4 ms·

But Flock doesn't "follow you around"? It's fixed location cameras. If you avoid the locations, you avoid the cameras, and thus the tracking. > There is no dif

But Flock doesn't "follow you around"? It's fixed location cameras. If you avoid the locations, you avoid the cameras, and thus the tracking. > There is no difference to me that some company does it via technology. I feel like it's telling that no one has yet taken this logic to court. I think that means that while there may be no difference to you there is a difference according to the law. This gets at your later point. Speaking of: > If you went back 50 years ago and asked anyone on the street if it was okay that every time they left the house their travel history would be recorded indefinitely they would talk to you about communist dystopias that could never happen here due to the 2nd amendment. I think you're doing a subtle motte-and-bailey here. As far as I'm aware, Flock has strict retention policies, numbering in the low single-digit months (Google says 30 days "by default"). There is no "recorded indefinitely" here, which significantly changes the characteristics of the argument here. This is roughly on par with CCTV systems, to the best of my knowledge. I don't disagree that laws haven't caught up yet, but I also think a lot of the arguments against Flock are rife with hyperbolic arguments like this that do meaningfully misrepresent their model. I think this leads to bad solutioning, as a consequence. I'd much rather have good solutions here than bad ones, because ALPRs and other "surveillance technologies" do drive improvements in crime clearance rates/outcomes, so they shouldn't be banned--just better controlled/audited/overseen

FarmerPotato 8mo ago
But Flock DOES follow you around, in the sense that you can't really escape being observed by a series of ALPRs on a highway network. Read some cases of who's suffering now. Cops (or ICE) can choose a passing vehicle to run a ALPR search on, finding out what states it just passed through. When they consider it "suspicious", said driver gets stopped, searched, and even detained. Look at how ALPR is being used and whose rights are being violated as a result. Hint: it's not criminals.
- try_the_bass 8mo ago
  If you're only reading the stories of the false positives or the abuses of power, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information. I think the suffering/abuse is able to be reasonably controlled through increased/better oversight, more publicly available information, and more strict regulations around the use of the data produced by these devices. I also think they're able to impart a whole lot of good on their communities. If they contribute to an increase in the number of arrests and convictions for crimes, that might end up being a net good. I think starting from the assumption that they are net bad, and then telling me I should only look at the negatives is an uncompelling argument. I need not look further than the testimony of people who used to commit crimes in areas with increased surveillance (i.e., San Francisco), and I see a compelling argument for their upsides. Now I have to weigh the positives and negatives against each other, and it stops being the clear-cut argument you're disingenuously presenting it as.
  - rationalist 8mo ago
    > If you're only reading the stories of the false positives or the abuses of power, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information. If you're only reading the stories of the homosexual people in Germany in the 1940s, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information.
    - try_the_bass 8mo ago
      Could you make your point plainly?
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
  - jodrellblank 8mo ago
    I think starting from "put surveillance cameras everywhere, because IF they contribute to a number of arrests that MIGHT end up being a net good" is an uncompelling argument. How about you give me your bank account details and permission to make free use of all your money, and then IF I contribute more value with your money than you do that MIGHT end up being a net good, so let's try it first and find out later? "stop reading about the abuses of power, just ignore them" is a really poor position to take.
    - try_the_bass 8mo ago
      > I think starting from "put surveillance cameras everywhere, because IF they contribute to a number of arrests that MIGHT end up being a net good" is an uncompelling argument. I'm not starting from this argument, though. I'm starting from the argument that we shouldn't be inherently opposed to putting up more of we think the benefit outweighs the negatives or risks of abuse Your level of strawmanning here tells me you're not arguing in good faith
      - jodrellblank 8mo ago
jmye 8mo ago
> But Flock doesn't "follow you around"? It's fixed location cameras. This is a really silly thing to say. It’s the “stop hitting yourself” of surveillance bullshit. Come on. Calling them “fixed cameras” so you can ignore the intent in the original comment is middle school shit.
- try_the_bass 8mo ago
  [flagged]

FarmerPotato 8mo ago

But Flock DOES follow you around, in the sense that you can't really escape being observed by a series of ALPRs on a highway network. Read some cases of who's suffering now. Cops (or ICE) can choose a passing vehicle to run a ALPR search on, finding out what states it just passed through. When they consider it "suspicious", said driver gets stopped, searched, and even detained. Look at how ALPR is being used and whose rights are being violated as a result. Hint: it's not criminals.

try_the_bass 8mo ago
If you're only reading the stories of the false positives or the abuses of power, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information. I think the suffering/abuse is able to be reasonably controlled through increased/better oversight, more publicly available information, and more strict regulations around the use of the data produced by these devices. I also think they're able to impart a whole lot of good on their communities. If they contribute to an increase in the number of arrests and convictions for crimes, that might end up being a net good. I think starting from the assumption that they are net bad, and then telling me I should only look at the negatives is an uncompelling argument. I need not look further than the testimony of people who used to commit crimes in areas with increased surveillance (i.e., San Francisco), and I see a compelling argument for their upsides. Now I have to weigh the positives and negatives against each other, and it stops being the clear-cut argument you're disingenuously presenting it as.
- rationalist 8mo ago
  > If you're only reading the stories of the false positives or the abuses of power, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information. If you're only reading the stories of the homosexual people in Germany in the 1940s, you're making your judgements on only a fraction of the available information.
  - try_the_bass 8mo ago
    Could you make your point plainly?
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
- jodrellblank 8mo ago
  I think starting from "put surveillance cameras everywhere, because IF they contribute to a number of arrests that MIGHT end up being a net good" is an uncompelling argument. How about you give me your bank account details and permission to make free use of all your money, and then IF I contribute more value with your money than you do that MIGHT end up being a net good, so let's try it first and find out later? "stop reading about the abuses of power, just ignore them" is a really poor position to take.
  - try_the_bass 8mo ago
    > I think starting from "put surveillance cameras everywhere, because IF they contribute to a number of arrests that MIGHT end up being a net good" is an uncompelling argument. I'm not starting from this argument, though. I'm starting from the argument that we shouldn't be inherently opposed to putting up more of we think the benefit outweighs the negatives or risks of abuse Your level of strawmanning here tells me you're not arguing in good faith
    - jodrellblank 8mo ago

jmye 8mo ago

> But Flock doesn't "follow you around"? It's fixed location cameras. This is a really silly thing to say. It’s the “stop hitting yourself” of surveillance bullshit. Come on. Calling them “fixed cameras” so you can ignore the intent in the original comment is middle school shit.

try_the_bass 8mo ago
[flagged]