Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock, a network of AI cameras used by ICE, feds, and police

kirbyrj said:
Oh yes the Constitution. I'm guessing you have a novel interpretation of the Fourth amendment which invalidates Flock cameras along with some random YouTube video by some non-constitutional scholar "proving" your point.
Click to expand...
Hmm yes, it YouTube video therefore it's invalid argument. To put it simply, it breaks 4th amendment rights because it's a warrantless search. BUT!!!, because Flock is a private company then that doesn't apply to Flock. Except Flock is being used by the government so it should apply to Flock. If you can track my movement and issue tickets based on AI footage then that's circumventing the 4th amendment. Of course you can interpret this how you want, but it just seems like warrantless search without a warrant. If you can issue fines and arrests using Flock then it's a warrantless search.

Here's another YouTube video so it's obviously just some group of nobodies that nobody should listen too. Stupid ass NBC news.

View: https://youtu.be/1DUCg50fKQ8?si=FOcgrCB8TCPMFInY
 
DukenukemX said:
To put it simply, it breaks 4th amendment rights because it's a warrantless search. BUT!!!, because Flock is a private company then that doesn't apply to Flock. Except Flock is being used by the government so it should apply to Flock. If you can track my movement and issue tickets based on AI footage then that's circumventing the 4th amendment.
Click to expand...
that seem a bit simplistic, supreme court precendant wise at least.

Millions of warrantless search are made in the US airports every year, there is some test used a big one is person subjective expectation of privacy, the exterior of your car on public road... expectation of privacy is extremelly low, that why usage of camera looking at cars as been legal, police radar use and a long list.

How does the flok camera looking at your car speed any different than a police doing it with a radar (without asking for a warrant before doing so) ? And how is it a search ?

Court precendant that you no expectation of privacy about your car license plate is well establish and obvious (the law force it to be visible and being read without warrant/permission is the only reason they exist) same for the exterior of your cars movement on public road, tourist can film you, traffic cam can film, trucker can have dash cam filming you.

The non visible from the window interior of your car that a different story.

I really doubt a private company can search a citizen private property without permission anything a governement cannot because of the 4th... Company can search company cars, computers, desk, used by an employee too, but that would be true for state employees has well.

DukenukemX said:
Stupid ass NBC news
Click to expand...
The video you posted you did not watched, the video say that according to courts that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and a federal judge rules in favor of them (not infriging the 4th) and that law professor feel the appeal will fail they are not a violation of the 4th they need a different angle, I feel you go with title and do not read article or watch video you post very much ?

cellphone data, gps tracker that a stronger case than the exterior appearance of your car and license plate on public road.
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
Millions of warrantless search are made in the US airports every year, there is some test used a big one is person subjective expectation of privacy, the exterior of your car on public road... expectation of privacy is extremelly low, that why usage of camera looking at cars as been legal, police radar use and a long list.
Click to expand...
Warrantless searches of any kind breaks the constitution, and because it's been done at airports for a while doesn't make it right. It seems the logic here is that if we're doing something wrong for years, then the new wrong must be right?
How does the flok camera looking at your car speed any different than a police doing it with a radar (without asking for a warrant before doing so) ? And how is it a search ?
Click to expand...
The police officer was present and witness to speeding, while a Flock camera uses AI that sometimes thinks glue can be used to hold cheese down in pizza. Not to forget, it's holding a data base of footage which can be used against you.
I really doubt a private company can search a citizen private property without permission anything a governement cannot because of the 4th... Company can search company cars, computers, desk, used by an employee too, but that would be true for state employees has well.
Click to expand...
Except the people are not employees to Flock.
The video you posted you did not watched, the video say that according to courts that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and a federal judge rules in favor of them (not infriging the 4th) and that law professor feel the appeal will fail they are not a violation of the 4th they need a different angle, I feel you go with title and do not read article or watch video you post very much ?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that court case is being appealed. I'm not even sure what you're saying because on one hand you said you did not watch the video, but then began to cite things from said video? What law professor thinks the appeal will fail? Chester Fernadez? He didn't say anything like that.
 
DukenukemX said:
Warrantless searches of any kind breaks the constitution,
Click to expand...
of course not, the text is extremelly clear:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

I.e. if you look like very much like you have a gun, during your arrestation a police can search and seize it, without needing a warrant and waiting for it, because it is judge reasonable, same for the airports search a long list of reasonable case for a search or seizure without warrant exist as the constitution clearly permit it.

