The country needs to find a “compromise” between privacy and safety, according to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley.

“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 324 points 2 months ago* (8 children)

There should be no compromising our right to privacy and these cameras need to go. Fuck Flock and their cash grab.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 83 points 2 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 49 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Fuck Flock, Axon, and the entire rest of the surveillance state, both government and private.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Palatir along with Meta and Google are all the surveillance state

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    You could list basically every Big Tech corporation here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    So true all of them are corrupt asf

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I don't know if corrupt is quite the right word. They all certainly engage in heavy amounts of corruption to gain their power, but they also heavilly engage in other horrid practices to the same end, such as exploitation of their collective workforce, userbase, and supply chain.

    The root of all of this, of course, is capitalism, which not only enables, but encourages this sociopathic power-seeking behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 237 points 2 months ago (18 children)

    How about we compromise by saying remove them all, give back the money spent, delete all data and in exchange you don't get the treatments due one helping enable orwillian levels of suvelance

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 118 points 2 months ago (17 children)

    Yup, the compromise is not sending him to Tennessee to be publically hanged.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago* (16 children)
  • [–] 89 points 2 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    Hey question... its illegal (I think) to suggest or call for the hanging of someone. But is it illegal to publish and support legislation calling for the execution of public figures involved in X Y Z?

    If not, I call for legislation to be passed that criminalized the usage of personal data for surveillance. Data collected without permission..

    I need to think this through a little more but fuck it right? Make a proposed law that people can publicly support that show just how goddamn serious people are about this shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    It's been tried before, and abandoned because it's generally a bad idea. What you're describing is a bill of attainder, a law passed specifically to punish an individual or group.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    wouldn't a law against murder also be punishing a specific individual or group?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    If a law punished a specific murderer or group of murderers it would be, but not if it punished an entire defined class of murderers equally. Lawmakers generally describe the qualifications of a crime (e.g. "anyone who knowingly and willfully causes the death of another person") and prescribe a punishment for anyone convicted of it, and then the courts determine whether or not individuals are guilty by whether they meet the qualifications laid out in the law. Bills of attainder are laws that define individuals or specific groups as guilty by identity, not qualification, which means they don't get a trial and the judiciary doesn't get to act as a check on the legislature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I guess that is my confusion.

    why would "legislation to be passed that criminalized the usage of personal data for surveillance" fall under this attainer scenario? seems very similar to "legislation passed that criminalized murder"..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    I don't think it would. Congress could criminalize the behavior of corporate surveillance, then prosecutors could charge any individual or company that engages in that behavior. It'd only be a bill of attainder if it was selective by identity (e.g. a bill that proclaims "the CEO of Flock is guilty of criminal surveillance and should be arrested") rather than a defined criminal standard that applies to everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    All crimes punish the group of people doing that crime. A bill of attainder targets an individual or a related group of individuals (like family members). But legislation to criminalize an action that happens to be done by only a small number of individuals is not a bill of attainder.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    its illegal (I think) to suggest or call for the hanging of someone

    Only if it's a specific, actionable threat intended to be taken literally. But if, for example, it's advocating a prosecution that might end with capital punishment, that's protected speech. "Let justice be done."

    is it illegal to publish and support legislation calling for the execution of public figures involved in X Y Z?

    No.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 123 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Interesting that he’s framing it as a balance between privacy and safety instead of privacy and security.

    Flock cameras haven’t been proven to make anyone safer.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    It's a false dichotomy, pure and simple. They try to frame it in a way to make their invasion of your privacy seem as if it's in your best interest, even though the opposite is true. Typical fascist rhetoric.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Yeah what even is the argument for that? Even if a crime is caught on one of these things they're still not making anyone safer. The crime still happened and that's the best case scenario where the crime is caught on tape. From what I've seen usually these things provide circumstantial evidence at best.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 94 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I like the sounds of this. Here's an offer:

    Fuck off, and the guillotine gets put away.

    Everybody wins!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 66 points 2 months ago

    The compromise is that he lives

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 2 months ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I’ve already picked out my costume!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 54 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    It's wild, because when I was a kid, there was this huge conservative talking point about how trading freedom for security was bad.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    And the zombies said "all we want to do is eat your brains, maybe we can compromise..."

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    "We're not unreasonable; I mean, no one's gonna eat your eyes"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I think the window of compromise has long since passed. Flock as a company went in with a guns blazing, anti-privacy, record everything, give the information to anyone style business style, and then chose to double and triple down on the style when the controversy/outcry first started. Once you've hit the stage where there's people starting to protest and riot and cities have started to go out of their way to ban the product and retract contracts due to the fact that they're concerned about public support. It's too late. That's a fire that's not being put out.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 44 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Compromise: Quit now, and keep your head.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 2 months ago

    Compromise offer: you stop spying on us and we'll stop breaking your cameras.

