top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 334 points 2 months ago (36 children)

He should just point a flock camera at his house. Then he’ll be 80% safer based on a study I just made up like the ones on their sales pitch.

  • source
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 109 points 2 months ago* (34 children)

    Even better, a group should cut down several dozen of them and mount them all on poles outside his house during the night, so that he wakes up to them in the morning. No vandalism, no violence, no threats, just a blunt statement that the media couldn't possibly ignore.

    Heck, no need to even risk collecting that many real ones. I hear there's some fairly decent 3D printed fakes available.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    But what if we had a little violence and vandalism as a treat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 2 months ago* (5 children)

    Then you provide the enemy with ammunition.

    They claim that the purpose of the cameras is to prevent crime, and that the people who oppose them are violent extremists. They've even tried to label deflock.me as a terrorist organization.

    Don't provide the enemy with ammunition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    To be realistic, they don't need ammunition. They just make it up anyways. It's not about being civil and cordial anymore. Points have to be made.

    "Not giving them ammunition" means getting ignored. We can't afford to be ignored anymore. Shit is urgent. The Epstein class needs to be afraid or we wait until they build the technology and infrastructure that allows them to completely ignore our needs/demands forever.

    Especially when the right is also mad about the tech. Strike while the iron is hot. Now is the time to act, not just have discussions. And I don't mean violence, but let them know that card is on the table otherwise we the people will continue being ignored.

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

    Always bothers me when people act like there is zero political violence. They are shooting us in the fucking street on film. Shits over.

    Also your username is fuckin wild lol

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

    I love this. They are solar powered so everything would work. All you need is a post hole digger to build a little flock forest.

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

    Ooh, yes someone should do this not on any particular person's property but as an avantgarde public art installation. Not with actual Flock cameras but just some replicas. Pop it up in a couple different cities around the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (19 children)

    a group should cut down several dozen of them

    No vandalism

    😐

    E: LOL downvotes for facts, I guess

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    Technically not theft. Technically not vandalism.

    "Vandalism refers to the intentional destruction or defacement of property"

    They relocated the item to its owners house. At best the cutting might be vandalism but you don't have to cut them down. That just happens to be quicker.

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

    It is 100% vandalism, in every sense. I support it, civil disobedience and all that, but there's no rationalizing it as anything else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    Nice downvote.

    You didn't look up the legal definition of anything before you posted this nonsense. Have a good day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (12 children)

    Nonsense? You just posted a definition that describes this activity exactly...? So if anyone is posting nonsense, its you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    No. I did not. Relocation of the asset to the owners property means there's no intent to deprive the owner of said property which means that it's not theft.

    The property has not been defaced, damaged, or destroyed so that means there's no intent of vandalism. Therefore vandalism did not take place.

    What you're describing is criminal mischief, which I would agree this is.

    I made a singular allowance in the case that the pole was cut (which counts as damage), rather than being dug up (which wouldn't), which you appear to have ignored.

    If you don't like facts, that is a you problem.

    You are welcome to kagi or whatever this yourself to see what I'm talking about instead of doubling down.

    If you are incapable of that, don't bother to respond to me.

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

    The property has been damaged, as you need to cut them down. If you manage to move the whole thing without cutting the pole you'd have a point.

    (i did read your whole comment, we were literally talking about cutting down a pole)

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

    If you manage to move the whole thing without cutting the pole you'd have a point.

    I still don't think they actually would. I don't know who upvotes that shit, it's just wishful thinking.

    For one, the CEO of a company doesn't personally own the property of their company. That's not how that works.

    This is like saying you'd get away with moving a Verizon cell tower to the front yard of the CEO of Verizon. It's nonsense.

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

    You absolutely can move the thing without cutting it down. It just happens to be quicker to cut them down and most of the people doing this don't care about the charge.

    But I do take your meaning and to some extent even agree with it.

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

    Yeah that's not how that works.

    For one, the CEO of flock doesn't personally own all of the infrastructure used by the company that they run. That's not how it works. It doesn't matter if you damaged the thing or not.

    It's like saying you could move a Verizon cell tower to the front yard of the CEO of Verizon. That's stupid.

    No lawyer would ever attempt such a stupid and ridiculous defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

    A lawyer worth their salt should absolutely defend you against a vandalism charge if by the lawful definition no vandalism took place.

    Not only that, but a lawyer's job is to make sure the law is followed during legal proceedings. Meaning they are supposed to defend your right to a lawfully handled trial which would include dismissing charges that didn't fit the crime committed.

    This is criminal mischief. That's a misdemeanor (just like vandalism).

    Theft involves legally speaking an "intent to deprive the owner of their property".

