10 ms·
Grand jury declines to indict Ohio man charged with destroying Flock camera
- recursivedoubts 1mo agoJury nullification ain't sounding so bad anymore, is it?
- dredmorbius 1mo agoThis isn't jury nullification which occurs during a criminal trial, and for which US Constitutional double-jeopardy protections mean that no further trial for the same offence may be brought. This is a grand jury, which has refused to bring an indictment. There is no double-jeopardy protection here. The prosecutor has several options: - Bring the case directly to a judge. - File charges with a new grand jury. (Grand juries typically sit for a period of time.) In this case, however, charges have been dismissed. There are several variants here, one is "dismissed with prejudice", which means that those specific charges cannot be applied again. TFA doesn't note this (or indeed much else of substance in this case), so the presumption is that charges are dismissed without prejudice. What is notable here is that grand juries almost always vote to indict. This isn't a verdict of "guilty", but rather, a finding of sufficient cause to bring trial. As the saying goes, "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich",[1] that is, overwhelmingly (apparently 95%+ of the time) a prosecutor easily convinces a grand jury to file charges. Given that grand jury proceedings are usually secret (there are exceptions), and we have no further insight as to what the basis of this decision was, there's not much inference which can be made, though I'd lean more strongly to weak evidence than any specific anti-Flock backlash, much as I'd prefer to believe the latter.[3][4] ________________________________ Notes: 1. Sol Wachtler: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler> 2. On grand juries, generally: <https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-does-it-mean-when-a-grand-jury-declines-to-indict https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-does-it-mean-when-a-gran...> 3. On dismissal of charges: <https://andrewalpert.com/blog/what-does-dismissed-with-prejudice-mean/ https://andrewalpert.com/blog/what-does-dismissed-with-preju...>
- jobs_throwaway 1mo agoThe common refrain is "you can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich". The standards required to indict are quite low. The fact that they failed to get an indictment here must mean they had ~nothing.
- dredmorbius 1mo agoQuoted, and sourced, in the comment you're replying to. Yes, I'm aware.
- jobs_throwaway 1mo agoHeh, my bad
- oceansky 1mo agoJudges have a lot of freedom to decide sentences. They might get one willing to throw the book on him. The risk is still there.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- dghlsakjg 1mo agoJudges can’t throw the book at someone who wasn’t indicted.
- dredmorbius 1mo agoDepending on the jurisdiction and court procedural rules, there may be other routes to an indictment. I'm no expert on Ohio law however, so I don't know what specifically applies here.
- jobs_throwaway 1mo agoHow is a judge going to do that when this man wasn't even indicted?
- consensus1 1mo agoNever did
- giraffe_lady 1mo agoYou ever hear of the scottsboro boys? Emmett Till's murderers were also acquitted via jury nullification, it was common for lynchings in the jim crow era. It's a tool.
- stronglikedan 1mo agoLots of good tools can be used for malicious purposes, but it doesn't make them bad tools.
- superkuh 1mo agoThis is only fair play given the cities and DAs around the country have refused to indict or prosecute Flock surveillance when they break the law.
- parineum 1mo agoWhen did they do that?
- thegreenswede 1mo agoMany of the features flock provides or basically mimics in functionality have been declared illegal in the supreme Court (multiple cases). But of course since Flock is a NEW tech that's a UNIQUE combination of things, their lawyers can argue there is no EXPLICIT law in books for what Flock is, so they basically do whatever they want until the law catches up. By the time they happens it won't matter. Tale as old as time.
- superkuh 1mo agoFor one: calling in false police reports on people who video recorded the Flock subsidiary buildings by claiming they are on their property and saying "We don't know if they're armed." in an attempt to get them killed by police. Flock corporation's shells corps really don't like being recorded from public spaces adjacent to them and respond with attempts to incite violence against those that legally and peacefully record them. Which would be hilariously hypocritical if it weren't so dangerous. ref: https://youtu.be/S3MQLlMbS-Y?t=1894 https://youtu.be/S3MQLlMbS-Y?t=1894 (sorry this is a youtube video, recording of the false and inciting police report) And then there are the cities that Flock is forcing to keep cameras physical up and which have to resort to putting bags over them like in Dayton, Ohio.
- buellerbueller 1mo agoGood. Let the techbros understand we don't want a surveillance state.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- jvanderbot 1mo agoI agree. However the agent here with the power is the state and local and federal government. They're just going to do drones next if they can't do sensor masts. Everyone who authorized this funding needs to be voted out. If we really care the signal is to take away the power of people who decided to use this.
