Do you support Flock or similar surveillance tech?

[Plutonic Panda]

This is just a thread to talk about flock as it's become pretty controversial and then there's another company I forgot. I believe LA just voted to suspend operations of flock. It seems like every day I'm reading about a new city banning them. Personally, I don't like it I would rather prioritize my freedom and privacy over my safety. For the most part as with everything there's exceptions. But we've been doing fine without flock like surveillance for a long time and I don't think we need it now.

[Scott5114]

In Las Vegas, we have the bizarre arrangement that the Flock cameras were provided by some wealthy person named Ben Horowitz, but with the data still being fed to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. So any time anyone tries to get any sort of accountability regarding the cameras from Metro, they just refer them to Horowitz, who doesn't have to answer, as he's a private individual. So, uh, that's pretty concerning.

I've just been checking the Flock camera map and avoiding the intersections and businesses they're installed at whenever possible.

Interestingly, I have read that at least one city cancelled their Flock contract and stopped paying them, but the cameras continued collecting data well after the cutoff date. In their case, the cameras were the property of Flock, so the city wasn't allowed to remove them, but Flock didn't come and collect the cameras after they stopped being paid. It wasn't until the city put trash bags over all of them that they were removed. So, uh, that's pretty concerning.

[Plutonic Panda]

I would be slightly more supportive if the cities that decided to install these held elections and we're honest with the public about how they're being operated where the data is being stored what it's used for and whether or not the citizens want these things in their communities. But that is it stands. There seems to be zero public input from the local communities when these things get installed. And that's not even the worst part of it in my opinion, but it's still a pretty big one. I've been tempted to destroy a few, but I'm not a felon and I really don't wanna risk changing that. They do have a device that can just simply put a plastic bag over the camera. I don't know exactly what you could be charged with for doing that maybe obstruction of justice I don't know what they could pin you on. I'm sure they'd find something.

I just read an article about a guy who went from like Indiana to Michigan or vice versa and got caught with weed and I think there is more to it than that regarding that particular case but no doubt could something like that. Just be used on an ordinary person wanting to go by a flower to smoke and bring it back across some imaginary line where it says it's not legal to smoke over in it.

Something something 1989

[Scott5114]

I have seen it said that each camera contains about fifty dollars' worth of copper and other recyclable metals...

[formulanone]

Want to use it for your own private place? ...that's up to you.

In the public, no and hell^no

Private individuals and companies do not need my information, identity, my whereabouts and even the brand name makes me upset and revolted.

[kalvado]

With technology being available to do this kind of thing, it's inevitable it will happen. Ring cameras can do a lot, for example.
Of course the way things are set up, massive data collection affecting everyone is outsourced to private and barely regulated - same with credit bureaus, same with RealID.
And of course very granular law enforcement system is overpowering their local governments and does whatever they want. And there is no more centralized power to keep cops and alike under control.

[The_Ginger]

It was a good idea in theory, but we'd have to live in a perfect world for it to actually work. I don't support the idea after hearing what has already happened with the cameras.

There is not a single mapped camera in Jackson County (yay!) but there are unfortunately many in Parkersburg. The state in general seems to be lower on the cameras, however, Lowe's stores make up a large part of that small sum.

haveibeenflocked.com is a great website to discover if your plate has been Flocked.

[LilianaUwU]

What do you think? Do I support fascists watching my every move?

[kalvado]

What do you think? Do I support fascists watching my every move?

Frankly speaking, a lot of exposure to society was the standard for human species. It's not too long ago, on historical scale, that large enough cities became common. Large enough and intermixed enough for people not to know most of those around. Even then, guilds were compact enough.
My impression is that the lack of social exposure and pressure, or neighbor surveillance if you will, isn't a healthy situation for society.
Now centralized surveillance partially fills the void, but not in a very healthy way

[Max Rockatansky]

The cameras have been around for a bit and people seemingly are only now noticing they exist. 

[LilianaUwU]

The cameras have been around for a bit and people seemingly are only now noticing they exist. 

They notice them now that there is an actual chance for bad government actors to use them to further their agenda.

[Max Rockatansky]

The cameras have been around for a bit and people seemingly are only now noticing they exist. 

They notice them now that there is an actual chance for bad government actors to use them to further their agenda.

I'm no particular fan of automated surveillance.  Similar technology has been around for much of this century in the hands of governments and private entities.  In what I do professionally it has impacted the living of several people I know (meaning they were replaced).

I guess that if were to clarify my position it would be that this Flock stuff just seems like the viral news story of the day.  I can't spend every single day of my life finding something to be outraged over, especially when it isn't new.

[JayhawkCO]

Flock no.

[bandit957]

Here in my city, officials threatened to get Flock cameras, and I raised hell. In retaliation, the city posted 2 Flock cameras aiming at my building.

