I don't know why people don't seem to get this. It doesn't matter if they are being lawful or not, fascists will shape the laws to achieve their own goals.
The law has always been a tool used by the ruling class to subjugate the working class, it has never been moral. Hell, this isn't even just fascism, its capitalism. Even in Canada, the RCMP were quite literally created to control indigenous people.
The irony, of course, is if you want to beat whatever charges they throw at you, you'll also have to be filming yourself the entire time.
The YouTubes are awash with auditors who set up a camera in a public place and have the cops make up all sorts of stories about them to fabricate or threaten an arrest.
Check your state laws about filming private residences, though, that might get squirrely.
In another video of theirs they listened to a conference they were banned from by catching the wireless mics rf signals from outside the venue. That's pretty bad ass
This is the thing that I don't get about the legality of this shit. If I set up a camera aimed at my neighbor's driveway and intentionally logged every coming and going of he, his wife, his kids... I could justiably be charged with stalking. But so long as I set up a network of cameras and track my neighbor's every whereabouts with this network and sell access to this data to anyone interested... that's not stalking. That's just good American business.
That is without the added layer of law enforcement involvement, tax dollar support, and absolutely no public say in the matters, etc.
The answer is, he is an individual, and Flock cameras are not targeting any one individual, at least not in theory.
Also, I see the argument he's making. The argument is, if it were your child who was kidnapped, would you not want your neighbors to give up some of their privacy in order to turn cameras on every corner toward getting your child home safely? But the problem with that is, Flock cameras are not bringing kidnapped kids home. Neither are Ring doorbells, which are just as bad. What they are doing is making life worse for people of colour and anyone else They want to target. So that's the problem. The parent can't blame their neighbours (particularly their dark-skinned neighbours) for wanting their privacy when a child's safety is on the line, because the Flock cameras are not bringing any children home. That's not what they're for, and pretending they are is bullshit and everybody on both sides knows it. We COULD use all this tech for good. But the people who run it don't want to. They've proven this time and again. So no, they do not get the benefit of the doubt. No, they do not get to take the high road, even hypothetically.
The argument is, if it were your child who was kidnapped......
(note we're on the same page I'm just ranting out loud) Yeah lets take worst case scenarios that dont actually happen in any numbers worth concerning oneself over. if you're worried just design a radio chip for kids arms that will ping cell towers and inject them with that. there your kids are safely trackable.
this not only wouldnt reduce everyone elses privacy and security from the state but would cost less.
There are shoes where an AirTag (or similar device) can be concealed in the heel so children can be tracked. Apparently it's well embedded and the child doesn't feel it when they walk, and it's difficult to detect/remove.
Tbf, I think many of us outsiders understand the nuance of the USA more than the average American understands about other countries', because we are bombarded constantly with your news and actually need to pay attention since the actions of your country affect us greatly.
I see a lot of people saying that Trump voters and those that voted against him are the same and deserve the same treatment. As well a surprising amount that are blood thirsty and wanting to see us start gunning each other down.
Again, as a counterpoint, I also see similar comments on other countries' oppressive governments too.
It's always, "why aren't they resisting?" Or, "they wouldn't dare try this on me! I've got guns and I'll fight back!"
In the end, we all talk tough on the internet and expect everyone to be as heroic as us we imagine ourselves to be. Just do your best out there, and stay safe.
Sigh. It's different because you are specifically targetting him which is illegal. Their argument is this is untargetting mass surveillance. This is what makes it ok. If you can prove (and you won't) that flock is individually targetting and tracking you then yes we have a problem and the sentiment in the image is correct
I get the sentiment of the image but Jesus Christ it's lazy. They are two different things. You should all understand that. Fight the right fight. This is a problem with the law, not the person.
This argument really doesn’t understand the concept of nuance. How many cameras would I have to put up before it’s not targeting? If I just happen to have enough cameras to capture every single path he takes is that targeting? Where is the line drawn? Almost all of the legal arguments were well before the technology we have today regarding retention and searchability.
