4 ms·
There seems to be enough energy for both?
by JKCalhoun 5mo ago
There seems to be enough energy for both?
- amazingamazing 5mo agoThe irony is destruction of private property will only justify the very surveillance one is trying to avoid. Would you agree ring cameras should be destroyed too? The police can use their footage. In practice they are similar to flock.
- new_account_100 5mo agoI'm not destroying anything, and based on the article it looks like they're handing out decent sentences to the people destroying the cameras. Surely no judge would appreciate someone running onto a taxpaying home owner's front porch and destroying their doorbell. That being said, Ring cameras creep me out and I feel they have a powerful anti-social effect.
- Barbing 5mo agoExactly, let your local politicians know the only way they can get your vote is by rejecting Flock.
- whatshisface 5mo agoWhat's going on here is that out of 100,000 constituents, three know that Gary's Carpets is licensing the city reservoir as a PFOAs dump, and combined they have $1,000 of advertising reach if in-kind contribution is counted. Meanwhile, Gary's Carpets has a $60k advertising budget annually, donates to all five churches, subcontracts influence operations with bot farms, and attends weekly meetings of the grand lupus lodge.
- Barbing 5mo agoGreat, sad-in-its-truths comment. How long will it take the three of them to talk with leadership of those churches? Are they allowed to bring up off topic concerns at PTA meetings where they can tell parents to be aware of the bot farms? Did they already knock on some neighbors’ doors? All of this is really hard and really time-consuming. The alternative is for those three people to start smashing cameras and we know they won’t finish with their freedom. The uphill battle is the one we must fight.
- zug_zug 5mo agoKinda like saying "Throwing the British's tea into Boston harbor will only make us subject to harsher terms." The reality is the vast majority of social progress in the last millenium was achieved with force and threat of force. I find this weird revisionist "violence is never the answer" trope recited as a fact that needs no justification to be incredibly weird and unreliable.
- amazingamazing 5mo agoSo what are you advocating for?
- new_account_100 5mo agoI feel like you're trying to bait people into saying something that violates the site guidelines.
- zug_zug 5mo agoFor throwing the tea into the harbor. By the way -- Where do you stand on throwing tea into the harbor? And where do you stand on the legitimacy of publicly discussing throwing tea into the harbor?
- amazingamazing 5mo ago[flagged]
- pydry 5mo agoIt's not complicated. They are in favor of public vandalism such as that which was committed by the Boston Tea Party whereas you appear to be suggesting that you are vehemently against it.
- mothballed 5mo agoWhat a load of shit. You're essentially goading someone to fedpost and holding their argument hostage if they don't.
- 0n0n0m0uz 5mo agoSimilar but nowhere close to a substitute
- amazingamazing 5mo agoWhy not? They can retroactively be used like flock. Amazon could partner with them tomorrow. The police already can and have asked Amazon to footage and correlated it to find people.
- rolph 5mo agoan irony may come from the increase, of crime rate where these are installed rather than reduction.
- dandellion 5mo agoThat justification is a red herring. The goal is the surveillance, and safety is just an interchangeable excuse. It should be obvious when they'll do things like increasing surveillance to "protect the children" and at the same time avoid other measures that would be far more effective at keeping children safe. The real irony is when it turns out they themselves were the biggest danger for children all along.
- naniwaduni 5mo agoIt matters because while the choice of excuse doesn't really matter to the surveilling end, they still need to make the excuse with the fig leaf of plausibility. The worse their excuses look, the easier it is for you to convince other people who don't already agree with you that you're right and they're wrong.
- pc86 5mo agoThere is both a practical and ideological difference between a private person putting a camera on their private property and agreeing to share that data with law enforcement when requested, and government organizations deploying fleets of cameras and collecting troves of data just in case. The difference is so staggering I have trouble believing anyone who has spent more than about 90 seconds thinking about the issue could believe in good faith that they're in any way comparable. Happy to be proven wrong, though.
- culi 5mo agoIt's not valid "private property" if it's spying on the public. Your right to punch ends where my nose begins. You do not have the right to own and operate something that infringes on my rights.
- GaryBluto 5mo agoIllegally breaking Flock cameras makes you look like a conspiracy nut or radical to the average Joe and make them sceptical of any privacy movements by association.
- Bud 5mo ago[dead]
- new_account_100 5mo agoI would disagree. I feel like typical Americans value freedom and privacy rights very highly.