    Flock owns the cameras. It's a subscription model where the municipality actually leases the camera and "retains ownership" of the footage/data the collect.

    So by rights the CEO having them dropped off on his property could be considered the same as them being returned to the owner.

    You can take that however you want. But vandalism has a specific legal definition.

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

    I made a singular allowance in the case that the pole was cut... which you appear to have ignored.

    I didn't ignore it, it just makes absolutely no sense. What is an "allowance"? The property is damaged, thus vandalism.

    If you don't like facts, that is a you problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    When the law doesn't follow the law, laws are irrelevant.

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

    It's okay, he has nothing to hide, right?

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

    concerns over privacy and potential police misuse.

    Couldn't even go one sentence without propaganda. It's very well documented that it is ACTIVELY being misused. Concerns is their "allegedly" to escape libel allegations, this was a choice.

    I'll say this as many times as it takes. NEWSWEEK ISNT FUCKING NEWS. IT IS A TABLOID. IT IS LESS THAN NOTHING. STOP FUCKING POSTING IT AND GIVING THESE GHOULS MONEY.

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

    Thinking we need a shareable list of good alternatives we can share to other people.

    Anyone got some good independent news sources we can share and use?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 96 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    Now I'm waiting for Langley to cop a camera to the neck.

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

    Its almost like privacy is a good thing.

    Hope nothing bad happens to you. Surely not. Flock cameras make everything safer right?

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

    “Backers of the technology say it helps solve crimes”

    Should be easy to list the crimes it’s solved, where’s that list?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Back up to even having that be a point. We could solve a lot of crimes if everyone's phone reported our location and recorded our voices for the police. We could solve a lot of crimes if the cops put cams in everyone's house. Why don't we do this? The constitution. I don't care of Flock solves 100k crimes a year, it's unconstitutional so it's not an option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 66 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    Folks should show up at the edge of his property with lawn chairs and coolers and just "hang out". Don't speak to him or threaten him in anyway, just sit there and Document everything he does. When he complains tell him it's for his safety and he should thank them.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago*

    You'd need to get the attention of MAGA on this if you wanted people to do stuff IRL

    They'd drive a convoy around his block blasting Metallica for a week after coordinating with their friends in the police and bringing donuts to local tow companies. Maybe if you're lucky someone on the left will flyer a coffee shop in Chicago.

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

    He just needs to compromise on his privacy.

  • source
  • [–] 44 points 2 months ago

    'If he's done nothing wrong there's nothing to hide'

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 2 months ago

    This is a periodic reminder. I'm on mobile so I'm copying a previous comment.

    Flock Safety is only the tip of the problem.

    Some districts are de-Flocking only to install an Axon ALPR network service. Keep fighting until your community outlaws all ALPRs and ALPR lookups are inadmissable in court.

    There are other technologies that are already in use and widely abused by law enforcement such as IMSI catchers, geofence warrants and Drones as First Responder. Learn what your district allows and be a civil nuisance untill that shit is blocked.

    Judges have long ceased tightly constraining judicial warrants, and most courts accept the good faith exception, so US and state courts cannot be trusted with any overreaching surveillance technology or forensic tools. This includes chromatic field drug tests and detection dogs.

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago

    You live by the sword, you die by the sword, dickhead.

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 2 months ago

    He's cool with stealing all of our data, and making us feel helpless about what others are doing with it, so I don't see why he shouldn't feel that same fear.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago

    Lots of information about people is online.

    ...Does he have something to hide?

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

    "We announced changes that required auditing, that required using our audit assistance tool, which detects abnormal behavior, and we're calling on state regulators to focus less on banning this type of technology and more [on] holding our law enforcement community accountable.”

    This is absolutely passing the buck. "The collection of your data isn't wrong, it's just the myriad ways it can be abused. We want to play whack-a-mole for every problem; as unelected corporate policy that totally isn't purely profit driven."

    Not-a-lawyer, but I'm quite sure I haven't signed any TOS allowing Flock to capture or retain my data for any amount of time. Just by driving through a city where some other idiot signed away my rights probably shouldn't hold up in court.

    Legislation should be prioritizing punishing misuse of PII, expanding what PII means in our modern world, and enforcing information sharing barriers instead of eroding them.

    If you can tell exactly where I was yesterday at 2:35pm because my car's internal spyware pinged, my cellphone pinged, I drove past a few ALPR cameras and my credit card was used at a vendor, all without a warrant; then the related data is PII and needs to be protected in a way it isn't currently.

    Corporations should not have data-sharing agreements with governments and should not be allowed to sell their user data to third parties at all.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago

    I work for a city that installed flock cameras. Their salesman insisted it was just license plate identification and nothing else when making the pitch to City Council.

