If the surveillance cameras can’t even catch the persons who removed all of their cameras, then they have proven to be worthless at catching real criminals, with their only proven worth is stalking police officers ex wives.
All Flock cameras do is identify cars. If you aren't a car, they can't see you. They aren't just mindlessly recording everything like an ordinary camera, so police can't look through the recordings to identify you.
They won't create a searchable database of faces, assuming they work as advertised. However, the footage is streamed to a server (sometimes publicly accessible) and available for manual review.
Edit: also BT/Wi-Fi MAC addresses of devices, whether on cars or not, are recorded, and can link drivers to their licence-plate-equipped cars even when they're walking with the same phone or earpods
Correct but Flock's own system, if their public statements can be trusted, doesn't do facial recognition itself. The main use is tracking vehicles using license plates and all kinds of visual cues, and Bluetooth/Wi-Fi devices by their MAC address and properties, and linking this huge swath of data together. Still, faces are recorded as video that can be checked manually or processed by third-party tools, including "AI" facial-recognition ones. Therefore, if a pedestrian destroys all Flock cameras and has Bluetooth earpods on them, there will be an easy way to link the events, and then the police will check if their face is visible in surviving footage and check the country-wide database if the person ever used the earphones in a vehicle near the cameras.
Yes, the searchable DB is the big problem. But they work like regular IP cameras too: do you think police would buy them as much if they didn't? Or did stream but blurred out anything that wasn't a vehicle? If a crime happened recently near a Flock camera and they know when, they can absolutely use whatever it saw. Not to mention, third-party "AI" tools can be always used on raw footage from any camera for face recognition, event classification etc. so you're not safe even as a pedestrian without the police having "probable cause". And the camera going offline is probable cause*.
* Here, probable cause would ideally mean legally justifiable reasons to check the recording. However, in practice, it's just any excuse for a police officer to justify spending time retrieving and watching the footage.
That's the whole point of their use of the "licence plate reader" euphemism. They are high definition, high refresh-rate cameras, and cloud-based as opposed to a CCTV system (would be OCTV I guess) that 100% can and do track people as has been shown by independent research
This is a city of ~25K people, so quite small. Several articles have pointed out that the city, not Flock, bears the costs of the vandalism, so in this instance the city counsel that enabled the city to enter into the contract with Flock to the detriment of its citizens have now burdened the city with a substantial budget item. If the cameras are replaced, you can bet that they will likely be torn down again. At some point there will be a reckoning with voters, and hopefully the idiots that enabled the surveillance state will be voted out.
Yes, but not paying for new cameras to be installed, and the contracts will end.
My City Council made an agreement to install them early last year when they should have known better, but with all the recent backlash against them they're pretty much guaranteed not to renew the contract. I'm hoping they decide to cover the cameras for the remainder of the contract, but I'm not sure if the contract allows that.
Last election in the US the people voted for the fascist politician. Knowing he was a fascist politician. Some stayed at home knowing the fascist politician could win.
It might be that people just enjoy the fascism and the online echo chamber is not reflective of real life.
The catch here is the question of democratic legitimacy: If people believe that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed and that this consent should be established and communicated through the results of a popular vote, it's gonna be hard to get them to support a replacement whose mandate doesn't derive from such an election.
So you can take out the fascists, but that doesn't mean that you can install non-fascists and have the relevant organs of government obey them.
It doesn't really matter if they support it. As we've seen with the current administration, things can be forced through in spite of the will of the governed.
...because the people carrying out the orders obey the people giving them. My argument is that they do so because they believe that the people giving these orders have the right to give them (legitimacy).
If you installed an illegitimate (in the sense of "not democratically elected", even if it had broad support anyway) government, people loyal to the democratic system rather than any particular faction may not be so cooperative.
No one working for the current administration is loyal to the democratic system. That went out the window as soon as Trump got in office and started pumping out executive orders.
