941
Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 249 points 8 months ago (20 children)

Who'd have thought that warrant-less mass surveillance that treats every citizen like a potential criminal would eventually hit a tipping point where people began to fight back against it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 83 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    Along with it incorrectly labeling people as a criminal so cops harass innocent families

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 90 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (8 children)

    That's a feature, not a bug.

    The whole point of warrantless mass surveillance where you collect a person's entire life history from birth to death is to be able to go back through that history at any point they become an inconvenient person, whether because they are protesting or are a whistleblower or anything else that endangers the existing power structures. They can and will use your history to fabricate a "reasonable" narrative to turn you into whatever type of criminal they claim you are.

    This is exactly why they're pushing the "antifa is an organized terrorist organization" so hard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    And they wonder why people have anxiety disorders

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    "You'd have anxiety too if you knew that entire government organizations were dedicated to watching your every move while everyone told you that you were crazy."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I watched a video last night. Some guy was banned from a casino. All they had was a blurry surveillance camera photo of him.

    The AI tagged some other guy as him. Cops came and arrested him. Said the man's ID must be fake, or he used a fake ID last time because there's no way their high-fallutin AI could be wrong! It was >99% certain!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 46 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    What’s funny is someone at flock is likely seeing this as a business opportunity. “With flock+ we will detect downed cameras and send a technician out to replace them instantly. Subscribe now!”

    Meanwhile, municipalities are less than thrilled about defending throwing money at something literally no taxpayer wants.

    This problem might solve itself really. Let the buisness majors sell the hangman their own nooses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Sadly some people do want flock cameras because they think it's worth it to have a better chance of catching criminals even if our personal liberties get taken away. It's the age old freedom vs safety discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe a year or so ago, but now those same people are starting to understand the definition of criminal is flexible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago*

    I agree that the more popular opinion is changing to more freedom, but most of the older millennials and above that I talk to care more about catching criminals because they are more likely to be influenced by Facebook/Nextdoor posts and the mainstream media.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The thing is though you could have both, at least to a degree. You could have much more transparent policing, the cameras could do processing purely locally and based on publicly accessible lists with listed reasons for why the given plates are captured, you could make it so that the only ones who do get the data are actually thr police and not thr company selling the cameras, etc.

    But that's not in the interest of Flock, or even really the powers that be. The surveillance machine needs feeding, doesn't matter for what cost.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago*

    That's because they want to be the ones doing the surveilling. There's loads of disgusting threads you can find online about them discussing ways to disable or hide that their devices are recording so they can surreptitiously record others while claiming they're not. Most often filming vulnerable women.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)