And differentiation between the person and the law is inherently the problem. He was able to create this company because of the ambiguity of the law. If it were cut and dry they never would have risked the investment in the first place. Between the extensive network and the giant loophole of the third party doctrine, even though they market the directly to LEOs and the government, it all seems like a giant unlawful and unconstitutional government search.
I have no idea what the solution is but at the very least there should be accountability for improper searches and in my mind should require a warrant for EVERY search.
I guarantee that the person is making considerable effort to ensure that the law continues to serve the corporation he leads and resists any attempts to change it by the "peasant" class he clearly disdains.
The problem is with the law, the person, and the socioeconomic class that the person belongs to and the laws ultimately serve.
52 replies
It's illegal for you to do that because you're not a billionaire.
yes, thank you, fuck!
I don't know why people don't seem to get this. It doesn't matter if they are being lawful or not, fascists will shape the laws to achieve their own goals.
The law has always been a tool used by the ruling class to subjugate the working class, it has never been moral. Hell, this isn't even just fascism, its capitalism. Even in Canada, the RCMP were quite literally created to control indigenous people.
Well, it's illegal for billionaires too, but laws only matter when they're enforced.
Since this was posted he had his house removed from Google Maps
Well then think we should make sure to post his address online for all to find easily.
It is easy to find with an online search. He also has a flock cam in his front yard, because of course he does.
The irony, of course, is if you want to beat whatever charges they throw at you, you'll also have to be filming yourself the entire time.
The YouTubes are awash with auditors who set up a camera in a public place and have the cops make up all sorts of stories about them to fabricate or threaten an arrest.
Check your state laws about filming private residences, though, that might get squirrely.
Benn Jordan and Tommy G tried this. It didn't take long before police were called to remove them from the public road next to Flock HQ.
In another video of theirs they listened to a conference they were banned from by catching the wireless mics rf signals from outside the venue. That's pretty bad ass
did he say why they "must compromise"?
"Because im making oodles and oodles of money"
Because refusing to allow him to commit crimes would interfere with his ability to make money doing it.
Like, just stop screaming and let it happen, you'll like it, trust me.
Flock CEO must "compromise" on his oxygen consumption.
Or track ones private jets takeoffs and landings
How dare you not have enough 0's on the end of your bank account balance to do that!
This is the thing that I don't get about the legality of this shit. If I set up a camera aimed at my neighbor's driveway and intentionally logged every coming and going of he, his wife, his kids... I could justiably be charged with stalking. But so long as I set up a network of cameras and track my neighbor's every whereabouts with this network and sell access to this data to anyone interested... that's not stalking. That's just good American business.
That is without the added layer of law enforcement involvement, tax dollar support, and absolutely no public say in the matters, etc.
Theyre different than his product because you would have a lot less information and arent able to follow him to his destination.
I seriously believe that unless a guillotine is involved things will continue to just get worse.
The history of the US is filled with "nah, capital can do what it wants".
Nothing will change while power is consolidated in the hands of the few.
I do wonder about who works at flock. Surely they have options to resist and sabotage from the inside.
Given how shit their cybersecurity is, maybe they have been.
I have to admit, the fact that their HQ is within commuting distance has crossed my mind.
How about he lead by example, and have a fleet of drones follow him providing a 24/7 publicly available feed.
FPV drones? 👉👈
How to roll out nation-wide public cameras against the peoples interests?
Rapist mindset.
The answer is, he is an individual, and Flock cameras are not targeting any one individual, at least not in theory.
Also, I see the argument he's making. The argument is, if it were your child who was kidnapped, would you not want your neighbors to give up some of their privacy in order to turn cameras on every corner toward getting your child home safely? But the problem with that is, Flock cameras are not bringing kidnapped kids home. Neither are Ring doorbells, which are just as bad. What they are doing is making life worse for people of colour and anyone else They want to target. So that's the problem. The parent can't blame their neighbours (particularly their dark-skinned neighbours) for wanting their privacy when a child's safety is on the line, because the Flock cameras are not bringing any children home. That's not what they're for, and pretending they are is bullshit and everybody on both sides knows it. We COULD use all this tech for good. But the people who run it don't want to. They've proven this time and again. So no, they do not get the benefit of the doubt. No, they do not get to take the high road, even hypothetically.