One witness said "I'm Glad members of the community do civic duties, but we don't need to active about finding their identity, I'm sure they did it as a gift for society"
Yeah, Winona isn't that big. But also a couple of those cameras were in very public locations. Most were just next to a forest lined highway and those would have been easy. But two of them were like a block away from a quiet suburban neighborhood. Still not sure how they managed to get those without getting caught. I can't imagine someone living nearby wouldn't have noticed someone outside running a reciprocating saw in the middle of the night.
If you wear all black, do not show any skin or indicating marks, and vary your gait with a consistent stumble, then the cameras are useless. Remember to park out of sight of any cameras.
Best thing would be to not use ur car but go by foot or bicycle, but then again, it's the US, where u are literally trapped in ur home if u don't have a car lol
I have to believe he's a time traveler who hasn't been born yet. He can't be I'D because he hasn't been given ID yet, and he can be in multiple places at once. Of course, if he were to appear beside me, I would have to buy him a drink in appreciation, too.
I ain’t did it, I ain’t know who did it, and I ain’t never gonna convict anybody charged for doing this or any similar so-called crime if I’m on the jury
They're easy to cut down for now. The next step is going to be making them radio antenna's that mount on light poles so they're way harder to see or reach. The camera function will get removed, since it isn't needed anyway.
Since one goal is to make this such an expensive headache, not for Flock exactly, but for the cities paying for Flock, I don't think a light post should give anyone pause beyond proper PPE.
Flock just pocketed another $3k to replace this one. Really showing them.
Edit: Seems I touched a nerve. Fuck me for just pointing out the reality of the situation. I think it would be more effective to find ways to disable the cameras without breaking them to the point of replacement. Anyone who has worked for the city knows those cameras would be down much longer in a backlog of maintenance requests as opposed to the quick turn around time of just replacing them.
Logical thinking isn’t for everyone. Just let the crowd think for you, downvote, and move on. Wouldn’t want anyone to risk pulling a thinking muscle.
I mean there's a reason the founding fathers debated how often an government should be revolted against and that ranged from 20-100 years. No surprise our country is going to shit around 250 years old.
This is all stuff people in the 1700s saw coming, because human nature wasn't different back then, they already experienced it. They just didn't think we would let it get so bad for so long, they certainly didn't!
I’m not really seeing the parallel. I’m saying damage the cameras to the point that they’re disabled, but not broken enough to warrant paying Flock more money for a full replacement. Replacing a camera’s quick and easy. Maintenance and repair takes time - ya gotta go take down the equipment, haul it back to a maintenance facility, fix it, haul it back out and put it back up. A few ideas that come to mind: spray paint - blot out the lenses and cover the solar panels with it. I’ve seen videos of people tossing cheese slices onto the solar panels - the cheese melts all over the panels and has to be scraped off.
My opinion is that the current method of breaking and replacing them is just indirectly funding Flock’s further development of more surveillance tech.
I guess that’s what’s particularly disappointing for me right now - this doesn’t require hard thinking at all! It’s as obvious as the sun on a clear day!
Hardly the first time I overestimated the abilities of strangers on the internet, though.
I'm very much against the government surveillance apparatus but I'm torn in a couple ways. I don't believe a centralized system like this can exist by our current, and probably any political apparatus, without being abused.
However, we need to ensure we're being reasonable. I'm torn because even without flock millions of people are going to pay for and install their own cloud-connected security cameras and those corporations mostly act like the flock middlemen for government agencies
But I'm not against people having their own cameras, heck I'm not even against them recording to a cloud device. I'm against the abuse of thst data though ny the government and corporations. And that is the real issue where we need to be demanding the most from our government officials.
Most people are so caught up in wedge issues that Democrats and Republicans can hand over your privacy and data to corporations, or greatly reduce your privacy in countless other ways, and it is going entirely unnoticeable and unchallenged. I live in Washington, a blue state, and there are multiple red states with better privacy rights and CCPA-like protections. Yet it never gets brought up in a primary or election, or challenged. They'd rather people be fighting over culture war issues.
