3 ms·

These cameras aren't just invasive, they are expensive. Cities are paying a pretty penny to access a few web cams. Last I looked it up, $2500 per year per cam

• dagurp 3mo ago
  They are also installed improperly https://www.wate.com/news/tennessee/flock-cameras-tennessee-safety-audit/ https://www.wate.com/news/tennessee/flock-cameras-tennessee-...
• hamandcheese 3mo ago
  That doesn't sound expensive to me. Not compared to, say, a $1.7M public toilet[0]. To be clear, I do not support Flock cameras. [0]: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/san-francisco-noe-valley-expensive-toilet/3511302/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/san-fran...
  • RickJWagner 3mo ago
    [flagged]
  • culi 3mo ago
    > $300,000 for architecture, engineering, and environmental reviews, plus $150,000 for construction management. Multiple rounds of public feedback, commission reviews, and administrative paperwork required extensive paid city staff time. WTF this is it! This is the solution. Every single Flock camera should be required to have an environmental review and multiple rounds of public feedback!
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]