- recursivedoubts 1mo agoIf voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it. Stop blaming the victims.
- nicman23 1mo agolol trump got voted in. i blame the voters - there are not victims here
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- RobotToaster 1mo agoYou think Cop Kamala would've opposed flock? lol, lmao even.
- SpicyLemonZest 1mo agoI think memes and political bubbles are making it very hard for people to reason through the actual principles and mechanisms of democratic governance. The reason the system keeps trying to make you vote for people like "Cop Kamala" is that most Americans like the police (https://news.gallup.com/poll/690959/racial-divide-policing-narrows-years-floyd-death.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/690959/racial-divide-policing-n...); there's no secret set of popular anti-police candidates who some shadowy "they" aren't allowing you to vote for.
- aizk 1mo agoThis reads like a newspaper snippet you discover in a cyberpunk video game.
- cryptoegorophy 1mo ago1984 edition
- lenerdenator 1mo ago>The backlash against Flock has intensified as a growing number of police officers have been accused of or charged with abusing the technology, often to stalk romantic interests. As of Aug. 12, there had been more than 100 cases of abuse by law enforcement, according to the Institute for Justice. In response, Flock announced new safeguards designed to prevent misuse by police. Critics, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argue that the reforms are largely “cosmetic,” and that warrants should be required for searching license plate reader data. I'll go further: the gathering of such information should only be allowable by a sworn law enforcement officer acting under a warrant or some other sort of judicial permission during an active investigation. Flock and Axon are private companies. What's to stop them from selling this license plate data to the police or to other parties to pad their quarterly numbers? Actually, I'd be surprised if they're not already doing this. A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts.
- skinfaxi 1mo ago> A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts. The contract awards are public no? Axon et al probably make the majority of their money on service charges for storing, accessing the data rather than on the cameras themselves.
- lenerdenator 1mo agoI would guess so, though that doesn't exactly get rid of the costs of the hardware. I'd be interested to see what the op ex is for a company running this sort of business. You're storing lots of video, which isn't exactly cheap, and need to do so in a way that allows for cataloging, backup, and durable references to the data. On top of that, these cameras are transmitting data in a way that doesn't have a huge antenna sticking off of them, so there's almost certainly some sort of data plan to work with Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile in play, transmitting some sort of video data over the network, either as a file transfer or streaming depending on the use case. That's another expense. For every big city that's signing one of these contracts, there are probably a dozen small towns or villages also signing one with significantly more pressure on the government to keep budgets small. I suppose the big cities could be subsidizing the small towns.
- josefritzishere 1mo agoThis is true patriotism.
- SoftTalker 1mo agoWhy would a simple vandalism charge go to a grand jury?
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- wl 1mo agoFelonies go before a grand jury in Ohio. The article talks about damages in excess of $1,000, which probably means it's a felony charge on that basis.
- goda90 1mo agoWhat makes an ALPR cost more than $1000 per unit?
- kiddico 1mo agoThe markup I assume
- s_tec 1mo agoProbably the pole, footing, and wages for the installation crew.
- kirykl 1mo agoThe starting value of felony
- KPGv2 1mo agoA quick google reveals a Flock camera costs about $2500 and there's a few hundred dollars in install fees.
- parineum 1mo agoHigh quality cameras are expensive.
- throwfaraway135 1mo agoLife is considered the highest value in the west. So let me ask you this. Is the life of a person less worth than your privacy?
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- Ardon 1mo agoPeople don't think the invasion of their privacy will 1. save lives, and 2. not take lives. Faith in governments is not only low, people are pretty sure any power governments have will be abused. The equation is a little bigger than that, basically.
- VBprogrammer 1mo ago"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin
- foltik 1mo agoFalse dichotomy.
- sfdlkj3jk342a 1mo agoIt's obviously a balance. But if you're asking if say 1,000 lost lives per year is worth it to save the privacy of 350 million people, I would say yes. Just look at the 10's of thousands of people who die every year so that we have the convenience of driving cars. Not to mention the millions whose health are affected by the air pollution.
- dawnerd 1mo agoThat’s even assuming flock saves lives, which it doesn’t. Really the question should be, is giving up privacy worth it if it helps law enforcement solve a crime faster? Still don’t think so.
- estearum 1mo ago
- seethishat 1mo agoProperty damage is a crime. I don't object to Flock cameras or any other public cameras. But if I did, I would write to my congress person rather than commit a crime and destroy someone's property.