AND, what concerns me as well is some of these anti-flock activists—which I think is a reasonable position—are soon going to become overzealous about any type of camera, and you'll see them destroying and vandalizing home security systems as well. And I do take issue with that because I've seen enough people leaving domestic violence situations, those who were victims of sexual abuse or those who had burglars break into their personal space, etc., to know that not all security cameras are there for nefarious purposes and some people legitimately need some early warning for their homes and a way to have proof to seek justice when their safety is jeopardized.
And so you may have thousands or millions of people saying destroy flock cameras, but it doesn't feel like a single one of them are saying they care about privacy enough to demand the politicians they're electing to actually commit in meaningful ways or codify in law the protections from government and corporate abuse. And once they start seeing other cameras as targets of surveillance as well...those on homes, businesses, etc. The movement will quickly lose support and end up making things worse, not better.
How is my opinion unreasonable? You're saying you want to go take away security from rape victims, those traumatized by DV and other crimes? RATHER than make demands from the people you elect to stop sacrificing your privacy and giving corporations untethered access to everyone's data? Sounds very hypocritical to me. Tear down all the municipal flock cameras you want, but leave victims personal property alone. Geez how hard is it for you to comprehend?
You're following the New York Times editorial formula perfectly:
State support for a liberal position yet advance every argument possible against actions to achieve that goal meanwhile denying reality and at the same time finding a way to praise conservatives and criticize partisanship. And you just completed the formula by claiming to be reasonable, the highest value of centrism.
The biggest reality you are missing is that anti-surveillance actions DO include legislative advocacy Are we on the same fucking service? Every day there's been an article about an government making flock purchases a dollar under the legal limit for public review, a government cancelling their flock camera contracts after public outcry, a government that decided against installing flock cameras after realizing they´d have to submit it for public review.
Your theory of change is also woefully flawed. Change happens when people go outside the system, but all the credit naturally goes to those who work inside the system. People who don't want change but want to pretend they do (to themselves or others) sound exactly the way you do.
Do yourself and the world a favor and read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Pay particular attention to what he says about white liberals.
Simple solution is to stop giving cops/corporations access to these surveillance systems without a warrant. It's private data and it should remain so. If people didn't have to worry about being tracked by this shit then they wouldn't be hostile towards it.
Being hostile towards flock is understandable. Being hostile to everyone holding a phone or with a security camera on their house is not. Again, take the issues to the people you elect. I'm not even sure I've seen a single candidate make it a pillar of their campaign.
I'll be hostile to anyone I please. If those people are putting up cameras that can be used by corporations/cops to track the rest of us then they're part of the problem. They're enablers. There are self-hostable options for that shit If you want to have cameras up. Being ignorant to the harm you're doing is not an excuse. Expecting politicians to fix everything is never going to work. We have to be better in spite of them.
133 replies
If the surveillance cameras can’t even catch the persons who removed all of their cameras, then they have proven to be worthless at catching real criminals, with their only proven worth is stalking police officers ex wives.
That's just not true. Sometimes they haven't even met the women they're stalking.
People removing surveillance cameras taxpayers didn't approve aren't "criminals". The proper term is heroes.
All Flock cameras do is identify cars. If you aren't a car, they can't see you. They aren't just mindlessly recording everything like an ordinary camera, so police can't look through the recordings to identify you.
Me when I'm a liar who's eternally loyal to peter theil:
I'm against Flock cameras. I didn't expect to run into people on the anti side who are in denial about how the things work. Like, Flock truthers.
They won't create a searchable database of faces, assuming they work as advertised. However, the footage is streamed to a server (sometimes publicly accessible) and available for manual review.
Edit: also BT/Wi-Fi MAC addresses of devices, whether on cars or not, are recorded, and can link drivers to their licence-plate-equipped cars even when they're walking with the same phone or earpods
All the news stories I've seen talk about concerns over tracking movement. This is the first I've heard about people worried about the actual video.
Look up Benn Jordan's videos on these things. They are NOT just license plate readers.
