4 ms·
Hm, two questions: - Who is paying for surveillance? - To whose benefit is it used?
by nullorempty 2mo ago
Hm, two questions:
- Who is paying for surveillance?
- To whose benefit is it used?
- bigbuppo 2mo agoPolice departments until the constitutional aspects are settled, then they'll be cut down en masse.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2mo agoIf the constitutional aspects are settled in favor of people, but current SCOTUS suggests this be unlikely. But.. even it were, then police departments would just buy the data second hand instead via direct contracts.
- bigbuppo 2mo agoFlock has already made their billions. They'll pivot to something else, probably budget gunshot tracking cameras that also accidentally eavesdrops on all conversations near by and sends it to the cloud for analysis.
- joering2 2mo ago> but current SCOTUS suggests this be unlikely Are you referring to "temporary inconvenience" or some other decision I'm not aware of? The phrase "temporary inconvenience" refers to a statement by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his September 2025 concurrence in [Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo]. Defending an order allowing immigration enforcement stops based partly on apparent ethnicity or workplace, Kavanaugh wrote that questioning of legal residents or U.S. citizens would be "typically brief" and a minor inconvenience.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2mo agoI'm referring to the pattern of SCOTUS making up whatever justification they want to achieve the result they want. That and the pattern of being pro-corporation.
- downrightmike 2mo agowell, tax payers. Cops wanted millions extra to hire more cops, and they blow it on start ups instead.
- bigbuppo 2mo agoYou're not wrong. But they' also got the extra officers, too.
- ihsw 2mo ago[dead]