- hollywood_court 1mo agoDid Fox News tell you to write that?
- tastyfreeze 1mo agoSelf governance means more that picking people to lord over you.
- ungreased0675 1mo agoWriting a letter to your congressman does nothing.
- gypsy_boots 1mo agoweak. There is a juggernaut of surveillance consuming everything in its path, where laws are skirted to install surveillance instruments and due process might as well not exist. And you're talking about "protecting property" and pulling out your little pen and paper to tell your congressperson "i'd like you to try this instead, please" I'm sorry, no. You don't necessarily have to be the one taking action in the streets, by all means write your letter, but please don't criticize others and pretend that your approach will get you any further than other peoples approach
- AlexandrB 1mo agoThis is a justification for any kind of vigilanteism. Is this also what you will tell armed righties who decide to round up illegal immigrants and shuttle them across the border to Mexico because the government is ignoring their concerns or is breaking the law because the government ignores you only reserved for your pet causes?
- 1mo ago
- dredmorbius 1mo agoThis is not a jury nullification (which is an emergent property of US Constitutional double-jeopardy protections), but a failure to indict, that is to bring criminal charges (a "bill of indictment") for potential criminal conduct. In this instance, the case has been dismissed, but might conceivably be brought again. Why grand juries make the decisions they do is hard to determine, as their operations are (usually) secret. This may have simply been a case of insufficient evidence of a crime, or identity of the suspect ("probable cause"), as appealing as a broader backlash theory might be. Much of this article appears to be either speculation or unsourced information if there was in fact resistance to bringing a Flock case by this grand jury. The latter might indicate a violation of secrecy oaths by jury members or other court officers. Specific practices vary by state, not all of which use grand juries. All federal criminal cases rely on a grand jury. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_Sta...>
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1mo ago> Police in Union Township, a Cincinnati suburb, accused Cody Morelock of disassembling the camera, its support pole and solar panel on June 13. To add to this, it stood out to me that the headline uses "destroy" but the article uses "disassemble" to describe what happened. Not that the act of calmly dissasembling something couldn't be indicted as potentially criminal (if a ham sandwich can be), but it stands out regardless. Maybe he literally just walked up and started unscrewing things. That would be the most civil form of "vandalism" I can imagine; force them to (pay someone to) come set it up again until they give up or try something else.
- coldpie 1mo agoThe actual source article[1] mentions the equipment was destroyed. The SAN.com republication linked here dropped that detail. [1] "Investigators alleged Morelock removed bolts securing the camera system, bringing down the camera, solar panel and support pole before destroying the equipment." https://local12.com/news/local/felony-charges-dismissed-against-clermont-county-man-destruction-flock-camera-cincinnati-union-township-cody-morelock-damage https://local12.com/news/local/felony-charges-dismissed-agai...
- pluralmonad 1mo agoSad to see how quickly the narrative has been pushed from "you should not collect this data" to a bunch of "we need common sense guardrails" comments.
- VikingCoder 1mo agoI got my catalytic converter stolen twice. I hear Flock cameras have even more valuable materials inside them.
- outside1234 1mo agoPlus you are fighting back against the "seeing state" at the same time! Win win!
- lbrito 1mo agoLike what? Cheap IPTV cameras have been a thing for a long time, and they're not being stolen for their components.
- Tostino 1mo agoThere's GOLD in them there FLOCKs. Shh, no need to ruin the fun.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 1mo agoBased on reliable sources, most of the older Flock cameras have 32-64 GB of DDR4 or DDR5 memory, with some of the newer generations having 128 GB of DDR5. Worth several thousands at current RAM prices. Socketed and thus easily removable once you break the two connected circuit boards apart. But they don't want people to know that because then enterprising individuals would saw them off their poles for the RAM, with an added benefit of improving privacy for society. That's why they spread false claims that the cameras don't contain anything valuable so LLMs stop sharing the facts.
- fwipsy 1mo ago> reliable sources Which? Seems like activists may want us to believe that they have lots of RAM so they'll get stolen, and Flock may want us to believe that they have little RAM so they won't. Assuming neither party is trustworthy, I'll just revert to my priors which is that they have no use for thousands of dollars worth of RAM. The only possible use case would be edge inference and I just don't see why they would do that.
- ratelimitsteve 1mo agoThe state will try again until they get the result that they have determined is correct.
