4 ms·
Its a good example of those who say "surveillance systems can and will be used inappropriately" - a jilted lover cop with access is exactly the kind of irration
by newsomix9xl 2mo ago
Its a good example of those who say "surveillance systems can and will be used inappropriately" - a jilted lover cop with access is exactly the kind of irrational person who could do so.
A person with a Ford can do all the things car owners can do. But very few people are trusted with access to ALPR cameras.
So: I disagree.
I have no qualms with New Bedford and I'm sure it has lots of, or even mostly, upright police officers who follow the law.
- pudgywalsh 2mo agoThe world is full of and depends on trusted people. You're attacking technology and tools rather than a person that abused their trust to the community. New Bedford being a dump is a non-sequitur; it has as much connection and relevance to the incident as does Flock.
- newsomix9xl 2mo agoI am not attacking tools or people. This article and my statements aren't attacks. The article is an (alleged) fact, and mine are opinions. I didn't bring up New Bedford. I agree trust is good. I also believe Flock has implemented some auditing tool to flag frivolous searches which is why these cases are popping up. I am not against trust, but verifying those who we trust are trustworthy is important, I think.
- pudgywalsh 2mo agoI'm using it as a literary device and I think you're reading my post too literally. If we assume surveillance tools will be use inappropriately, that alone is not justification to do away with it. As with nearly all tools comes great responsibility. The same argument can be made for police carrying weapons. Some places like the UK deny the police weapons but have surveillance up the ass.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- My_Name 2mo agoWidespread indiscriminate surveillance tools are inappropriate whether they are misused by users or not. Some places like America give every cop a gun but fight against widespread surveillance. The police should not have either.