DukenukemX said:
The police officer was present and witness to speeding, while a Flock camera uses AI that sometimes thinks glue can be used to hold cheese down in pizza. Not to forget, it's holding a data base of footage which can be used against you.
Click to expand...
It is quite legal for them to radar any car going throught, it can be automated and always on like a dash cam in their cars, it can be a bit funny being a passenger in a cop car and looking at it going on, lot of people break on sight.
https://stalkerradar.com/police-radar/dsr/
The Stalker DSR police radar can detect and accurately track vehicles from over a mile away. The DSR’s exceptional range on the highway lets you know what’s up ahead long before anyone even knows you’re around.

Photo radar have been going on for a long time, they look at every car.

DukenukemX said:
Except the people are not employees to Flock.
Click to expand...
sure and flock cannot more than the goverment search or seize peopel private property when any subjective expectation of privacy exist and without permissions.

DukenukemX said:
Keep in mind that court case is being appealed. I'm not even sure what you're saying because on one hand you said you did not watch the video, but then began to cite things from said video? What law professor thinks the appeal will fail? Chester Fernadez? He didn't say anything like that.
Click to expand...
Yes I cite the video that clearly claim that judge and professor laws say that flock camera does not break the 4th amendtements and I claim that you did not watch it because I understood you claim ABC news implied that flock camera was breaking the 4th amendtment. Who did not say anything like that ? the abc "journalist" speaking say the law professor said that there is strong precedant of no subjective expectation of privacy for your license plate or what your car do on public road.

This seem something you need a law to ban (and that easy to do) instead of relying on the constitution.
 
LukeTbk said:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Click to expand...
Tracking your every movement is as far from reasonable without a warrant as it possibly can be. What one judge or professor says is not fact it is just their opinion and they are wrong AF. They probably don't even fully understand the tech behind AI connected cameras, and the scope of surveilance that is done with them. "You can't even take a breath of fresh air without us knowing" - said the cop to the innocent woman who they accused of theft based on nothing else but her vehicle's route based on flock cameras. Does this sound reasonable to you?
 
At what point is it too far then? should your every action be monitored incase you make any legal infraction no matter how small and be sent a fine? Eventually it will be argued that cameras can watch into your windows. Since they aren't actually doing anything inside your house, just capturing photons outside of your house. Just to make sure you aren't breaking laws from inside as well.
 
LukeTbk said:
I.e. if you look like very much like you have a gun, during your arrestation a police can search and seize it, without needing a warrant and waiting for it, because it is judge reasonable, same for the airports search a long list of reasonable case for a search or seizure without warrant exist as the constitution clearly permit it.
Click to expand...
And people wonder why there's a growing tend to defund the police. By defund I mean fund less.
Yes I cite the video that clearly claim that judge and professor laws say that flock camera does not break the 4th amendtements
Click to expand...
If there's an appeal then the judge's verdict is not final.
and I claim that you did not watch it because I understood you claim ABC news
Click to expand...
NBC news...
Who did not say anything like that ? the abc "journalist"
Click to expand...
NBC news...
This seem something you need a law to ban (and that easy to do) instead of relying on the constitution.
Click to expand...
We just need to enforce the constitution, because this clearly goes beyond Flock. Making individual laws means there's going to be loop holes that will be used.
 
M76 said:
Tracking your every movement is as far from reasonable without a warrant as it possibly can be. What one judge or professor says is not fact it is just their opinion and they are wrong AF. They probably don't even fully understand the tech behind AI connected cameras, and the scope of surveilance that is done with them. "You can't even take a breath of fresh air without us knowing" - said the cop to the innocent woman who they accused of theft based on nothing else but her vehicle's route based on flock cameras. Does this sound reasonable to you?
Click to expand...
I'm sure the people in swimsuits have nothing to fear. I wonder why nobody is swimming?
 
M76 said:
Tracking your every movement is as far from reasonable without a warrant as it possibly can be. What one judge or professor says is not fact it is just their opinion and they are wrong AF. They probably don't even fully understand the tech behind AI connected cameras, and the scope of surveilance that is done with them. "You can't even take a breath of fresh air without us knowing" - said the cop to the innocent woman who they accused of theft based on nothing else but her vehicle's route based on flock cameras. Does this sound reasonable to you?
Click to expand...
yes that a much better angle than the getting a ticket for speeding on a public road being inconsitutional if a photo radar used an AI instead of an human to read the plate number(which as a long track and tested record) or the idea a cop need a warrant to read a car license plate number or probable cause/warrant to radar an vehicle speed on a public road.