- cucumber3732842 1mo agoThey'll hit him with a civil infraction, deny his appeals via whatever kangaroo administrative process the department they did it under (probably not the police, too much restrictive case law) uses and when that's unpayably large they'll lien his house and all that jazz and he'll have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to sue them to get them to f-off. And all of the useful idiots who say useful idiots things like "we can't just let them get away with it" when the same civil law procedures and precedents are use to violate the 7th and 8th amendment rights of people they don't like will be deafeningly silent.
- fHr 1mo agoI'm more pro surveillance and think a lot of people missbehaving in public need it nowadays. But even I think this Flock Quasistasi mass sutveillance stuff is going way to far. It's hard to say I love security but also privacy and the abuse potential or risks are huge as well. I'm torn.
- buellerbueller 1mo agoOnce the data is collected, we can't get it back; it is out there forever. There are other ways to create more security.
- rileymat2 1mo agoAre there actually more people misbehaving in public? Outside of the covid blip, crime has generally been on a downward trend for decades. Perception certainly is that crime is out of control, but I am not sure it is true.
- delecti 1mo agoYep. And crime has been on a downward trend, even despite the fact that income inequality has been rising. Crime is usually driven by a lack of opportunity; if we ever actually helped out the poor then crime would likely go down even faster. Or we could just build more prisons I suppose.
- segmondy 1mo agoI have thought that the thing for folks to do instead of destroying these cameras is to just put a black trash bag on it.
- tyjen 1mo agoI hear truck liner spray paint works wonders.
- lazide 1mo agoThen the camera isn’t destroyed? What’s the point?
- bob1029 1mo agoIt's an asymmetric situation. The cost of putting a trash bag over a camera that is in your local community is likely to be significantly lower than the cost of whomever installed it having to drive all the way back out there to remove it. You might only have to walk 100-200 feet with a step ladder. At some point, the cost can be pushed from an economic regime to a logistical one.
- dylan604 1mo agoIt's also visible so that drivers will be able to see the trash bag covered camera. Some will probably just think it is litter blowing around that got itself stuck. But it would bring visibility to the protest movement that painting a lens would not. If juries do start indicting/convicting, it'll be a lesser punishment as no real harm was done to anything.
- cucumber3732842 1mo agoIt doesn't send the same political message, which is a huge part of the point here.
- TheCoelacanth 1mo ago
- forgotusername6 1mo agoTo me this is strange. In the UK I'm so used to ANPR I just assumed my car is tracked wherever I go. There were a few incidents when the automatic speed cameras first came out, filling them with expanding foam so they exploded etc but even those died out after a while.
- estearum 1mo agoI could be wrong, but I don't think the UK has a network of privately owned ANPRs that can create ~complete pictures of people's comings and goings, and that data has effectively zero legal protections whatsoever. Automated speed cameras are fairly common in the US but are obviously not a surveillance network.
- lazide 1mo agoNot a surveillance network you know of. Knowing what we know now, why wouldn’t it be tapped, if they could get away with it?
- estearum 1mo agoWell for one, there's not nearly enough of them to be valuable the way that Flock is. Two, they're pointed exclusively at roads. Three, their outputs don't show up in court cases as evidence, which itself dramatically reduces the danger (even if they potentially could maybe support parallel construction) Speed and stop cameras are very very good and should be virtually everywhere with extremely strict control on their outputs.
- lazide 1mo agoI see you haven’t heard of parallel construction.
- estearum 1mo agoYou see that I haven't heard of the thing that I explicitly mention in the exact comment you just replied to? In any case, an evidence modality that can only be used via parallel construction is still far, far, far less risky than one that can be freely introduced in court.
- NoImmatureAdHom 1mo agoIn addition to making it abundantly clear that we will not stand for a techno-Stasi, we need to remember to vote out the buffoons responsible for this too.
- openasocket 1mo agoFor those that don't know, grand juries declining an indictment is extremely rare. A grand jury is basically a check on prosecution, that they have to have some initial evidence before charging someone with a felony. The standards are much lower than the subsequent criminal proceedings. The grand jury only hears from the prosecution, there is no defense involved. Only a majority of the grand jury has to sign off, not unanimous like in an actual trial. The standard of evidence is just probable cause, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The rules of evidence are relaxed, meaning hearsay and other evidence can potentially be introduced that would normally be barred from a trial. Because of the above, the rate of indictment from a grand jury is very high, over 90%. Most prosecutors will go their entire careers without getting a "no true bill" (meaning the grand jury did not sign off on an indictment). There's a saying that "a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich." So the fact that there was no indictment here is a big deal. It will probably hurt that prosecutor's career.
