Btw, flock employees have been caught watching kids gymnastics class and pools. https://substack.com/home/post/p-193593234 Why does the VP of strategic relations need to watch the kids gymnastics class?
That is absolutely terrifying.
Stop Flock
271–280 of 331 posts
Re: Stop Flock
#272I understand the privacy argument. There are a few questions though: 1) Suppose there will be another shooting. Don't you want to know what exactly has happened before you go to the protest? Suppose your child will be hurt. Wouldn't you do anything to capture the culprit? How exactly would you feel if the police would tell you that they couldn't get the video with culprits face, because watching it would be a violati…
1) If someone killed my child, I would probably want to kill them back. And yet we don't consider that sufficient reason to make revenge killing legal. The wishes of the victims need to be weighed against the cost it imposes on everyone else, including those who are innocent. The cost of violating everyone's right to privacy, the social impacts of mass surveillance, and the risk of that data being abused. 2) > Isn't…
People don't have a right to privacy in public (at least in the US). Do people not realize anyone can photograph or film them in public at any time. Heck, photographers can even then around and sell the without the subject's consent. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia
I'm really struggling to see the parallel between being filmed in public and committing revenge murder.
Re: Stop Flock
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain how it operates and why you would expect a sanctuary city to have a tough on crime DA
It's very clear to me that you're not interested in discussing things in good faith, so I'm choosing not to engage with you.
It’s clear to me that you’re not able to take a position but you pretend to be sophisticated by attacking others. Cheerio
Re: Stop Flock
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mass surveillance is by definition oppressive. I think you mean to say you're in favor of targeted surveillance, targeted at criminals, who are on roadways. This is the distinction that's getting lost. Give me a database of everywhere you have ever driven, and I will find multiple ways to make you look like a criminal.
The problem is how do you know who's a criminal beforehand.
>The problem is how do you know who's a criminal beforehand.
Everyone is a criminal. Directed [per|pro]secution is a thing. And not a new one either[0]:
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I
will find something in them which will hang him.
Re: Stop Flock
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) If someone killed my child, I would probably want to kill them back. And yet we don't consider that sufficient reason to make revenge killing legal. The wishes of the victims need to be weighed against the cost it imposes on everyone else, including those who are innocent. The cost of violating everyone's right to privacy, the social impacts of mass surveillance, and the risk of that data being abused. 2) > Isn't…
People don't have a right to privacy in public (at least in the US). Do people not realize anyone can photograph or film them in public at any time. Heck, photographers can even then around and sell the without the subject's consent. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia I'm really struggling to see the parallel between being filmed in public and committing revenge murder.
Sorry if I was unclear. My point was just that "if you were a victim, wouldn't you want this?" is not a very strong argument. What victims want does matter. But when it affects other people, their needs matter too.
Especially with mass-surveillance, which affects everyone. It's not possible to mass-surveil only people who would commit crimes, you need to surveil all innocent people too.
Re: Stop Flock
#276Btw, flock employees have been caught watching kids gymnastics class and pools. https://substack.com/home/post/p-193593234 Why does the VP of strategic relations need to watch the kids gymnastics class?
It's for their, and your, own safety.
Re: Stop Flock
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I live in a tech heavy, wealthy city. It’s small. No violent crime. Barely any crime at all. Compare to e.g. Oakland, which recently approved a Flock expansion: https://oaklandside.org/2025/12/17/oakland-flock-safety-coun... Why? https://sfstandard.com/2023/06/09/oakland-crime-police-respo... https://oaklandside.org/2025/10/08/oakland-watchdog-audit-po... https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-police-off…
Baltimore has metric shittons of police cameras but it's still a dangerous shithole. Cameras don't stop idiot criminals from criming. Baltimore's police suck and the area sucks because there's massive unemployment, cameras aren't a panacea.
We're talking about license plate recognition cameras, not cameras that show a blurry picture of a criminal committing a crime. These LPR cameras absolutely do result in meaningful law enforcement action and help catch criminals.
See San Francisco and their use of LPR cameras like Flock combined with drone surveillance.
https://abc7news.com/post/how-sfpds-new-investigation-center...
Etc.
Re: Stop Flock
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we're clear, you believe there should be a law that, when a police department collects information about you during a criminal investigation, they should notify you directly that they've done so?
Specifically, I believe that if information that is held by a private 3rd party I accessed by anyone , law enforcement or otherwise, that third party should be required to tell you that it was requested and by whom. Just like they can't put a gag order on a search warrant to your home, this hypothetical search would be exempt from gag orders.
Huh? There absolutely are gagged search warrants. Didn't you ever get one at Reddit? They're the norm, the default even.
Re: Stop Flock
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got my BS in Computer Science legally carrying a Glock in every class. I think it's very likely I was the only person doing so; Not because I was fearful, but because I like being prepared. It takes very little long-term effort for people to carry pepper spray, a gun (if able), and a first aid kit everywhere they go. You never know who's life you might save.
A majority of states have laws preventing carrying of firearms on university campuses. Were you breaking the law by doing this?
I have a license to carry a handgun, and it was at a public university in a state that allows this.
Re: Stop Flock
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got my BS in Computer Science legally carrying a Glock in every class. I think it's very likely I was the only person doing so; Not because I was fearful, but because I like being prepared. It takes very little long-term effort for people to carry pepper spray, a gun (if able), and a first aid kit everywhere they go. You never know who's life you might save.
You are not clint eastwood.
Thanks for that constructive, helpful comment. I have helped several people carrying a first-aid kit.