After I raised a stink about the first camera on Facebook, the mayor launched a big tirade against me personally at the city council meeting. Fast-forward to 16:10 for his idiotic rant...

https://campbellmedia.org/video/59865/

The city kept denying this camera even existed, even though you can see it right outside my window.

Later, city council voted on whether to enter in a long-term contract with Flock. Council tied 3-3, and the mayor broke the tie in favor of it.

[Scott5114]

After I raised a stink about the first camera on Facebook, the mayor launched a big tirade against me personally at the city council meeting. Fast-forward to 16:10 for his idiotic rant...

https://campbellmedia.org/video/59865/

Holy shit, you're not kidding, he called you out by name and everything.

I love how scandalized he is at the "various forms of degradation" a camera pointed at a bedroom might capture.

You should take a picture from your bedroom window that shows the camera pointing right at it, then go to a city council meeting and show it to them during the public comment period.

Maybe call Channel 9? I've heard Scripps stations are usually good at reporting on this sort of stuff.

[kalvado]

The cameras have been around for a bit and people seemingly are only now noticing they exist. 

They notice them now that there is an actual chance for bad government actors to use them to further their agenda.

I'm no particular fan of automated surveillance.  Similar technology has been around for much of this century in the hands of governments and private entities.  In what I do professionally it has impacted the living of several people I know (meaning they were replaced).

I guess that if were to clarify my position it would be that this Flock stuff just seems like the viral news story of the day.  I can't spend every single day of my life finding something to be outraged over, especially when it isn't new.

There is definitely an increase of surveillance coverage and increase of analytics. Some concerns were there for a while - including (ab)use of EZpass reads.
And my impression is that it's about a change in society that system pushes.

[Scott5114]

There have also been a wave of news stories about police officers being caught using the cameras to stalk exes and other personal enemies, including one in Wichita.

[kalvado]

There have also been a wave of news stories about police officers being caught using the cameras to stalk exes and other personal enemies, including one in Wichita.

That is certainly due to the current (some bad words) federal government!

[LilianaUwU]

There have also been a wave of news stories about police officers being caught using the cameras to stalk exes and other personal enemies, including one in Wichita.

That is certainly due to the current (some bad words) federal government!

I mean, cops being bastards is not a new thing.

[bandit957]

This also brings us to data centers.

How much data on us are they storing that they need so many huge data centers?

[gonealookin]

Support ubiquitous surveillance?  No.  Accept it?  Yes.  I figure cameras are following everything I do and don't worry much about what somebody is doing with the information collected.

I have responded at times by having my own dashcam going.  The cheap-ass ones from China that you find on Amazon aren't reliable though.  Either go all in with a top of the line model or don't bother.

[wxfree]

In a perfect world, they wouldn't be needed.  In a less imperfect world, they're a good idea, where they're used only for legitimate purposes.  There's something about information that our society is obsessed with.  If you have a pot of information, someone will abuse access to that information, every time.  Collection of information is thought of as enhancing security, but these days there's so much information that's no longer true.  The enormity of the information is dangerous.

What you do in the street is not private.  That makes sense.  If you run a stop sign, a police officer is not required to cover his eyes due to his lack of a search warrant.  An officer doesn't need a warrant to follow you.  Years ago, Texas proposed installing devices on cars to track their locations.  The stated purpose was to catch people driving without insurance.  The legislation included the establishment of an insurance verification system.  This system is now in place, so when I go to renew registration they no longer ask for an insurance card.  But that was obviously just an excuse to track vehicles.  Under their reasoning, if an officer can follow someone one time without justification, then the state can track everyone, everywhere they go, all of the time, since there's no privacy on public roads.

My own view, after thinking about this more than I should have, is that if I follow you, turn where you turn, and watch where you go, then that could be considered a crime, depending on the circumstances.  A police officer without a warrant has no rights that I don't have, in this regard.  In their case, the following may constitute not only harassment or stalking, but also official oppression, because it's done under color of law.  Obviously, sometimes a police car is behind another vehicle on the road, but overt following, without a warrant, should be dealt with exactly the same as if it were done by anyone else.  And since police departments can give instructions to their officers that they can't give to the general public, the limits can be more strict, and the officers can be instructed that even when not criminal, such harassment is subject to disciplinary action. (That's difficult to monitor and enforce, but I think just making an attempt to change the culture would be an improvement.)  Moment-by-moment actions on the road are public, but an intentional accumulation of information can deprive a person of security, even when it's all done in public places and even when it's done by government.

I'm not opposed to the cameras in theory, if only legitimate targets are searched for and no records of non-suspect traffic are kept (and if the feds aren't soaking up every byte of data as soon as it's collected).  But how realistic is that?