Using a national network to track individual movement is different than simply filming car, analysing their speed and sending ticket reading their plate if they went over the limit, different than reading all plates and rising and issue startign to track those with open warrants/stolen car has well.

Making the tool exist can be seen as dangerous and almost certain to eventually break the constitution, so going ahead before it happen and making a laws to make them illegal is not a bad idea, but people will love lower car insurance and crime down since 2023 figures... which are really impressive and can be an hard sales.
 
LukeTbk said:
yes that a much better angle than the getting a ticket for speeding on a public road being inconsitutional if a photo radar used an AI instead of an human to read the plate number(which as a long track and tested record) or the idea a cop need a warrant to read a car license plate number or probable cause/warrant to radar an vehicle speed on a public road.
Click to expand...
Actual automated license plate readers have existed long before AI cameras, they are not the same thing, no matter how desperately flcok axon palantir and their shills try to convince you it's just an ALPR camera. It's not. an ALPR is just a camera with OCR, nothing more. Their AI camera is connected to the servers of a private company that is indiscriminately cataloging everything it sees, which later can be accessed and searched by anyone they chose to give access to without a warrant. I think it is illegal surveillance even if it is not used, warrant or no warrant. The warrant should exist before you start surveiling the person, getting one after the fact should not make the previous recordings legal or admissible. That's what I think.
LukeTbk said:
Using a national network to track individual movement is different than simply filming car, analysing their speed and sending ticket reading their plate if they went over the limit, different than reading all plates and rising and issue startign to track those with open warrants/stolen car has well.
Click to expand...
AI Cameras already do all of that. Just because it hasn't been used against you yet doesn't mean your movements aren't recorded and saved even if you have no warrant.
LukeTbk said:
Making the tool exist can be seen as dangerous and almost certain to eventually break the constitution, so going ahead before it happen and making a laws to make them illegal is not a bad idea, but people will love lower car insurance and crime down since 2023 figures... which are really impressive and can be an hard sales.
Click to expand...
The tools existence already breaks the constitution. There is zero evidence that AI cameras lower insurance costs or crime. If anything they will be used to increase your insurance, if you frequent bad neighborhoods, if it isn't already. Like GM selling throttle position sensor and brake force data to insurance companies.
 
I see it no different than a light pole setting on right of way land that was (only) given to your local government to access for water mains and roads, signs, how can a private company like Duke Power Energy use that right of way land (rent free) to house a light pole and then keep going up on your light bill is the real question, all those light poles need to be owned by the landowner it's setting on if the local government does not own them like public works, the private company needs to start paying rent to the landowner of the right of way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sherk
like this
M76 said:
The tools existence already breaks the constitution. There is zero evidence that AI cameras lower insurance costs or crime. If anything they will be used to increase your insurance, if you frequent bad neighborhoods, if it isn't already. Like GM selling throttle position sensor and brake force data to insurance companies.
Click to expand...
It could be hard, but the sentiment that the timing is related will be there, so many flock and ring cameras around making not getting caught harder and harder:

HQfSAGZXcAAVq8_?format=jpg&name=medium.jpg


The intuition would be strong that of course it does, if something follow all cars at all time that car stealing would go down...

M76 said:
Actual automated license plate readers have existed long before AI cameras,
Click to expand...
And automated license plate reader was using machine learning, not sure where and how the distinction/line will be made here. Character recognition was deep neural net AI, that why they can work with dirty plate, any angle, shadows, partial obstruction and so on.

There could very well be a lot of constitutionally shady stuff (if the system has the ability to predict who cheating with who for example, that something regular adult would assume privacy from the state), the part about looking at plate of speeding vehicle and sending ticket to the owner has been tested a lot already and has you are pointing out absolutely not new.
 
LukeTbk said:
It could be hard, but the sentiment that the timing is related will be there, so many flock and ring cameras around making not getting caught harder and harder:
Click to expand...
It's also caused a lot of false arrests as seen in this video. And yes, his video title is click baitie but has a lot of mentions of people who've been wronged. Stuff even I didn't know. The part where the guy says Flock doesn't use AI but machine learning. These people think we're stupid.

View: https://youtu.be/fn9zmjosmUU?si=4xp1prQgjVYausuB
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sherk
like this
Some months ago Benn Jordan did a video on how he was able to access the flock cameras by just guessing a password. He did two videos, about 6 months ago I think, one is pretty short.