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    The more you learn about Flock, the scarier it gets. They have FULL profiles built on EVERY american that has flock cameras nearby. All your shopping, driving, financial habits are tracked. They know who all your friends and family are and how often you visit, they track your vehicles specific identifiable features like bumper damage, stickers, faded paint, etc. All of that is a complete violation of the 4th amendment and all these companies need to be sued.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Even deeper, they claim to be able to read "pet tags," which would mean they can read ANY RFID, they know your gym code, if you have a fob for your apartment they can clone it and get in like a kid with a Flipper 0.

    Idk how it's physically possible so hopefully they're lying, they should have to be basically touching the tag, but they claim they can. I'd believe they can read UHF RFID but that isn't what they claimed, they specified "pet tags" (which again, would mean they can do all tags.) And that would mean they can add NFC and read your cards in your wallet, if they wanted, because that isn't far off from RFID. Now ostensibly they'd have to perform the handshake with your card so they'd only have the same partial info a Flipper could pull, but like, still not a fan of that personally.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 41 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    There is absolutely no reason to track people everywhere they go. We were fine before these things.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    If you get rid of your right to privacy, you get rid of your right to safety.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 2 months ago
    [–] 36 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Remember, it's Axon as well, and many more companies. and a major contrbuter who has linked in with all of these creepy services is Amazon and has the largest surveillence network in residential areas not just on travel corridors comprised of Ring doorbell cameras tied in to all of these systems.

    Flock seems like the sacrificial lamb, to me. They are in your face, ther cameras are obvious, and their CEO runs his mouth so much everyone hates him.

    It's like how Elon can't keep his mouth shut, but Ellison far more dangerous and nearly as rich.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 2 months ago

    Fuck off with compromise. take your shit and get out no one wants you in case the guillotine wasn't fucking clear

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Safety for who, exactly, Garrett? Because the common people aren't safer with this overreach

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 2 months ago

    No, Garrett, we don't negotiate with surveillance states.

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    For his part, Langley has said that state regulators should “pass bills that make [the illegal use of Flock data] a criminal offense.”

    No one trusts the police to genuinely enforce anything that could impact themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Like, I'm here for making it a crime for a cop to spy on someone without legal and professional justification, but I really just don't see why we should let them have the tools to do it.

    Also, I'm also worried about the legal uses of these things. A lot of our rights come down to the adversarial nature of interactions between the ordinary person and the state's capacity to inflict violence. Surveillance without a warrant is unchecked police power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Right. The root cause here is that companies are allowed to collect stupid amounts of information about private citizens - and then sell that information to a government or abuse it for their own purposes under the cover of an EULA of 'we will collect [various information] for business purposes'. If I can't apply for a job without agreeing to 3 EULAs that sign away my personal information, then I'm not agreeing to them; I'm being held hostage by them.

    If flock was not allowed to store PII data (and PII was extended to cover location history, nearby devices, and a few other things), then their business model would evaporate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I can guarantee this has been said already, but the compromise is simple; no flock cameras (or comparable tech) anywhere.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago

    Okay, here’s the compromise: you close everything down, and we don’t feed you to a hungry business of ferrets.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Anyone who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserves neither.

    Garrett can get fucked.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The fact that it improves safety is a claim that can easily be challenged as recently it seems to have put people in harms way. Texas police used it to stalk a woman across state lines to find out if she got an abortion elsewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago

    The compromise is you scrap every camera, or we do.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago

    Eat shit, Garrett.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    We're already in the safest time for petty crime ever, and flock won't help with America's real issue of corporate crime. Safety will not be affected.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    Fuck these clowns. Their “compromise” is finding some way to quiet the bad press while continuing to do what they’ve been doing.

    “We’ll stop putting our cameras where people don’t want them and just put then where our clients want them.”

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago

    Remember that town Winona where all eight of their Flock cameras were cut down?

    CNN has an interview with a town councilman who says “we’ll just wait until all the news dies down and everyone will forget about all this”

    Our elected officials all think we should live in a big PRISON

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago

    *We didn't invent police abuse! We actually shined a light on it and pointed it out"

    Fuck right the hell off with this shit. You don't get to sell your panopticon to a group that routinely abuses every tool they have, and feign ignorance in defense of the results.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I call a guillotine a compromise.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago

    Compromise dez nuts

    Fucking fascist.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago

    Okay, here's the compromise: disband your company and we'll put away the guillotines.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago

    Here is your compromise. Shutter your company & we won't hang you.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    21 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post
    11 comments in c/technology@beehaw.org view that post