Correct but Flock's own system, if their public statements can be trusted, doesn't do facial recognition itself. The main use is tracking vehicles using license plates and all kinds of visual cues, and Bluetooth/Wi-Fi devices by their MAC address and properties, and linking this huge swath of data together. Still, faces are recorded as video that can be checked manually or processed by third-party tools, including "AI" facial-recognition ones. Therefore, if a pedestrian destroys all Flock cameras and has Bluetooth earpods on them, there will be an easy way to link the events, and then the police will check if their face is visible in surviving footage and check the country-wide database if the person ever used the earphones in a vehicle near the cameras.
Yes, the searchable DB is the big problem. But they work like regular IP cameras too: do you think police would buy them as much if they didn't? Or did stream but blurred out anything that wasn't a vehicle? If a crime happened recently near a Flock camera and they know when, they can absolutely use whatever it saw. Not to mention, third-party "AI" tools can be always used on raw footage from any camera for face recognition, event classification etc. so you're not safe even as a pedestrian without the police having "probable cause". And the camera going offline is probable cause*.
* Here, probable cause would ideally mean legally justifiable reasons to check the recording. However, in practice, it's just any excuse for a police officer to justify spending time retrieving and watching the footage.
"they can't see you if you're not a car" is how they work?
I misunderstood. I didn't realize that they also functioned as ordinary cameras.
That's the whole point of their use of the "licence plate reader" euphemism. They are high definition, high refresh-rate cameras, and cloud-based as opposed to a CCTV system (would be OCTV I guess) that 100% can and do track people as has been shown by independent research
That is simply not true. The first 60 seconds of this Benn Jordan & 404 Media video proves otherwise - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU1-uiUlHTo.
He goes on to talk about flocks condor cameras, which specifically track people.
FALSE.
https://www.404media.co/flock-exposed-its-ai-powered-cameras-to-the-internet-we-tracked-ourselves/
https://www.flocksafety.com/webinar/introducing-condor-live-and-recorded-video
There are face tracking flock cams out there too. Benn Jordan recorded part of his video essay on one that was open to the public on a walking path.
Found the flock employee.
Lol
This is a known issue with flock systems, sometimes they just do that.
Yeah it was really weird. I saw one just destroy itself.
The weird thing is, if I ever see someone tearing down Flock cameras, actually no I didn't.
Agreed, a well known software bug is taking flock cameras down across the country. Hopefully they can fix it before it gets too out of hand.
The top fell off
It's not very typical.
Chance in a million!
Serious issue.
Some might say it's a feature, not a bug
This is a city of ~25K people, so quite small. Several articles have pointed out that the city, not Flock, bears the costs of the vandalism, so in this instance the city counsel that enabled the city to enter into the contract with Flock to the detriment of its citizens have now burdened the city with a substantial budget item. If the cameras are replaced, you can bet that they will likely be torn down again. At some point there will be a reckoning with voters, and hopefully the idiots that enabled the surveillance state will be voted out.
They don't even have to be voted out if the voters persuade them to resign.
Even if it's the city that beats the cost, at some point they will decide it's no longer worth the cost to replace them.
Probably still paying for them even if not there. Some stupid contract.
Yes, but not paying for new cameras to be installed, and the contracts will end.
My City Council made an agreement to install them early last year when they should have known better, but with all the recent backlash against them they're pretty much guaranteed not to renew the contract. I'm hoping they decide to cover the cameras for the remainder of the contract, but I'm not sure if the contract allows that.
Maybe. But still incentivizes not renewing the contract. One can hope.
That money will be gone either way, might as well not have the dystopian cams.
Lol. You know that last sentence is satire or you are an idiot.
Should we all just give up and never resist? Resistance can work.
Fuck off. Voting works when people do it.
We shouldn't be waiting for elections to come around to get rid of fascist politicians.
You’re right but that’s not at all what I was saying or pushing back against so thanks I suppose.
Last election in the US the people voted for the fascist politician. Knowing he was a fascist politician. Some stayed at home knowing the fascist politician could win.
It might be that people just enjoy the fascism and the online echo chamber is not reflective of real life.
The catch here is the question of democratic legitimacy: If people believe that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed and that this consent should be established and communicated through the results of a popular vote, it's gonna be hard to get them to support a replacement whose mandate doesn't derive from such an election.