    The new city manager and I recently read through our "contract" with them. It's a hyperlink to their TOS on their website. We have nothing in writing and they can change the terms any time they want.

    I expect Council to have them removed soon.

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

    "holding our law enforcement community accountable".

    lol can't even bootlick properly. He probably thought this would earn him some points from the left but all it will achieve is major hate from right. Law enforcement may soon be looking the other way when someone reports a flock camera being taken down.

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

    Not-a-lawyer, but I’m quite sure I haven’t signed any TOS allowing Flock to capture or retain my data for any amount of time. Just by driving through a city where some other idiot signed away my rights probably shouldn’t hold up in court.

    Also not a lawyer, but once a journalist, and one thing we were made aware of in college was that streets were public property, and anything done on them (or even done from the view of them - e.g., in your house but visible from the street*) was considered public. So unfortunately even if the city hadn't signed it, if someone recorded you on the street doing it, they could keep it on their servers and/or publish it to the world without worry.

    * - I meant to ask but never found out if this meant getting drunk in your house in view of the street is public drunkenness.

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

    Oh no, won't somebody think of his privacy

    Btw in a completely unrelated train of thought, have you guys seen the low low prices on poo flinging trebuchets?

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

    Is fresh and steamy an upgrade? Or liquid?

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

    I believe that you may be thinking of the newest development in the field of Advanced Manure Delivery: The Super Flamer 3000.

    Think of the SF3000 as a holistically synergetic approach to fertilizizing and pesticide treatment. Combining well known ranged incendiary technology, with state of the art manure slurry dispensation technology, the SF3000 is applied as a pre-seeding treatment. By using the manure slurry as fuel, the SF3000 is able to reduce infestation of both insects and weeds in your fields, while staying biologically sustainable.

    Look out for our TV commercials, we've spared no expense. We've got Aaron Paul to reprise his character Jesse Pinkman, in order to record our new slogan: "shits on fire yo!"

    If the concept sounds appealing we also offer the SF4000x pro, which applies AI and vision technology, to target individual undesired plants with directed high speed streams of fire.

    ...

    Ok that was actually pretty rewarding to write. I had the concept bouncing around for hours. But oh boy, imagine being killed with a pig piss fueled flamethrower, I've got several other ways of dieing that I'd prefer.

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

    Let's start a car tracker log for him like that one person did for elons planes.

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

    Dude also has his house blurred out on Google Maps street view.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    This is a thing? How many zeroes to your net worth do you have to be to obtain this opt, or is this readily available to the masses?

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

    Fairly sure you can "opt out" from being shown if you live at an address and fill out some form. I think it's available, but not exactly advertised or promoted as an option.

    I've seen random neighborhoods where 1 or 2 houses will randomly be blurred out.

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

    Keep track of his every move just so we know he isn't breaking the law

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago

    Quite a campaign to quietly install these all over the country, use free pilot programs, kept the cost low enough to not need city council vote after public discussions and hide in tech costs, so the fuss happens after they wasted all this money. Talk about fraud and scamming the public out of tax money, and used against the public and w/o our actual consent. They're supposed to serve and work for We The People, but used multiple methods to lie and hide it from us. Doing the wrong thing has to be hidden, not honest things.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Does he feel unsafe? Just put up a Flock camera on your house, Garrett! So we can all be sure that you are as safe as a bug all snug in a rug.

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

    Was about to say the same thing: aren't Americans supposed to accept a trade-off between security and privacy? He's a public figure, he should get total security with cameras everywhere around his house, and their feed should be public so that his security is crowd-managed!

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

    Postcards have lower postage rates than regular letters.
    Also harder to ignore a card that just says 'fuck you' on it in sharpie. For more fun: imitate the vibes of the local utility bill in a letter but fit a lot more fuck yous inside

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

    There's no way in hell this guy is handling those bills himself. If it isn't on auto-pay, he has people who handle the housework I'm sure. If he doesn't then fuck him even harder. He's fucking all of us, and he's not even making insane amounts of money from it.

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

    This is public information see https://ecorp.sos.ga.gov/BusinessSearch/BusinessInformation
    Search for flock group and you will get the address.

    Edit: It's an office address

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

    Are they calling for a mustached Italian plumber?

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago

    Maybe put up some cameras all around his house and social life and broadcast it while at it

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

    Dude fuck that guy

    Massive criminal

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

    Personally, I wouldnt fuck him with somebody else's dick.

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

    Good. Very good. I hope he feels true fear. I hope he gets what is deserved.

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

    They’re coming for you, Langley

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

    He took the risk of pissing off the masses for profit. And it looks that he now faces the consequences.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    28 comments in c/DeFlock@sh.itjust.works view that post
    11 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    7 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post