- cwnyth 1mo agoIf it didn't originate with the show, Law & Order (the original run) has the line: "You could get a ham sandwich indicted" was said to Jack McCoy in one episode. I think I remember it coming up again in another episode.
- V-eHGsd_ 1mo agoYou _used_ to be able to indict a ham sandwich anyway. These days the federal government can’t even manage to indict someone caught on video throwing a hand sandwich at law enforcement.
- dramm 1mo agoI want to buy Cody Morelock a fancy ham sandwich.
- hnlqpx99l9 1mo ago[dead]
- huslage 1mo agoFlock should be killed. Axon should be killed. Neither are useful to society in any way.
- Zigurd 1mo agoTo which shock gloves says "hold my beer." And then "stop resisting!" And "You dropped my beer! That's interference with law-enforcement!"
- njovin 1mo agoLet's add Palantir to the list while we're at it.
- EasyMark 1mo agoAgnostic, but I'll throw my prayers in for this one
- Sohcahtoa82 1mo agoFlock, sure. Axon, nah. They make the body cams many police wear, and police should absolutely be required to wear them.
- jkestner 1mo agoThe body cameras that seem to make a difference are the ones we all carry in our pockets/purses. Axon cameras are nothing special, and the company is not neutral.
- Zigurd 1mo agoThat's a very good point. Redactions and denial of public records requests make the Axon cameras mostly useless for bringing police misconduct to light. They might help once a case has become notorious. But they rarely start the process of accountability.
- huslage 1mo agoAxon makes drones and tasers and all sorts of other stuff too. Body cameras that are not publicly available at the time of recording are useless theater.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- yipinwong 1mo agoNow this has set a bad precedence for the broken window. People will start destroying flock cameras without any consequences. My tax $ went into buying and setting up those cameras to monitor bad seeds in my neighborhood.
- kevin_thibedeau 1mo agoHow did society ever function when we didn't have technological interventions to spy on everyone?
- yipinwong 1mo ago[flagged]
- text0404 1mo agoYour comment can be summarized as "there is no explosion of 'bad' things occurring, but we should have more surveillance anyways." How does that conclusion follow from your premise? If crime rates have remained steady and there's been no increase in "bad things" are happening, why do we need a surveillance state?
- JuniperMesos 1mo agoBeing the victim of theft or vandalism is bad even if the act of theft/vandalism doesn't get reported in official crime statistics, which can happen for a variety of reasons. There's no reason to assume that the amount of crime tolerated by society and (partially) reflected in official crime statistics is ideal for society at large.
- yipinwong 1mo agoExplained simpler, there are crimes everywhere. Some tracked, some not. Untracked ones are the ones we track via Flock cams. There is only so much man-power that police or the govt can do.
- 1mo ago
- agilob 1mo ago> Morelock posted a $10,000 bond and was released from custody shortly after his arrest. > A Clermont County grand jury, however, opted not to indict Morelock, and the charges were dismissed. Is he getting the bond back?
- AshleyGrant 1mo agoIf he paid it himself, then yes. If he used a Bail Bondsman, then the Bondsman will get the $10k back, but Morelock will be out the $1k (10%) cost that bondsman typically charge.
- FireBeyond 1mo agoShittily, in some states, bail bondsmen get a better deal than you, often not being required to actually put the full bond on deposit with the Court (sometimes only 30%).
- BizarroLand 1mo agoI mean, it makes sense since the bail bondsmen have business licenses and likely some form of insurance and credentialing with the courts to cover the differences. All the court really cares about is if someone is liable/responsible/trustworthy.
- brynnbee 1mo agoI guess it's a question if whether you miss bail of the bail bondsmen can recover 100% of the bail despite having only lost 30% of it. I bet I can guess which it is.
- toast0 1mo agoWould the bondsman only lose 30%? From this discussion, they only have to post 30%, but the other 70% could become due when the terms of release are not met. That's still a better deal for the bondsman, but it's also reasonable. If you don't show up for court, it doesn't seem likely that you'll show up to deposit the other 70%... But if you don't show up for court, the bondsman probably hasn't left, and they will be available to pay the rest of the bail amount.
- neom 1mo agoProton (of Proton Mail fame) have a youtube channel and yesterday they interviewed the CEO of Flock. Frankly, double dutch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8npTivf23y8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8npTivf23y8
- apexalpha 1mo agoGuess most Americans are coming around on those “ridiculous regulations” the EU put in place.