So you can take out the fascists, but that doesn't mean that you can install non-fascists and have the relevant organs of government obey them.
It doesn't really matter if they support it. As we've seen with the current administration, things can be forced through in spite of the will of the governed.
...because the people carrying out the orders obey the people giving them. My argument is that they do so because they believe that the people giving these orders have the right to give them (legitimacy).
If you installed an illegitimate (in the sense of "not democratically elected", even if it had broad support anyway) government, people loyal to the democratic system rather than any particular faction may not be so cooperative.
No one working for the current administration is loyal to the democratic system. That went out the window as soon as Trump got in office and started pumping out executive orders.
One witness said "I'm Glad members of the community do civic duties, but we don't need to active about finding their identity, I'm sure they did it as a gift for society"
Must have been the wind
Amazing. How true is this? Anyone got a source?
Edit: ah, they only had 8 cameras. Still, that's amazing.
https://www.wqow.com/news/crime/winona-police-all-8-flock-cameras-stolen-poles-cut-at-base/article_62f9942f-690e-46a5-aa48-6798fbab3665.html
Yeah, Winona isn't that big. But also a couple of those cameras were in very public locations. Most were just next to a forest lined highway and those would have been easy. But two of them were like a block away from a quiet suburban neighborhood. Still not sure how they managed to get those without getting caught. I can't imagine someone living nearby wouldn't have noticed someone outside running a reciprocating saw in the middle of the night.
That's literally the whole point. If you saw something - no you didn't.
I hope they earned about three fiddy from the copper that was in the cameras
IDK. I saw the perp and I thought they looked an awful lot like Ted Cruz.
If a group of birds are called a flock.
Is a group of flocks called a bird?
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
It's called "Flock." Obviously, they all flew away! But you can't blame the PD for not knowing that; pigs don't know much about flying.
Whomever the suspect was they were fucking my mother that night and there is no way they could have done it because it was going on all night long.
Flocks are known to take off and fly away on their own.
so ? where do they end up then. do the Flocks just go into space.
Well, if they can't find them they're probably migratory and flew north for the Summer.
They should search for the Flocks in Canada.
Flock off
How did they destroy the cameras without being seen by all the damn cameras?
If you wear all black, do not show any skin or indicating marks, and vary your gait with a consistent stumble, then the cameras are useless. Remember to park out of sight of any cameras.
Best thing would be to not use ur car but go by foot or bicycle, but then again, it's the US, where u are literally trapped in ur home if u don't have a car lol
It's obviously a villain who can be in hundreds of places at once because he was also fishing with half the town.
I have to believe he's a time traveler who hasn't been born yet. He can't be I'D because he hasn't been given ID yet, and he can be in multiple places at once. Of course, if he were to appear beside me, I would have to buy him a drink in appreciation, too.
My theory...
Morph suits.
Let me know if you find who did it, so I can go down on them until my jaw rots off.
Holy shit I just had the epiphany of a lifetime. I have that fucking cutter.
E. And I love Paul Newman
Nothin to it but for you to do it.
All of Winona, Minnesota was with me, in Switzerland, on a river on an inflatable raft, enjoying the heat wave. Couldn't have been them.
The cameras fell down on their own
"I was right there with a bodycam when they all tore themselves down but it was turned off for, uh, routine maintenance."
I ain’t did it, I ain’t know who did it, and I ain’t never gonna convict anybody charged for doing this or any similar so-called crime if I’m on the jury
how would you answer if you were asked as a potential juror what your opinion is on surveillance systems like Flock?
I worry they'd weed anyone out from a jury that might nullify
Hey man, it was higher power as far as I'm concerned.
As i said in other posts: Winona did it.
They were on the other side of the country with me
I thought Winona had a big brown beaver...perhaps I was mistaken
The residents there think if might be a porcupine...
Wouldn't mind inspecting.
The Big Brown Beaver did it.
didn't you know flock cameras just do that
Apparently the government stores hundreds of dollars in the cameras as a reward for helping take them down!
