Do you support Flock or similar surveillance tech?

[LilianaUwU]

What amuses me is people posting Flock cameras in the "There is NO way that is MUTCD-compliant" Facebook group, complaining about them not being mounted on non-breakaway posts. First, they aren't traffic control devices so they don't belong in an MUTCD-centric group. Second, many of them are mounted on breakaway posts.

Then again, that group is a NUMTOT circlejerk, so of course they won't be able to figure out Flock cameras aren't traffic control devices...

[Max Rockatansky]

What amuses me is people posting Flock cameras in the "There is NO way that is MUTCD-compliant" Facebook group, complaining about them not being mounted on non-breakaway posts. First, they aren't traffic control devices so they don't belong in an MUTCD-centric group. Second, many of them are mounted on breakaway posts.

Then again, that group is a NUMTOT circlejerk, so of course they won't be able to figure out Flock cameras aren't traffic control devices...

It displeases me when someone tags one of our posts to that group. 

[kphoger]

It displeases impleases me when someone tags one of our posts to that group. 

FTFY

[Max Rockatansky]

It displeases impleases me when someone tags one of our posts to that group. 

FTFY

Thank you for always being there to make sure I'm keeping an accurate account of things.  True legacy stewardship I say.

[MikeTheActuary]

Private use of ALPRs needs to be considered and constrained.  For example, ALPR tech makes sense...with protections...for toll-collection purposes on private toll roads.  However, HOA Karens probably shouldn't be able to have private Flocks to monitor who's driving through their neighborhoods.

How are you going to deal with Ring cameras, or even with a freeware running on Karen's PC? Should that be illegal/regulated?
There are quite a few personal and private business security cameras around- cloud and local, and some of those homes can be on busier roads, with cameras inevitably capturing those roads.. .

Short answer: I don't know.

I was focusing my attention on the publicized instances of private companies inviting Flock to monitor their parking lots, and the occasional possibly apocryphal story of HOAs doing something similar.  While I might disagree with the perceived "need" for such private installations of ALPRs, the law probably ought to accommodate private, local use of them...but their contributions to the broader cloud probably ought to be subject to the same protections/constraints as municipal installations.

I think you could extend that reasoning to private surveillance technology in general.  "Your" use of images / video / etc. captured from "your" cameras probably ought to be relatively unrestricted (aside from reasonable controls like it not being OK to keep a camera pointed in such a way that you're primarily actively peeping on a neighbor).  It's probably necessary to accept that the owners of private devices probably have the right to opt in with sharing that data (but it must be "opt in"; "in unless you opt out" must NEVER be the default).  However, that shared data needs to be subject to the same general controls as I described in my earlier post.

I'm not certain how one would reconcile growth in networking private cameras with the concern that we'd be moving from "intermittent" surveillance to "continuous".

[MikeTheActuary]

Looks like Flock is trying to avoid legislation/regulation by giving the appearance of getting ahead of it:

https://apnews.com/article/flock-license-plate-cameras-surveillance-deflock-2a93bc075e2f7ffcca9e04a35d75a3fe

[hbelkins]

There's an eastern Kentucky activist who has her panties in a wad over Lowe's installing Flock (or similar) cameras.

Is she as unhappy that she's on camera in practically every business in which she enters, or even passes by on a downtown street?

[wxfree]

About 20 years ago, I knew someone who lived in the men's dorm in a religious school, the kind where opposite sex visitors aren't allowed outside of specified hours.  There were cameras in the hallways.  He would routinely walk between his room and the shower completely nekkid.  I think his way of showing the camera a middle finger was to make it look at everything else, too.  The same kind of protest probably doesn't work as well in public spaces.

[kphoger]

There's an eastern Kentucky activist who has her panties in a wad over Lowe's installing Flock (or similar) cameras.

Is she as unhappy that she's on camera in practically every business in which she enters, or even passes by on a downtown street?

He would routinely walk between his room and the shower completely nekkid ... The same kind of protest probably doesn't work as well in public spaces.

Not at Lowe's, at least.

[JayhawkCO]

There's an eastern Kentucky activist who has her panties in a wad over Lowe's installing Flock (or similar) cameras.

Is she as unhappy that she's on camera in practically every business in which she enters, or even passes by on a downtown street?

He would routinely walk between his room and the shower completely nekkid ... The same kind of protest probably doesn't work as well in public spaces.

Not at Lowe's, at least.

Maybe if you at least have a toolbelt on.

[kphoger]

Maybe if you at least have a toolbelt on.

I once heard the story about a tribe in Papua New Guinea or somewhere similar, and the people in that tribe went around with no clothes on at all, except that they wore a cord tied around their waist for carrying a knife or other such tools.  I forget if it was a Christian missionary or what, but a Westerner was living among them for a while.  One day, he asked one of the tribe members if anyone ever went around without the cord tied around their waist.  The tribe member's face turned to shock.  —You mean, naked??

