201–210 of 373 posts
25 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.
This is what patriotism really looks like.
Counter point - I live in a major-ish city in which our police force isn't as strong as the surrounding suburbs so I don't mind a few extra eyes on the streets. My kids like to explore the neighborhood and I like a little extra peace of mind.
I am interested to hear why the cameras give you peace of mind? I'd be curious to know what situation you imagine where these cameras help protect you or your family from any harm.
Also, cameras can't pull over a bad driver.
Also, I highly doubt a car is in the camera's frame long enough, that the camera could even detect if there is bad driving going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good. Flock cameras appeal to weak communist attitudes, where there is a desire for a "good" authoritarian government that tracks everyone... for "their own good".
*fascist
Both create an unaccountable set of elites who control the populace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just break the cameras. Nobody cares (I mean, local police will care, in that they will arrest you if they can, but that's about the extent of it.)
Yes, local police would be my concern in this situation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is destruction of private property will only justify the very surveillance one is trying to avoid. Would you agree ring cameras should be destroyed too? The police can use their footage. In practice they are similar to flock.
Kinda like saying "Throwing the British's tea into Boston harbor will only make us subject to harsher terms." The reality is the vast majority of social progress in the last millenium was achieved with force and threat of force. I find this weird revisionist "violence is never the answer" trope recited as a fact that needs no justification to be incredibly weird and unreliable.
I mean, that it... quite literally did?
Yeah, you can externalize enforcement of sanctions against you to drag other people into a conflict with you, but I wouldn't suggest getting caught making that argument.
[flagged]
Bringing up the highest-crime city as an example is using a well-known outlier tp prove a point. Is that valid in this context? I think Flock cameras are being used not just in high-crime areas, but in many places. One would have to determine that surveillance helped with crime in these areas to make that point valid. And more importantly, one has to ask, why it's NOT being used to deter more crime in high-crime area…
25 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.
25 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.