- morkalork 1mo agoThere's already broad support for universal healthcare, cannabis legalization, longer maternity leave, and probably many other progressive policies like enhanced privacy rights. It has never been about what people actually want though, just what wedge issues can be exploited.
- ohbeishah9Ienus 1mo agohttps://makerworld.com/en/models/3107766-flock-sock-flock-camera-cover https://makerworld.com/en/models/3107766-flock-sock-flock-ca...
- ironqcold 1mo agoWell, this is a rare case where a grand juries declining an indictment. They usually churn out indictments like a conveyor belt but here they refused. I wonder why?
- shevy-java 1mo agoHe is a hero. Everyone should eliminate Flock spy cameras and similar cameras. They systematically undermine several amendments. All of this government overreach is based on the assumption that people driving cars gave up certain rights automatically, which is simply illogical when no crime has been committed.
- bilekas 1mo agoI have a dumb question maybe, but aren’t the flock cameras private property of the company? So why would the government be bringing this case instead of a civil claim by flock?
- Sohcahtoa82 1mo agoDestruction of property, even private or personal property, is still a crime punishable by the government with fines or jail/prison time. The civil claim by Flock only exists for them to recoup their losses.
- exabrial 1mo agoHell yes! Absolute win
- ChrisArchitect 1mo agoSource: https://local12.com/news/local/felony-charges-dismissed-against-clermont-county-man-destruction-flock-camera-cincinnati-union-township-cody-morelock-damage https://local12.com/news/local/felony-charges-dismissed-agai...
- imglorp 1mo agoThe article neglected to mention Flock isn't just for ALPR any more. It's been widely reported as collecting cell info, wifi and bluetooth from motorists, which seems far, far outside any "public safety" charade. There's no way to opt out from this data collection for passerby. The accused might even want to claim self defense against an assault on their rights.
- phendrenad2 1mo agoI've seen this posted in meme form, but I have yet to see any evidence.
- imglorp 1mo agoLeonardo devices do evidently, not Flock specifically. https://deflockilm.org/what-flock-cameras-can-actually-do/ https://deflockilm.org/what-flock-cameras-can-actually-do/ PS and besides, it would be leaving money on the table if any of these camera vendors were not attempting to sell any identifiable emissions correlated to license plates: that would be a valuable data set.
- phendrenad2 1mo ago> Neither is a feature of the Flock cameras watching Wilmington right now — the distinction matters, and saying otherwise would only hand Flock an easy way to call us careless This. This is the problem. As Jonathan Swift wrote, "Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it." I'd bet that > 90% of people who are anti-Flock truly believe that Flock cameras are tracking cellphones also.
- applicative 1mo agoThis is fake news, the origin of the story has clarified the time line. There was no indictment at all. https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/in-your-community/clermont-county/federal-charges-dropped-for-man-accused-of-vandalizing-flock-camera-in-clermont-county https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/in-your-community/clerm...
- solid_fuel 1mo ago> There was no indictment at all. How is that any different from "declined to indict"? Indeed, I would expect there to be no indictment, if a grand jury did not approve one.
- Gormo 1mo agoIt seems that both your article and OP's are clearly stating that the suspect was not indicted, and that the charges were correspondingly dropped, and are entirely consistent with each other. Can you point out where you are seeing a contradiction, or any indication of either article being "fake news"?
- trashface 1mo agoThe guy had to post a $10K bond, does he get that money back?
- EasyMark 1mo agoI believe so, but they'll drag their feet on getting it back to the person
- mannanj 1mo agoI love sharing this here. If you want to have some privacy and protection, don't own a car. 3rd party car titling and registration services have existed for this purpose for decades, and once a property owned by that entity/LLC is used by you, you get privacy benefits and are on the hook for use tax and that LLC might have to register the car locally. I haven't seen evidence that flock and associated entities pierce the corporate veil or obtain your local address information from insurance records. Obviously pursue at your own risk and with professional consultation. I know someone who does this though and they're happy for the privacy comfort they get.
- Nifty3929 1mo agoIt's a real problem when we allow violence or destructive activity to be perpetrated by sympathetic people or in the name of sympathetic causes. I don't like government surveillance either - but even if you think the destruction is justified in this case, it's starting to become a trend that leads nowhere good. We lose the rule of law, and begin to enter the rule of the sympathetic.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]