4 ms·

Video is useful in keeping people safe. Including from the cops. It’s about remaking the system to require court permission every time they access it, process a

Video is useful in keeping people safe. Including from the cops. It’s about remaking the system to require court permission every time they access it, process and transparency.

colechristensen 27d ago
Give me freedom or give me death. Police wearing body cameras has nothing to do with universal mass surveillance devices.
postalrat 27d ago
No big deal is it was just video. It's really about the data that can be extracted from the video such as who you meet, when you are home or not and who is at your house, etc. all in realtime.
- wateralien 27d ago
  Yes that should all require a court warrant based on probable cause.
  - NetMageSCW 27d ago
    Because that will never be abused.
    - wateralien 26d ago
      I hope sarcasm is working well for you. To clarify: it would be abused without systems, therefore add court warrants to access any personal information. Criminals are already abusing society by knowing that most of their crime will never be caught.
      - postalrat 26d ago
        Is there evidence these systems reduce crime?
        wateralien 16d ago
        There is evidence that systems reduce crime, yes. A system is probably the only thing which has ever meaningfully reduced crime. A law. A strategy. A process. I think you're meaning digital systems though. I'd say digital systems are part of every system now.
AlienRobot 27d ago
You are conflating extremely different things, and that is dangerous. Somehow we went from: 1. People can see and hear your in public 2. Therefore public places are not private 3. Therefore people can record you 4. Therefore it's okay to build a network of cameras that can track and query every place you have ever been The problem has always been on step 2. The assumption that "public places are not private" anymore just because everyone can record you and post it on TikTok. In reality before smartphones public places were extremely private compared to being broadcast to the entire planet.
eks391 27d ago
This. I don't understand why something can only be used in the wrong way. Either A. there is nothing a good person needs to hide (including cops, at least good ones), therefore it should be openly public to everyone and all usage logged and public (to catch abuse), or B. privacy is important so it should be protected, and while data is collectible, nonetheless cannot be shared without consent or a court order. And none of this fake content that companies claim you gave by walking outside, setting up your phone/account/etc after buying it and being forced to sign so you didn't just buy an expensive brick, etc.
SaucyWrong 27d ago
Hmm, I wonder if, as a plaintiff that wished to file a complaint against a police department, would the records be gone by the time I got far enough through the courts to force evidence discovery. All of the Flock-lovers I talk to love to bring up the short-lived nature of the data (7 or 30 days depending on who you talk to).

Video is useful in keeping people safe. Including from the cops. It’s about remaking the system to require court permission every time they access it, process and transparency.

colechristensen 27d ago

Give me freedom or give me death. Police wearing body cameras has nothing to do with universal mass surveillance devices.

postalrat 27d ago

No big deal is it was just video. It's really about the data that can be extracted from the video such as who you meet, when you are home or not and who is at your house, etc. all in realtime.

wateralien 27d ago
Yes that should all require a court warrant based on probable cause.
- NetMageSCW 27d ago
  Because that will never be abused.
  - wateralien 26d ago
    I hope sarcasm is working well for you. To clarify: it would be abused without systems, therefore add court warrants to access any personal information. Criminals are already abusing society by knowing that most of their crime will never be caught.
    - postalrat 26d ago
      Is there evidence these systems reduce crime?
      - wateralien 16d ago
        There is evidence that systems reduce crime, yes. A system is probably the only thing which has ever meaningfully reduced crime. A law. A strategy. A process. I think you're meaning digital systems though. I'd say digital systems are part of every system now.

AlienRobot 27d ago

You are conflating extremely different things, and that is dangerous. Somehow we went from: 1. People can see and hear your in public 2. Therefore public places are not private 3. Therefore people can record you 4. Therefore it's okay to build a network of cameras that can track and query every place you have ever been The problem has always been on step 2. The assumption that "public places are not private" anymore just because everyone can record you and post it on TikTok. In reality before smartphones public places were extremely private compared to being broadcast to the entire planet.

eks391 27d ago

This. I don't understand why something can only be used in the wrong way. Either A. there is nothing a good person needs to hide (including cops, at least good ones), therefore it should be openly public to everyone and all usage logged and public (to catch abuse), or B. privacy is important so it should be protected, and while data is collectible, nonetheless cannot be shared without consent or a court order. And none of this fake content that companies claim you gave by walking outside, setting up your phone/account/etc after buying it and being forced to sign so you didn't just buy an expensive brick, etc.

SaucyWrong 27d ago

Hmm, I wonder if, as a plaintiff that wished to file a complaint against a police department, would the records be gone by the time I got far enough through the courts to force evidence discovery. All of the Flock-lovers I talk to love to bring up the short-lived nature of the data (7 or 30 days depending on who you talk to).