81–90 of 179 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to amplify your particular post.
Is there any historical precedent for a defacto public square? We can't relegate (unwillingly even) every bit of our lives to the private sector and suddenly say rights shouldn't exist.
In general,
"Private spaces used by the public, like shopping malls or private campuses, are typically non-public forums. The government cannot compel access to private spaces, but private operators may allow or restrict expression under private law and policy, balancing property rights with constitutional protections in some cases."
However, there have been cases where constitutional free-speech protections were extended into malls. This can happen if the property takes part in federal programs or gets federal subsidies or tax breaks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think it would be kind of different if people were having cars broken into less often or bikes returned after being stolen But it's clear that increased surveillance hasn't been leading to stolen property being recovered.
Same thing with things like "find my iPhone". Great in theory, but if your phone actually gets stolen and you tell the cops "Hey, my phone is at this exact address, I can prove it with Find My," they still don't give a shit and don't lift a finger to solve it, so the technology is in reality useless.
We need a police force who is actually motivated to solve crime rather than just find black people to beat and show up in force when someone protests something.
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?
People are going to need to accept some amount of crime if they want to have some semblance of freedom and basic human dignity.
https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...
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?
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.
Total surveillance would be watching people all the time, indoors too aka Fahrenheit. It would absolutely end 95% of crime.
> It would absolutely end 95% of crime It might solve much of existing crime, but that’s not the same as a net reduction in crime. Bribery, blackmail, and coercion would just fill the crime vacuum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> As someone who’s had bikes stolen and car broken into, I sympathize with the desire for surveillance (especially in San Francisco). That isn't what it is being used for. That would still require cops to be investigating petty theft as if they cared about it.
I got to teach a Detective the technical limitations of Find My, and also successfully recovered some of my property from a UHaul truck during a stop.
All for bikes - but it contributed to two arrests, and contributed to a larger, interstate theft case.
When people feel like their voice isn’t heard, this is the inevitable result.
On some level, it feels like (some) politicians haven't realised this, or have forgotten it. We can either have a functioning democracy and justice system, where responsibility is delegated to people whose job it is to uphold society's values, or we can have individual people that do job themselves. If a judge or police officer isn't going to carry out justice, then eventually people are going to do it themselves. Th…
Politicians are donation/bribe demanding machines. Legislation is bribe facilitating speech. Pay go play, follow the money.
Flock pays, it is heard.