4 ms·
1. those charges were dismissed 2. the article address that specifically: > The case is an example of Flock cameras being used to arrest a wanted alleged crim
by hwillis 2mo ago
1. those charges were dismissed
2. the article address that specifically:
> The case is an example of Flock cameras being used to arrest a wanted alleged criminal suspected of committing a violent crime. But it is also an example of police surveillance overreach *in that the cameras were specifically used to create a pretext to tack on additional petty crimes* based primarily on where a person’s vehicle had traveled.
- bko 2mo agoI think using technology to capture alleged criminals is a good thing.
- nemomarx 2mo agodoes this work for any allegation? if it was a serious one surely they could get a warrant. if it's not enough for that it might as well be gossip imo.
- FireBeyond 2mo agoAccording to Flock's CEO, yes. He has stated he sees a false positive as a better outcome than a false negative.
- bko 2mo agoFlock provides technology. They don't set the laws. It's like complaining about the CEO of Ford bc a police Ford vehicle damaged some property
- antonvs 2mo agoFlock provides tools and information that influence and encourage bad behavior from police. Yes, we need laws to help stop this. Ideally, those laws should entirely destroy Flock's business model and lead to its bankruptcy. The issue is not whether cameras are useful for law enforcement. The issue is how that camera information is managed and overseen. What Flock is doing would fit right in in a cartoon authoritarian state, but it doesn't belong in the real world.
- FireBeyond 2mo agoSure. I actually worked for Flock. I watched them happily train officers from Agencies on doing things they were not allowed to do by law, that Flock knew they weren't. That "Chinese wall" of separation is nowhere near as concrete as you like to act. Flock might not set the laws, but when the Flock CEO says he would prefer you to be collateral damage on his company's mission for "a world without crime, thanks to Flock" than dare risk someone not get caught for a crime or alleged crime, via Flock, then sorry, they absolutely are participating in things, and complaints against them are entirely appropriately targeted.
- inigyou 2mo agoI agree. You stole $5 from me and I'm glad with the help of Flock you can be tracked down and brought to justice.
- baobabKoodaa 2mo agoI can confirm. I saw him take the $5.
- bko 2mo ago[flagged]
- ycombinatrix 2mo agoNo, I saw you take the $5. Good luck convincing the police you didn't.
- goda90 2mo agoThe Party was great at using Viewscreen technology to catch thought criminals.
- preg_match 2mo agoI think everyone agrees. Where the disagreement lies is if this is how the technology is actually used, and the answer seems to be: no. Regardless, even if the technology was used currently purely for good, when you’re “pro surveillance” you’re actually arguing it will always be used for good, even in some hypothetical future with hypothetical politics. That’s a very hard sell.
- bko 2mo agoI'm pro technology. Being pro something does not mean I'm arguing it will always be used for good. What kind of standard is that?
- preg_match 2mo agoI'm pro technology too, but being pro surveillance is orthogonal to being pro technology. Surveillance is an application of technology, not technology itself. It's the difference between being pro-science and being pro-dropping-the-atomic-bomb. The atomic bomb suffers the same problem, too. It only works if used for "good", which... I mean, let's be real. People don't appreciate the actual argument against surveillance. It's not that it's bad, or evil. It's that it's fundamentally infrastructure which will be used against innocent people. We have seen surveillance employed to the maximum degree in every totalitarian society which has ever existed. If we're going based purely off the track record, it doesn't look good. Ultimately it's all risk analysis. Is preventing, like, a car theft or something worth the risk of Nazi Germany x10? Probably not I'd say. And you might say, well, that's hyperbolic. But given a long enough timescale, I don't think it is. I mean, imagine how many more Jews could have been killed had Hitler had access to Flock. And yes, Hitler was an anomaly. But anomalies happen if you wait long enough. We'd have to be foolish to think there won't be a second Hitler. Not that we even need one - we're already seeing citizens crushed under the surveillance apparatus in the US. Today. Right now. With our "just a little bit" authoritarian government.