9 ms·
It's one thing if a democratically legitimized government entity is in control, like with ULEZ. It's another thing entirely if a private oligarch owns the came
by vrganj 3mo ago
It's one thing if a democratically legitimized government entity is in control, like with ULEZ.
It's another thing entirely if a private oligarch owns the cameras.
Flock and ULEZ are not the same.
- Symbiote 3mo agoAlso ULEZ is working, with reduced hospital admissions, reduced pollution levels, and no decrease in economic activity. https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/london-wide-ultra-low-emission-zone-one-year-report https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-...
- arjie 3mo agoULEZ cameras are also run by private contractors: Capita and Yunex. Is the entire objection centered around the distinction between owning vs. operating? i.e. if each city owned their network and used it (as ULEZ cameras are - in addition to their primary reason) for policing and used contractors to operate it then the objections would disappear? I see, I didn't realize this was a question of structuring of the purchase orders.