Twas the spirit of paul bunyon
HHEEEEEEYYYY!!! WHO TOOK OUR FLOCKKKSSSSS??!!!
They're easy to cut down for now. The next step is going to be making them radio antenna's that mount on light poles so they're way harder to see or reach. The camera function will get removed, since it isn't needed anyway.
Since one goal is to make this such an expensive headache, not for Flock exactly, but for the cities paying for Flock, I don't think a light post should give anyone pause beyond proper PPE.
Theyre already on light poles I'm petty sure. My flock detector went off in a part of a road that's only trees and utility poles
people will start cutting down utilities, and then people will get really mad about such volatile devices being placed on critical infrastructure
No, they've already released the next step - it's a drone that watches from 2 kilofeet up.
kft feels like a cursed unit of measurement
Its only 5 throbbins less than a kilometer
Guess I have to start training on shooting at a 45 degree angle up, instead of head on.
Thanks for the tip!
So about 216.9433 double-decker buses?
Imagine the cost of doing that.
And they still won't be able to track every person they want like they can do now.
I call that a win.
It's Murica, they can shoot at them.
Flock just pocketed another $3k to replace this one. Really showing them.
Edit: Seems I touched a nerve. Fuck me for just pointing out the reality of the situation. I think it would be more effective to find ways to disable the cameras without breaking them to the point of replacement. Anyone who has worked for the city knows those cameras would be down much longer in a backlog of maintenance requests as opposed to the quick turn around time of just replacing them.
Logical thinking isn’t for everyone. Just let the crowd think for you, downvote, and move on. Wouldn’t want anyone to risk pulling a thinking muscle.
Yeah, but, it cost the city 3k then 3k after that. Hopefully lead them to cancle the contract
It won't, the politicians get kickbacks, they're literally happy to see them destroyed so they can dip into public funds again.
Every single politician?
The ones giving contracts to flock in this case
Bullshit. They’re not making money by replacing torn down cameras or else they would be out there tearing them down themselves.
Well.. The ones who tore them down in Minnesota hasn't been found yet right?
Sure, until next election rolls around and people are mad.
Ideally. But we’ve been counting on that logic to help us for the past few election cycles and look what we’ve got now.
Been hearing that my whole life lmao
Short term, maybe. Long term? Who knows. I foresee several lawsuits in the future
And the municipality doesn’t even own the camera. The Flock contracts are wild, and cities are dumb enough to sign them.
And until all employees and major shareholders are killed this will remain a problem, but this isn't nothing.
Maybe a government that works against the will of the people shouldn't be funded by them?
I mean there's a reason the founding fathers debated how often an government should be revolted against and that ranged from 20-100 years. No surprise our country is going to shit around 250 years old.
This is all stuff people in the 1700s saw coming, because human nature wasn't different back then, they already experienced it. They just didn't think we would let it get so bad for so long, they certainly didn't!
I highly doubt they saw this coming or cared. You Americans and your idolization of rich white dudes is mind blowing.
Your opinion is noted.
Lets be honest. They probably would have thought the country went to shit in 1863.
So what you're saying is, Luigi.
I’m not really seeing the parallel. I’m saying damage the cameras to the point that they’re disabled, but not broken enough to warrant paying Flock more money for a full replacement. Replacing a camera’s quick and easy. Maintenance and repair takes time - ya gotta go take down the equipment, haul it back to a maintenance facility, fix it, haul it back out and put it back up. A few ideas that come to mind: spray paint - blot out the lenses and cover the solar panels with it. I’ve seen videos of people tossing cheese slices onto the solar panels - the cheese melts all over the panels and has to be scraped off.
My opinion is that the current method of breaking and replacing them is just indirectly funding Flock’s further development of more surveillance tech.
When you think really hard about a simple issue, it's called "mental gymnastics".
I guess that’s what’s particularly disappointing for me right now - this doesn’t require hard thinking at all! It’s as obvious as the sun on a clear day!
Hardly the first time I overestimated the abilities of strangers on the internet, though.
