3 ms·

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

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.
  - peter_d_sherman 1y ago
    >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. It seems that the core issue is identified here... Do I have that correct -- or do you wish to add something or delete or change something? Questions: How is the Flock business model (i.e., trade goods and/or services for money) any different than that of any other business? ? How is Apple or Google or any other Smartphone vendor any different in selling public-facing video cameras to the public? ? How is any Wireless Service provider (including but not limited to: Verizon, T-Mobile, Boost, Cricket, Wal-Mart, Tracfone, Wal-Mart, AT&T etc., etc.) that subsidizes the purchase (deployment) of Smartphones with public-facing video cameras, different than the Flock business model? ? If municipalities are government entities and presumably "for the people by the people" -- then how specifically does Flock "encourage municipalities to use them in these dystopic ways?" ? Do municipalities think for themselves? ? Or do they have external companies do their thinking for them? ? If so, then how is this possible, specifically, and exactly? ?

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.
- peter_d_sherman 1y ago
  >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. It seems that the core issue is identified here... Do I have that correct -- or do you wish to add something or delete or change something? Questions: How is the Flock business model (i.e., trade goods and/or services for money) any different than that of any other business? ? How is Apple or Google or any other Smartphone vendor any different in selling public-facing video cameras to the public? ? How is any Wireless Service provider (including but not limited to: Verizon, T-Mobile, Boost, Cricket, Wal-Mart, Tracfone, Wal-Mart, AT&T etc., etc.) that subsidizes the purchase (deployment) of Smartphones with public-facing video cameras, different than the Flock business model? ? If municipalities are government entities and presumably "for the people by the people" -- then how specifically does Flock "encourage municipalities to use them in these dystopic ways?" ? Do municipalities think for themselves? ? Or do they have external companies do their thinking for them? ? If so, then how is this possible, specifically, and exactly? ?