3 ms·

Forgive me for writing this, but this whole story possibly reeks of somewhat questionable journalism... This whole story reads like: "Something bad happened t

Forgive me for writing this, but this whole story possibly reeks of somewhat questionable journalism... This whole story reads like: "Something bad happened to Person A. They were accused by Person B of something they didn't do. They were the victim. The victim. Flock doorbell cameras were nearby. They're sort of similar to Ring doorbell cameras but they're Flock. Flock. Did we mention Flock? Person A was a victim, and Flock cameras were nearby. Flock. Flock. Did we mention Flock? Flock cameras were nearby..." But maybe some people don't see the pattern, so (again, forgive me for writing this!) let me write another story using that same "journalistic" pattern: "A group of people tortured, raped and killed (or allegedly tortured, raped and killed) a second group of people. The first group of people we'll call a "gang" or a "junta" or a "militia" (as opposed to "a group of people"), the second group of people we'll call "The Victims" (as opposed to "a group of people" -- which was probably another gang, junta or militia!). The second group were Victims! Victims! And during the time of their victimization, their intense victimization, a bunch of Oreo Cookies(tm) sat on the table near where the atrocities (or alleged atrocities!) took place! Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies! Did we mention that Oreo Cookies were nearby when the victimization occurred? Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies were nearby when the atrocities occured! Did we mention Oreo Cookies? Oreo Cookies were on the table near the victims!" (Again, forgive me for writing this...) Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy (AKA: "Guilt By Association")

antonvs 1y ago
> Flock cameras were nearby The article explicitly claims that the police officer claimed that they had footage from a Flock camera: > "The proof, according to Milliman: Footage from Flock surveillance cameras showing Elser’s forest green Rivian driving through the town from 11:52 a.m. to 12:09 p.m. on the day of the theft." That's exactly what the headline describes. It's not clear why you're trying to downplay the role of the Flock camera, given that this seems to be the central piece of evidence that the police used, incorrectly. > Forgive me for writing this You would need to explain yourself first.
- peter_d_sherman 1y ago
  Why couldn't the journalist simply have said "Doorbell camera" every time they said "Flock camera"? ? (It would have been the same story -- just less biased against a single equipment manufacturer in a product category (Doorbell Cameras)...) So, why couldn't the journalist simply have said "Doorbell camera" every time they said "Flock camera"? ?
  - justOneGuy 1y ago
    The Flock camera(s) in question are not doorbell cameras, and Flock Safety is not only outside the doorbell camera product category but very specifically trying to differentiate themselves inside of the AI-enabled dragnet persistent surveillance product category. Given the potential civil rights implications of Flock, I feel it’s exceptionally reasonable to be calling it out in this context. I would suggest reading the full article and googling the positive and negative coverage of the company
    - peter_d_sherman 1y ago
      When is any public facing video camera a "surveillance product"? And when isn't any public facing video camera a "surveillance product"? ? ??? Doesn't any public facing video camera (including camera doorbells, including the public facing video cameras on people's smartphones) -- contain the potential for for civil rights implications (and other problems) if misused? ? Is the issue of civil rights implications really with Flock specifically? Or does the issue exist more broadly with the usage of any public facing video camera where the misusage of that camera results in civil rights implications? ? ???
      - antonvs 1y ago
        Are you expecting us to completely educate you on the topic? Instead of objecting to the article and what everyone is saying, do you not feel any responsibility to understand what you're talking about first? The issue here is the Flock business model, which subsidizes the deployment of these cameras and encourages municipalities to use them in these dystopic ways. Not to mention that you haven't even acknowledged being completely factually wrong in your understanding about the type of camera involved here. Instead of saying "huh, I didn't know that, TIL", you double down. It doesn't reflect well on you.

antonvs 1y ago

> Flock cameras were nearby The article explicitly claims that the police officer claimed that they had footage from a Flock camera: > "The proof, according to Milliman: Footage from Flock surveillance cameras showing Elser’s forest green Rivian driving through the town from 11:52 a.m. to 12:09 p.m. on the day of the theft." That's exactly what the headline describes. It's not clear why you're trying to downplay the role of the Flock camera, given that this seems to be the central piece of evidence that the police used, incorrectly. > Forgive me for writing this You would need to explain yourself first.

peter_d_sherman 1y ago
Why couldn't the journalist simply have said "Doorbell camera" every time they said "Flock camera"? ? (It would have been the same story -- just less biased against a single equipment manufacturer in a product category (Doorbell Cameras)...) So, why couldn't the journalist simply have said "Doorbell camera" every time they said "Flock camera"? ?
- justOneGuy 1y ago
  The Flock camera(s) in question are not doorbell cameras, and Flock Safety is not only outside the doorbell camera product category but very specifically trying to differentiate themselves inside of the AI-enabled dragnet persistent surveillance product category. Given the potential civil rights implications of Flock, I feel it’s exceptionally reasonable to be calling it out in this context. I would suggest reading the full article and googling the positive and negative coverage of the company
  - peter_d_sherman 1y ago
    When is any public facing video camera a "surveillance product"? And when isn't any public facing video camera a "surveillance product"? ? ??? Doesn't any public facing video camera (including camera doorbells, including the public facing video cameras on people's smartphones) -- contain the potential for for civil rights implications (and other problems) if misused? ? Is the issue of civil rights implications really with Flock specifically? Or does the issue exist more broadly with the usage of any public facing video camera where the misusage of that camera results in civil rights implications? ? ???
    - antonvs 1y ago
      Are you expecting us to completely educate you on the topic? Instead of objecting to the article and what everyone is saying, do you not feel any responsibility to understand what you're talking about first? The issue here is the Flock business model, which subsidizes the deployment of these cameras and encourages municipalities to use them in these dystopic ways. Not to mention that you haven't even acknowledged being completely factually wrong in your understanding about the type of camera involved here. Instead of saying "huh, I didn't know that, TIL", you double down. It doesn't reflect well on you.