor people is acceptable, as long as they're only used against the majority? I don't understand the logic here.

I think this is a case of, tools used to fight one type of crime are being used to fight another type of crime that disrupting the community. Kind of an unforeseen consequences situation.