3 ms·

I have to say, I wish we lived in a society where tools like Flock were not problematic, due to abuse and other factors. However, if we lived in such a society

I have to say, I wish we lived in a society where tools like Flock were not problematic, due to abuse and other factors. However, if we lived in such a society, we wouldn't want tools like Flock to begin with. edit: to be clear, we are far too corrupt a society to have things like Flock. The point of my comment was this irony.

hightrix 1mo ago
We do not need Flock in this current iteration of society. In utopia, we would also not need Flock. Privacy should be a human right.
- consumer451 1mo ago
  Agreed. I now realize that my initial comment did not make my position clear.
- Gigachad 1mo ago
  We don’t _need_ many things. But there are real problems that it solves and solves better than anything else. I feel like the best solution is very tightly regulating and auditing this technology so it can only be used to benefit society.
  - consumer451 1mo ago
    We are so far away from that even being a possibility. We live in a world that is most corrupt and above the law, at the very top. Why would anyone trust that world? Trust is required for this technology to be willingly adopted.
  - queenkjuul 1mo ago
    > We don’t _need_ many things. But there are real problems that it solves and solves better than anything else. I really don't believe this, nor do i believe any amount of regulation will actually prevent dipshit US cops from abusing it
  - georgemcbay 1mo ago
    > But there are real problems that it solves and solves better than anything else. Like when a cop wants to stalk his ex-girlfriend, or ex-wife. Who else is gonna solve this problem if not flock?
    - Gigachad 1mo ago
      That’s what the auditing needs to cover. Every search should be tied to a case number and the police putting in fake numbers to stalk people need to be dealt with.
  - hightrix 1mo ago
    > But there are real problems that it solves and solves better than anything else. I disagree. What problems does it solve better than anything else? Any examples? The best solution is to NOT LIVE IN A SURVEILLANCE STATE.
frogperson 1mo ago
i have a RIGHT to privacy, and so does everyone on American soil. end of argument.
- 15155 1mo ago
  In public? I have an (actually-enumerated) First Amendment right to record you. End of argument.
  - joquarky 1mo ago
    Amendments don't protect you from physical harm by other citizens.
    - 15155 1mo ago
      No, but my concealed pistol (that pesky second amendment) indeed does. "If you exercise your rights, you will be hurt" - what a world to live in.
      - DangitBobby 1mo ago
        Depends on where you are. Defending against getting punched in the face by shooting them will get you thrown in prison a good portion of the time. Sometimes being a piece of shit should result in an ass whupping.
        15155 1mo ago
        > Depends on where you are. Defending against getting punched in the face by shooting them will get you thrown in prison a good portion of the time. Maybe in liberal California (where your 80 year old grandmother has a duty to retreat), thankfully not in my state. A punch to the face can be fatal, and you don't have to take one. Also, what an idiotic idea that one must assume that a "punch to the face" is all that is going to follow - and not a knife, head smashing on the ground, etc. This is frankly disgusting. > Sometimes being a piece of shit should result in an ass whupping. Got it, sometimes lawfully exercising your rights should mean you befall violence: I am glad I don't live in whatever shithole area you reside in. Perhaps we should extend this ideology to voting for the wrong candidate? - If you don't vote for who I want, it should result in an "ass whupping." Maybe your property: if you don't give me the contents of your wallet, it should result in an "ass whupping." This is bully mentality, and isn't tolerated in polite society. Would a cop in your state tolerate a punch to the face? How would you expect him to respond?

hightrix 1mo ago

We do not need Flock in this current iteration of society. In utopia, we would also not need Flock. Privacy should be a human right.

consumer451 1mo ago
Agreed. I now realize that my initial comment did not make my position clear.
Gigachad 1mo ago
We don’t _need_ many things. But there are real problems that it solves and solves better than anything else. I feel like the best solution is very tightly regulating and auditing this technology so it can only be used to benefit society.
- consumer451 1mo ago
  We are so far away from that even being a possibility. We live in a world that is most corrupt and above the law, at the very top. Why would anyone trust that world? Trust is required for this technology to be willingly adopted.
- queenkjuul 1mo ago
  > We don’t _need_ many things. But there are real problems that it solves and solves better than anything else. I really don't believe this, nor do i believe any amount of regulation will actually prevent dipshit US cops from abusing it
- georgemcbay 1mo ago
  > But there are real problems that it solves and solves better than anything else. Like when a cop wants to stalk his ex-girlfriend, or ex-wife. Who else is gonna solve this problem if not flock?
  - Gigachad 1mo ago
    That’s what the auditing needs to cover. Every search should be tied to a case number and the police putting in fake numbers to stalk people need to be dealt with.
- hightrix 1mo ago
  > But there are real problems that it solves and solves better than anything else. I disagree. What problems does it solve better than anything else? Any examples? The best solution is to NOT LIVE IN A SURVEILLANCE STATE.

frogperson 1mo ago

i have a RIGHT to privacy, and so does everyone on American soil. end of argument.

15155 1mo ago
In public? I have an (actually-enumerated) First Amendment right to record you. End of argument.
- joquarky 1mo ago
  Amendments don't protect you from physical harm by other citizens.
  - 15155 1mo ago
    No, but my concealed pistol (that pesky second amendment) indeed does. "If you exercise your rights, you will be hurt" - what a world to live in.
    - DangitBobby 1mo ago
      Depends on where you are. Defending against getting punched in the face by shooting them will get you thrown in prison a good portion of the time. Sometimes being a piece of shit should result in an ass whupping.
      - 15155 1mo ago
        > Depends on where you are. Defending against getting punched in the face by shooting them will get you thrown in prison a good portion of the time. Maybe in liberal California (where your 80 year old grandmother has a duty to retreat), thankfully not in my state. A punch to the face can be fatal, and you don't have to take one. Also, what an idiotic idea that one must assume that a "punch to the face" is all that is going to follow - and not a knife, head smashing on the ground, etc. This is frankly disgusting. > Sometimes being a piece of shit should result in an ass whupping. Got it, sometimes lawfully exercising your rights should mean you befall violence: I am glad I don't live in whatever shithole area you reside in. Perhaps we should extend this ideology to voting for the wrong candidate? - If you don't vote for who I want, it should result in an "ass whupping." Maybe your property: if you don't give me the contents of your wallet, it should result in an "ass whupping." This is bully mentality, and isn't tolerated in polite society. Would a cop in your state tolerate a punch to the face? How would you expect him to respond?