I haven't watched either one yet, just saw them this morning.
 
LukeTbk said:
It could be hard, but the sentiment that the timing is related will be there, so many flock and ring cameras around making not getting caught harder and harder:

View attachment 821894
Click to expand...

I always find those charts funny. Lots of random years being compared with no data from the previous 5-10 years to know if it is trending better or worse. They always twist the data into whatever pretzel it takes to make their point.
 
LukeTbk said:
Not so long ago, lot of people were saying AI was just a new buzz marketing word for Machine learning and neural network ;)
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's like saying an engine is not the same as a motor or a hood is not the same as a bonnet.
 
LukeTbk said:
It could be hard, but the sentiment that the timing is related will be there, so many flock and ring cameras around making not getting caught harder and harder:
Click to expand...
Not getting caught was always hard, the only difference is how fast they are getting caught. And if the "price" of having them caught faster is an epidemic of innocent people being falsely molested and jailed by police, then I don't think it is worth paying. I think the petty criminal being at large for a few weeks longer is preferable to innocent people constantly being caught in the net. Because make no mistake, they are rarely using flock to capture people who are a clear and present danger, they use it to make policing petty crimes easier.
LukeTbk said:
The intuition would be strong that of course it does, if something follow all cars at all time that car stealing would go down...
Click to expand...
Or go up, because criminals will switch cars more and more often.
LukeTbk said:
And automated license plate reader was using machine learning, not sure where and how the distinction/line will be made here. Character recognition was deep neural net AI, that why they can work with dirty plate, any angle, shadows, partial obstruction and so on.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to be disingenuous because this seems more than simply being misguided. How can you equate using machine learning in the training of the OCR software that does nothing but recognize characters on pictures. To an always on surveillance network that tracks everyone everywhere at all times, and can be used without a warrant to see if you took a shit last tuesday, because the roll disappeared that day, so it must've been you flock said so.
LukeTbk said:
There could very well be a lot of constitutionally shady stuff (if the system has the ability to predict who cheating with who for example, that something regular adult would assume privacy from the state),
Click to expand...
No, any citizen not just regular adults, whatever that distinction is supposed to mean has a right not to be tracked and the tracking data stored without a signed warrant backed up by probable cause. You pass by a drug house every day to work, the system will still flag you as a potential drug offender. IDK how can you not see how bad this is, and it is only going to get worse as the network is expanded or god forbid connected between districts or states.
LukeTbk said:
the part about looking at plate of speeding vehicle and sending ticket to the owner has been tested a lot already and has you are pointing out absolutely not new.
Click to expand...
And it is perfectly constitutional, stop trying to equate speed cameras to whatever flock is.
 
M76 said:
Not getting caught was always hard, the only difference is how fast they are getting caught. And if the "price" of having them caught faster is an epidemic of innocent people being falsely molested and jailed by police, then I don't think it is worth paying. I think the petty criminal being at large for a few weeks longer is preferable to innocent people constantly being caught in the net. Because make no mistake, they are rarely using flock to capture people who are a clear and present danger, they use it to make policing petty crimes easier.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely correct that more surveillance makes catching criminals easier. The problem is the consequences of that, as you said. I mean, that road doesn't have an end really. Catching criminals would also be easier if we were implanted with chips at birth that tracked our location every second of every day. Catching criminals and solving crimes would be easier if we all had cameras in our homes monitoring us 24/7. Make it real easy to provide who killed who if you have video of everything everyone does 24/7/365. The problem is, of course, that most sane people realize that the government can't be trusted with all this information which is why no sane person wants 24/7 surveillance of their whole life.

A certain amount of surveillance around government buildings is understood and acceptable for most people. A speed camera in a high accident area? I don't think most people would blink. Same with red light cameras in intersections that have a high incidence of running red lights and causing accidents. I doubt most people would worry too much about that. Cameras everywhere, all the time? Yeah, they can bugger right off. At that point you're not dealing with a specific problem but gathering tons of data on your citizens "just in case". Solve the crimes that happen, not surveil us all in case we do something bad. Because, again, that roads leads to having access to everything we do or say 24/7/365. Your phone's data will be stream to the government along with full video of your house and some folks will be standing there idiotically saying "if you have nothing to hide ....".
 
M76 said:
No, any citizen not just regular adults
Click to expand...
Laws of the type; expected privacy never use any.... you go with reasonable average adult type of criteria.

