Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
it is far from correct... its actually, like, the opposite of correct.
Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement
31–40 of 61 posts
Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement
#32It's surprising to me this is news. Governments buy and install this equipment and it flags license plates and anyone thought that wouldn't be used for things like immigration control? I'm not saying it's right, just that it's shocking people wouldn't realize that.
No one is surprised, but the news is that Flock’s agreement with these pd’s said this was not happening and it’s now been shown it has.
Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Spying on people is a violation of plenty of amendments. Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony. Stop treating the law as a binary illegal or not. It just leads to brain dead interpretations of the law. There is plenty of “illegal” things people do every day and yet we don’t install public dragnet cameras to stop it. Illegal immigration hasn’t shown any real harm to people that regular citizens don’t also…
[flagged]
Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement
#34Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spying on people is a violation of plenty of amendments. Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony. Stop treating the law as a binary illegal or not. It just leads to brain dead interpretations of the law. There is plenty of “illegal” things people do every day and yet we don’t install public dragnet cameras to stop it. Illegal immigration hasn’t shown any real harm to people that regular citizens don’t also…
[flagged]
You have a brain dead interpretation of the law it seems. You may be interested in the US Constitution Amendments 4-14 should give you quite a few answers to your confusion on how we treat people here. Your interpretation of the laws would make you an illegal for misinterpreting the laws. Let’s deport you.
Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement
#36This should not be flagged. @dang
Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Spying on people is a violation of plenty of amendments. Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony. Stop treating the law as a binary illegal or not. It just leads to brain dead interpretations of the law. There is plenty of “illegal” things people do every day and yet we don’t install public dragnet cameras to stop it. Illegal immigration hasn’t shown any real harm to people that regular citizens don’t also…
So assuming you drive, when a police car gets really inappropriately close behind you for a couple minutes and then backs off, then they are probably using their eyes to look at your license plate and having someone run that or texting while driving to do that on the computer in the car. I don’t think there is a fundamental difference between this process and using a camera other than a camera doesn’t expect you to give it a pension.
Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement
#38It's likely on the backend that this is "completely lawful" and was used for "lawful purposes" as deemed by the current US administration. There's probably even subpoenas on the backend. Flock is required to comply with "lawful" requests and seems happy to do so. This is largely the same for all major cloud camera operators. See also: Verkada and their facial recognition. These things are installed all over the place…
In the case of Illinois, this is not lawful, I'm not sure about the laws in Ohio, but if a village in Illinois buys a Flock camera and that data is accessible to ICE, than they have violated Illinois law. So they either need Flock to provide assurances that ICE cannot use the data, otherwise they have to remove the cameras entirely.
I suspect that the supremacy clause makes this a grey area.
Simplified: you can make something illegal locally, but federal law will almost always win out.
Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Spying on people is a violation of plenty of amendments. Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony. Stop treating the law as a binary illegal or not. It just leads to brain dead interpretations of the law. There is plenty of “illegal” things people do every day and yet we don’t install public dragnet cameras to stop it. Illegal immigration hasn’t shown any real harm to people that regular citizens don’t also…
> Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony.
My understanding is that entering without getting inspected is misdemeanor (or felony in some cases), but that's often not the case. Usually people just overstay and that's civil case. And because it's treated as a civil matter a lot constitutional protections do not apply (to clarify: some still do).
Re: Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement
#40Ohio dot news doesn't sound credible. Nothing on the About page. https://www.ohio.news/about/. One email contact for statenewsdesk.com, the only indication about who might run this website. WHOIS entirely redacted. I'll assume it's a foreign influence operation until they put some names and faces out there.