(note we're on the same page I'm just ranting out loud) Yeah lets take worst case scenarios that dont actually happen in any numbers worth concerning oneself over. if you're worried just design a radio chip for kids arms that will ping cell towers and inject them with that. there your kids are safely trackable.
this not only wouldnt reduce everyone elses privacy and security from the state but would cost less.
There are shoes where an AirTag (or similar device) can be concealed in the heel so children can be tracked. Apparently it's well embedded and the child doesn't feel it when they walk, and it's difficult to detect/remove.
laugh I was thinking directly about airtags. Coming soon to a kidnapping near you: 'who wants new shoes!'
I'm pretty sure my Yankee friends do not have to compromise whatsoever. Fuck this CEO. I hope you guys guillotine him.
Hey, thanks for the support. Being an American these days feels like everyone is against you.
Those outside the USA bitch about us butting in with no understanding of political nuance in their country sure do the same to us.
Tbf, I think many of us outsiders understand the nuance of the USA more than the average American understands about other countries', because we are bombarded constantly with your news and actually need to pay attention since the actions of your country affect us greatly.
I see a lot of people saying that Trump voters and those that voted against him are the same and deserve the same treatment. As well a surprising amount that are blood thirsty and wanting to see us start gunning each other down.
Again, as a counterpoint, I also see similar comments on other countries' oppressive governments too.
It's always, "why aren't they resisting?" Or, "they wouldn't dare try this on me! I've got guns and I'll fight back!"
In the end, we all talk tough on the internet and expect everyone to be as heroic as us we imagine ourselves to be. Just do your best out there, and stay safe.
Thank you and you as well. World is getting more dangerous again.
Cause we are.
Sorry you feel that way. Enjoy your life.
It's irresponsible to even write that headline. The reporter knew it was false and had an ethical obligation to do better.
Sigh.
Beat him with a pillowcase full of oranges
Nah. Potatoes, even apples, or bust
Maybe turnips
Fair
Is that child in the picture the CEO?
Thats Pereter Parker
This is a horrific example. It's very legal to do what is described above.
Especially because he now has celebrity status
Punchable face. They always have a face that wants to be punched. Why?
Sigh. It's different because you are specifically targetting him which is illegal. Their argument is this is untargetting mass surveillance. This is what makes it ok. If you can prove (and you won't) that flock is individually targetting and tracking you then yes we have a problem and the sentiment in the image is correct
I get the sentiment of the image but Jesus Christ it's lazy. They are two different things. You should all understand that. Fight the right fight. This is a problem with the law, not the person.
.
This argument really doesn’t understand the concept of nuance. How many cameras would I have to put up before it’s not targeting? If I just happen to have enough cameras to capture every single path he takes is that targeting? Where is the line drawn? Almost all of the legal arguments were well before the technology we have today regarding retention and searchability.
And differentiation between the person and the law is inherently the problem. He was able to create this company because of the ambiguity of the law. If it were cut and dry they never would have risked the investment in the first place. Between the extensive network and the giant loophole of the third party doctrine, even though they market the directly to LEOs and the government, it all seems like a giant unlawful and unconstitutional government search.
I have no idea what the solution is but at the very least there should be accountability for improper searches and in my mind should require a warrant for EVERY search.
And those warrants shouldn’t be handed out so freaking easily.
I guarantee that the person is making considerable effort to ensure that the law continues to serve the corporation he leads and resists any attempts to change it by the "peasant" class he clearly disdains.
The problem is with the law, the person, and the socioeconomic class that the person belongs to and the laws ultimately serve.