M76 said:
IDK how can you not see how bad this is
Click to expand...
I never said anything about anything regarding flock camera tracking and data, my only comments were made about someone saying that it was breaking the 4th amendtment to calculate all vehicle speed going on a public road and read the camera plate to send a ticket in case of speeding, which is quite different and has been tested a lot. Or someone saying that any search withoiut a warrant is obviously illegal to do (as if a cop arresting someone of a violent crime would need to wait with a judge on the phone before searching for a weapon and wait again to seize it, or that search at custom, people visiting prison, etc... cannot be made withoiut warrants).

I am quite litteral in my comments, there is no need to infer more than what they litteraly say.

M76 said:
How can you equate using machine learning in the training of the OCR software that does nothing but recognize characters on pictures. To an always on surveillance network that tracks everyone everywhere at all times, and can be used without a warrant to see if you took a shit last tuesday, because the roll disappeared that day, so it must've been you flock said so.
Click to expand...
Never did, just responded to a point being made (and having AI or not in the toolchain is some important part of the debate or new....)

M76 said:
And it is perfectly constitutional, stop trying to equate speed cameras to whatever flock is.
Click to expand...
Not me doing it, I was purely responding to someone callign speed camera unconstitutional if they read the plate and send ticket.
 
are closed said:
I am sorry to sound naive or ignorant(not sure correct word), but is this real? Or some kind of AI generated snippet?
Click to expand...

Not just swimming pools but also random parks, apartment buildings, parking lots, and associated other areas. They point them at whatever they want to surveil. It was never about JUST license plates. It was always about hoovering up as much data as possible and then selling it to everyone they can regardless of how that data is getting used. Flock's only goal is selling data which is why they've been caught breaking contracts and selling data from one town to others.
 
Ididar said:
Not just swimming pools but also random parks, apartment buildings, parking lots, and associated other areas. They point them at whatever they want to surveil. It was never about JUST license plates. It was always about hoovering up as much data as possible and then selling it to everyone they can regardless of how that data is getting used. Flock's only goal is selling data which is why they've been caught breaking contracts and selling data from one town to others.
Click to expand...
If there ever is a car in that pool, that Flock won't miss the license plate. Might get a letter or number wrong due to water, but that's a mistake Flock is willing to make. I'm certain that Bob the Police officer won't ever look at the women in bikinis and men. We're not certain what Bob is into.
 
DukenukemX said:
A lawyer thinks Flock is breaking the 4th amendment. Those who say it doesn't refers to the 3rd party doctrine. On the other hand there's Charlie V. US which claims that law enforcement that uses tech companies to track citizens without a warrant. Aaron Rodgers secretly funded his town's Flock-style cameras. What's interesting is that he made sure to omit himself.

View: https://youtu.be/gmnL_Y9CsI0?si=O97BaXFf4cJj2PzV
Click to expand...


I thought about this a bit and the 3rd party doctrine doesn't apply to Flock because none of us voluntarily agreed to be tracked. Also, 3rd party has been limited anyway since the initial ruling so even that is suspect. But, basically, 3rd party would only apply if we agreed to be tracked by Flock and then the government bought that data. The government can't contract Flock to surveil us and then claim 3rd party doctrine.
 
Ididar said:
I thought about this a bit and the 3rd party doctrine doesn't apply to Flock because none of us voluntarily agreed to be tracked. Also, 3rd party has been limited anyway since the initial ruling so even that is suspect. But, basically, 3rd party would only apply if we agreed to be tracked by Flock and then the government bought that data. The government can't contract Flock to surveil us and then claim 3rd party doctrine.
Click to expand...
3rd party doctrine doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons. I get things like Google and Facebook because you do willing give data, but those Flock cameras are only there because the government gives them permission. Flock could get away with RING door bells because the owner is giving them permission, but Flock sticks their cameras in government property and not private property. Drones wouldn't work because airspace is still government, but cars with cameras would be 3rd party doctrine. The government buying the data just makes this even more illegal.
 
Read the other day that Axon is taking a page from Flock's mistakes and instead getting permission to mount their cameras on light poles and traffic light poles. That way they're harder for people to notice and much more difficult to remove. Folks are going to have to up their paintball game to deal with Axon.
 