I'm very much against the government surveillance apparatus but I'm torn in a couple ways. I don't believe a centralized system like this can exist by our current, and probably any political apparatus, without being abused.
However, we need to ensure we're being reasonable. I'm torn because even without flock millions of people are going to pay for and install their own cloud-connected security cameras and those corporations mostly act like the flock middlemen for government agencies
But I'm not against people having their own cameras, heck I'm not even against them recording to a cloud device. I'm against the abuse of thst data though ny the government and corporations. And that is the real issue where we need to be demanding the most from our government officials.
Most people are so caught up in wedge issues that Democrats and Republicans can hand over your privacy and data to corporations, or greatly reduce your privacy in countless other ways, and it is going entirely unnoticeable and unchallenged. I live in Washington, a blue state, and there are multiple red states with better privacy rights and CCPA-like protections. Yet it never gets brought up in a primary or election, or challenged. They'd rather people be fighting over culture war issues.
AND, what concerns me as well is some of these anti-flock activists—which I think is a reasonable position—are soon going to become overzealous about any type of camera, and you'll see them destroying and vandalizing home security systems as well. And I do take issue with that because I've seen enough people leaving domestic violence situations, those who were victims of sexual abuse or those who had burglars break into their personal space, etc., to know that not all security cameras are there for nefarious purposes and some people legitimately need some early warning for their homes and a way to have proof to seek justice when their safety is jeopardized.
And so you may have thousands or millions of people saying destroy flock cameras, but it doesn't feel like a single one of them are saying they care about privacy enough to demand the politicians they're electing to actually commit in meaningful ways or codify in law the protections from government and corporate abuse. And once they start seeing other cameras as targets of surveillance as well...those on homes, businesses, etc. The movement will quickly lose support and end up making things worse, not better.
Is there an SCP that writes New York Times editorials?
How is my opinion unreasonable? You're saying you want to go take away security from rape victims, those traumatized by DV and other crimes? RATHER than make demands from the people you elect to stop sacrificing your privacy and giving corporations untethered access to everyone's data? Sounds very hypocritical to me. Tear down all the municipal flock cameras you want, but leave victims personal property alone. Geez how hard is it for you to comprehend?
You're following the New York Times editorial formula perfectly:
State support for a liberal position yet advance every argument possible against actions to achieve that goal meanwhile denying reality and at the same time finding a way to praise conservatives and criticize partisanship. And you just completed the formula by claiming to be reasonable, the highest value of centrism.
The biggest reality you are missing is that anti-surveillance actions DO include legislative advocacy Are we on the same fucking service? Every day there's been an article about an government making flock purchases a dollar under the legal limit for public review, a government cancelling their flock camera contracts after public outcry, a government that decided against installing flock cameras after realizing they´d have to submit it for public review.
Your theory of change is also woefully flawed. Change happens when people go outside the system, but all the credit naturally goes to those who work inside the system. People who don't want change but want to pretend they do (to themselves or others) sound exactly the way you do.
Do yourself and the world a favor and read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Pay particular attention to what he says about white liberals.
Be reasonable?
Tearing down the cameras IS THE REASONABLE RESPONSE TO UNWARRANTED CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE.
Wait til you learn what the next steps up from there are.
Simple solution is to stop giving cops/corporations access to these surveillance systems without a warrant. It's private data and it should remain so. If people didn't have to worry about being tracked by this shit then they wouldn't be hostile towards it.
Being hostile towards flock is understandable. Being hostile to everyone holding a phone or with a security camera on their house is not. Again, take the issues to the people you elect. I'm not even sure I've seen a single candidate make it a pillar of their campaign.
I'll be hostile to anyone I please. If those people are putting up cameras that can be used by corporations/cops to track the rest of us then they're part of the problem. They're enablers. There are self-hostable options for that shit If you want to have cameras up. Being ignorant to the harm you're doing is not an excuse. Expecting politicians to fix everything is never going to work. We have to be better in spite of them.
Nah. I don't want to be surveilled by my neighbors every time I grab my mail either. The difference is, I didn't pay for my neighbor's cameras.