5 ms·
A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the publi
by lokar 2mo ago
A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the public just barely trusts the local police, and a new surveillance system pushes them over the edge into hostility. They need to be working to gain much more trust.
- estearum 2mo agoPolice are bounded by evidentiary laws and warrant requirements, all of which legitimately do stand up in court. Flock is not. So no, actually Flock itself is the problem. If Flock were willing to sign some consent decree that its data can only be accessed by police with a valid judicial warrant, for example, they probably could've headed off this entire mess. But instead they called people "terroristic" for pushing back. Completely braindead move from the CEO.
- lokar 2mo agoI’m not sure people think that way, or even understand the details. But they see lots of stories about police officers misusing the system.
- estearum 2mo agoI think people understand "rich tech CEO putting cameras everywhere offers no assurances of people's privacy and legal rights, instead opts to call them terrorists" perfectly well The fundamental issue is that Flock doesn't care about people's privacy or rights. That washes out in a variety of ways including CEOs' statements, product-level security controls (thus creating the horror stories), and lack of legal commitments to protections. I would personally be in favor of a fairly widespread camera network that had significant legal protections built in. Flock has demonstrated – in every possible way – they cannot possibly be the providers of such a system.
- matherial 2mo agoThe police have SWAT teams, guns, and jails, Flock does not. So I think the state security apparatus is a part of the problem, because if they don't like you and have access to surveillance technology, the outcomes can be far more severe than if Facebook doesn't like you, or the CEO of Flock doesn't like you.
- estearum 2mo agoPeople, broadly speaking, are totally fine with police having guns and jails. Flock in absence of police is not that bad except for the whole "now we have no police" problem. Having police in the absence of Flock is totally fine, we've done it since forever.
- treis 2mo agoI don't know. Since the advent of cameras we've caught a lot of cops beating the hell out of citizens. It probably happened a lot more before cameras. And then you'd catch a charge for resisting instead of the payout today.
- estearum 2mo agoLet's play this out: Cops don't exist. On video, you catch a person beating the hell out of a citizen. ... ... ... Welp, sucks to get the shit beaten out of you, better luck next time.
- treis 2mo agoI don't understand your point
- estearum 2mo agoYou responded "I don't know, sometimes cameras catch cops beating people up" to the statement: "It is better to have cops than cameras." If you have no cops, the cameras don't mean anything. It is now de facto legal for big people to beat up smaller people. Your cameras mean nothing. You can now film yourself getting beaten up every single day forever, and congrats, there's nothing to be done about it because there's no apparatus of the state to physically protect you.
- outside1234 2mo agoOh no, we distrust both.
- matherial 2mo agoWinona, MN has a population of 20k. I've never been there, but if it's like any of the small towns I lived in, most people trust the local police. If anything, the usual small-town complaint is that the police are not doing enough about <x>, where <x> are the homeless dudes in front of the library, or package theft, or whatever. In small towns, people distrust the federal government and big tech a lot more.
- jkestner 2mo agoThe wonderful thing about Flock is that you also get to be watched over by all the outside police you don't trust.
- cucumber3732842 2mo agoExactly. People don't trust the government the police serve. The whole "state/feds decree stuff that's bad for you but your city/town enforces it on you anyway because they'll lose grant bucks if they don't" regulatory paradigm has a lot to do with this because it's why so much of the government's interaction with everyone and everything is so net negative. Edit: For example stuff like passing police harassing someone for smoking alone in a park because the grantbucks are dependent on it being smoke free happens because of all this.
- pj_mukh 2mo agoBut also, I dont understand all this hand-wringing. EFF has a clear easy solution [1]: Put all the data behind a Warrant. Problem solved. No trust required. Wanna look up where a murderer drove? Go get a warrant Wanna look up where a robbery suspect drove to? Go get a Warrant. Divorce case hinging on one party's whereabouts on a certain date? Warrant. Speeding tickets are automatically filed anyways. [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/08/too-little-too-late-flock-admits-their-technology-needs-reforms https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/08/too-little-too-late-fl...
- colechristensen 2mo agoThe EFF is wrong. The clear solution is NOT COLLECTING THE DATA. There is no reason or justification for us to live in a surveillance state, "protecting" the data with a warrant doesn't cut it. Cutting down and destroying mass surveillance equipment is a patriotic action and should be applauded.
- redwall_hp 2mo agoIt should be a criminal act to attempt to build a mass surveillance apparatus, whether it's for law enforcement or private use.
- bdamm 2mo agoWould Ring be considered a mass surveillance apparatus? Accuweather? Facebook? Google? The Internet?
- eks391 2mo agoSo long as it is configured to be a mass surveillance apparatus, then yes. It is possible to have lots of data without organizing it in a way to enable mass surveillance. Google, Facebook, and recently Ring, are excellent examples. I don't know what AccuWeather is to comment on it, but I would say your ISP (what I'm assuming is what you mean when you say "the internet" since "the internet" is not any single entity) is likely not a mass surveillance apparatus, since with the implementation of https, the spying they can do is superficial at best
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoThey’re oblivious to this fact because it’s not true. Most people by a substantial margin trust their local police.
- everdrive 2mo ago>They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock I really distrust flock in and of itself.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- ofjcihen 2mo agoThese can be separate and both true.