Ididar said:
Read the other day that Axon is taking a page from Flock's mistakes and instead getting permission to mount their cameras on light poles and traffic light poles. That way they're harder for people to notice and much more difficult to remove. Folks are going to have to up their paintball game to deal with Axon.
Click to expand...
If I learned anything from football, it's people are capable of great feats with proper motivation (lookin at you, Eagles fans!). :p
 
Ididar said:
Read the other day that Axon is taking a page from Flock's mistakes and instead getting permission to mount their cameras on light poles and traffic light poles. That way they're harder for people to notice and much more difficult to remove. Folks are going to have to up their paintball game to deal with Axon.
Click to expand...
Putting them on light poles and traffic lights doesn't protect them. Just makes them targets. Besides paintball, there are high powered lasers which can damage the lens. Another thing to remember is these devices are using wireless signal to transmit data, and therefore can be jammed. More importantly, this must be costing Flock money if Axon is trying to go this route. Damaging Flock cameras is having an effect. Also, if the camera is damaged on the light poles then the cost to repair them has increased.


View: https://youtu.be/qEllWdK4l_A?si=ae1eG0LdguBTlgEQ

View: https://youtu.be/rGvblGCD7qM?si=czrDiwfkrwAk1qhz
 
DukenukemX said:
Putting them on light poles and traffic lights doesn't protect them. Just makes them targets. Besides paintball, there are high powered lasers which can damage the lens. Another thing to remember is these devices are using wireless signal to transmit data, and therefore can be jammed. More importantly, this must be costing Flock money if Axon is trying to go this route. Damaging Flock cameras is having an effect. Also, if the camera is damaged on the light poles then the cost to repair them has increased.


View: https://youtu.be/qEllWdK4l_A?si=ae1eG0LdguBTlgEQ

View: https://youtu.be/rGvblGCD7qM?si=czrDiwfkrwAk1qhz
Click to expand...


It's not having a effect except on YouTube algorithms. Most people don't want to risk a felony for destruction of government property. Cameras on light poles has been a thing for decades and destroying them doesn't cost Flock or any other company money, it costs your local government money to replace them. If you truly want something done, best to go to your city council and county council and tell them why you don't want them.
 
DukenukemX said:
Putting them on light poles and traffic lights doesn't protect them. Just makes them targets. Besides paintball, there are high powered lasers which can damage the lens. Another thing to remember is these devices are using wireless signal to transmit data, and therefore can be jammed. More importantly, this must be costing Flock money if Axon is trying to go this route. Damaging Flock cameras is having an effect. Also, if the camera is damaged on the light poles then the cost to repair them has increased.
Click to expand...

It has benefits in that you can't easily cut the pole like some of the small Flock camera poles. And it is higher up so it is harder to reach compared to a lot of the Flock cameras. Doesn't make it impossible, just a little more challenging. And, yeah, might be more expensive to replace at that stage.
 
Ididar said:
Read the other day that Axon is taking a page from Flock's mistakes and instead getting permission to mount their cameras on light poles and traffic light poles. That way they're harder for people to notice and much more difficult to remove. Folks are going to have to up their paintball game to deal with Axon.
Click to expand...
The Flock Sock is designed to be put on a broomstick/wooden pole. Probably no reason something similar can't be done with Axon's cameras. Admittedly if you are talking about a ten foot pole, you might have a problem unless you have a D&D character handy.
 
Gideon said:
It's not having a effect except on YouTube algorithms. Most people don't want to risk a felony for destruction of government property. Cameras on light poles has been a thing for decades and destroying them doesn't cost Flock or any other company money, it costs your local government money to replace them.
Click to expand...
People who cut down Flock cameras are in the boondocks where the nearest officer is two towns away, which makes it very safe to get away with. Flock cameras in populated areas are probably not going to cut them down, but a high powered laser isn't exactly hard to use. Not to forget, something easy to point with from an apartment balcony. Does it matter if it costs the government or Flock money? The point is that it's costing someone an unwanted amount of money.
If you truly want something done, best to go to your city council and county council and tell them why you don't want them.
Click to expand...
Good idea. Meetings over due to lack of decorum. We've seen this played out so many times that people get ignored, and it's not like Flock is a divisive issue as people overwhelming hate Flock. Norfolk mayor limits ‘repetitive’ comments about surveillance at public meeting. Council meeting on Flock cameras erupts into chaos, delaying vote. Activists interrupt Columbus City Council meeting to demand end to Flock contract. We can't get local governments to stop with Data Centers and you think Flock is any different? When I say Flock this also applies to all cameras like Axon.

View: https://youtu.be/EDNmYcy8AD0?si=lQY8XFYziVHmF1rk

View: https://youtu.be/6wINLHJUprQ?si=d63pPY2s0YIiTypS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top