And how long will it be before the local supermarket sends advertising saying "We've noticed you drive by our store an average of 18 times per week, why not stop in?  If you show ID, we've got some great deals, personalized just for you, based on your purchase records at Kroger on Main Street."?  That's what really gets to me.  I find it inevitable that government will violate every right they can get away with.  I'm rather fatalistic about that.  But the marketers act with the same impunity, and they're not even lying to me about it being or a good reason, to enhance security.  They just want to trick me into buying their products.

[SP Cook]

Flock camaras are a afront to everything this country is all about. 

The ability of police to waste money on gadgetry is infinite.  It comes from the same place that traffic enforcement comes from.  Greed on the part of jurisdictions, laziness on the part of cops. 

The backside of Flock is that they are "data mining" the information for purposes that have nothing to do with crime.  Selling information to insurance companies, restaurants, car dealers, whoever, about your habits.

That said, people that get on the internet and complain about data centers, AKA the thing that makes the internet work, are really a whole other level of out of touch with science.  Of course the same people that reflexively oppose any pipeline, road, airport, mine, timber harvest, factory, anything that makes life better for other people are the usual suspects, but to use the internet to advocate for the internet not working is really a special level.

[kalvado]

In a perfect world, they wouldn't be needed.  In a less imperfect world, they're a good idea, where they're used only for legitimate purposes.  There's something about information that out society is obsessed with.  If you have a pot of information, someone will abuse access to that information, every time.  Collection of information is thought of as enhancing security, but these days there's so much information that's no longer true.  The enormity of the information is dangerous.

What you do in the street is not private.  That makes sense.  If you run a stop sign, a police officer is not required to cover his eyes due to his lack of a search warrant.  An officer doesn't need a warrant to follow you.  Years ago, Texas proposed installing devices on cars to track their locations.  The stated purpose was to catch people driving without insurance.  The legislation included the establishment of an insurance verification system.  This system is now in place, so when I go to renew registration they no longer ask for an insurance card.  But that was obviously just an excuse to track vehicles.  Under their reasoning, if an officer can follow someone one time without justification, then the state can track everyone, everywhere they go, all of the time, since there's no privacy on public roads.

My own view, after thinking about this more than I should have, is that if I follow you, turn where you turn, and watch where you go, then that could be considered a crime, depending on the circumstances.  A police officer without a warrant has no rights that I don't have, in this regard.  In their case, the following may constitute not only harassment or stalking, but also official oppression, because it's done under color of law.  Obviously, sometimes a police car is behind another vehicle on the road, but overt following, without a warrant, should be dealt with exactly the same as if it were done by anyone else.  And since police departments can give instructions to their officers that they can't give to the general public, the limits can be more strict, and the officers can be instructed that even when not criminal, such harassment is subject to disciplinary action. (That's difficult to monitor and enforce, but I think just making an attempt to change the culture would be an improvement.)  Moment-by-moment actions on the road are public, but an intentional accumulation of information can deprive a person of security, even when it's all done in public places and even when it's done by government.

I'm not opposed to the cameras in theory, if only legitimate targets are searched for and no records of non-suspect traffic are kept (and if the feds aren't soaking up every byte of data as soon as it's collected).  But how realistic is that?

And how long will it be before the local supermarket sends advertising saying "We've noticed you drive by our store an average of 18 times per week, why not stop in?  If you show ID, we've got some great deals, personalized just for you, based on your purchase records at Kroger on Main Street."?  That's what really gets to me.  I find it inevitable that government will violate every right they can get away with.  I'm rather fatalistic about that.  But the marketers act with the same impunity, and they're not even lying to me about it being or a good reason, to enhance security.  They just want to trick me into buying their products.

Long story short, there is a need for recognition that there is a difference between a data point (license plate ABC123 is there right now) and a dataset (it is there 2 times a week from 6 till 7 pm).
Which requires a lot of very high level decisions - Congress, SCOTUS etc.

[1995hoo]

It's been a longtime basic principle of American constitutional law that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for anything you do in a public place.

With that said, a couple of years ago our HOA was exploring putting up Flock cameras "to assist law enforcement." The community came down roughly 80% against it and the idea was dropped. A major point many of us made is that the HOA should not spend our money (and probably raise the monthly assessments) to "assist" the police in whatever job taxpayers at large are supposed to be funding. We also had zero confidence that the HOA might not use it to keep tabs on people's comings and goings, especially on the loudmouths who tend to be at odds with them (there are always a few of those).

This morning my wife asked me about them when we were in the car and I started pointing them out when I saw them. Most of the ones we saw were in the City of Alexandria (one of those on private property in the Home Depot's parking), but we spotted one in Fairfax County and I can't tell whether it's on public land or on a condo development's property. I think we counted six of them in about a 15-minute drive. May have been more, but I had to pay attention to the road.