[kalvado]

Looks like Flock is trying to avoid legislation/regulation by giving the appearance of getting ahead of it:

https://apnews.com/article/flock-license-plate-cameras-surveillance-deflock-2a93bc075e2f7ffcca9e04a35d75a3fe

Isn't more accountability and more control of data access something pretty much everyone here advocates for?
Surveillance is here, and it wouldn't go away.
And flock itself may be the ones who understand best how things should be shaped. I am not saying they would push for the best possible regulations - but they do know how things are done, both properly and improperly.. 

[wxfree]

Maybe if you at least have a toolbelt on.

I once heard the story about a tribe in Papua New Guinea or somewhere similar, and the people in that tribe went around with no clothes on at all, except that they wore a cord tied around their waist for carrying a knife or other such tools.  I forget if it was a Christian missionary or what, but a Westerner was living among them for a while.  One day, he asked one of the tribe members if anyone ever went around without the cord tied around their waist.  The tribe member's face turned to shock.  —You mean, naked??

This makes me think of a movie I once saw.  The female lead was dressed quite modestly, with clothing over the shoulders and arms, midriff, and legs.  She was mostly covered, but the suit seemed to be missing a couple of sections.  I respect an artist's refusal to do a nude scene.

[LilianaUwU]

There's an eastern Kentucky activist who has her panties in a wad over Lowe's installing Flock (or similar) cameras.

Is she as unhappy that she's on camera in practically every business in which she enters, or even passes by on a downtown street?

I hope she is, because this is just as bad!

[vdeane]

There's an eastern Kentucky activist who has her panties in a wad over Lowe's installing Flock (or similar) cameras.

Is she as unhappy that she's on camera in practically every business in which she enters, or even passes by on a downtown street?

He would routinely walk between his room and the shower completely nekkid ... The same kind of protest probably doesn't work as well in public spaces.

Not at Lowe's, at least.

Sounds like a good way to end up on People of Walmart.

[Scott5114]

There's an eastern Kentucky activist who has her panties in a wad over Lowe's installing Flock (or similar) cameras.

Is she as unhappy that she's on camera in practically every business in which she enters, or even passes by on a downtown street?

The scale is the thing.

If I visit a casino, I will be on a thousand different cameras as I move throughout the property. But all of that footage is kept by the casino company, usually on site at that property. If the government wants it they have to drive down to the casino and ask the casino for it. Whether to grant it or not is at the discretion of management (and believe it or not they do tell the cops no sometimes). At that point if the government wants it they have to go to court and get a subpoena for it, and that leaves a paper trail. Even then a judge might rule there's no valid reason for a subpoena.

Flock is a provider of always-on cameras that the government has access to at all times and can access at will with little accountability.

Surely, as a conservative, you can see the opportunity for big government overreach, right?

[MikeTheActuary]

Looks like Flock is trying to avoid legislation/regulation by giving the appearance of getting ahead of it:

https://apnews.com/article/flock-license-plate-cameras-surveillance-deflock-2a93bc075e2f7ffcca9e04a35d75a3fe

Isn't more accountability and more control of data access something pretty much everyone here advocates for?
Surveillance is here, and it wouldn't go away.
And flock itself may be the ones who understand best how things should be shaped. I am not saying they would push for the best possible regulations - but they do know how things are done, both properly and improperly.. 

More often than not, self-regulation under duress is just an attempt to try to hold off regulation or legislation that the entity seeking to self-regulate would prefer not to be bound by.

While an argument can be made that sometimes the impending regulation/legislation ends up being excessive and/or stupid, it should also be noted that when this happens, the penalties for failing to comply with that self-regulation end up lacking any teeth.

[kalvado]

Looks like Flock is trying to avoid legislation/regulation by giving the appearance of getting ahead of it:

https://apnews.com/article/flock-license-plate-cameras-surveillance-deflock-2a93bc075e2f7ffcca9e04a35d75a3fe

Isn't more accountability and more control of data access something pretty much everyone here advocates for?
Surveillance is here, and it wouldn't go away.
And flock itself may be the ones who understand best how things should be shaped. I am not saying they would push for the best possible regulations - but they do know how things are done, both properly and improperly.. 

More often than not, self-regulation under duress is just an attempt to try to hold off regulation or legislation that the entity seeking to self-regulate would prefer not to be bound by.

While an argument can be made that sometimes the impending regulation/legislation ends up being excessive and/or stupid, it should also be noted that when this happens, the penalties for failing to comply with that self-regulation end up lacking any teeth.

That is true, of course. But a good thing is that some restraint is seen as necessary even by industry. So things may be moving after all.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I like the concept of these cameras in high traffic/high visibility areas. But the potential for abuse, of which there are a growing number of examples, give pause.

[Max Rockatansky]

Darth Vader voiced his support of widespread use of Flock Cameras at the San Diego City Council meeting:

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/darth-vader-san-diego-city-council/

I would imagine this would have been technology for the ISB to have had.  No wonder the Emperor supports Flock so much.