The outrage over these is so silly. Literally every single complaint related to privacy, state surveillance, etc. is incoherent in the context of other modern technologies.

If you have the combination of a smartphone, a relatively new car model, any social media account and live anywhere but the most rural of areas your information and movements are already known and can be tracked well beyond the extent that flock cameras would allow for. Moreover, your movements within your neighborhood are already tracked far more extensively by the ubiquity of modern house and doorbell cameras, and most of these actually record audio as well.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Lots of good has been accomplished with these cams. I get the concern about misuse though. It's a complicated issue.

---

There's nothing complicated at all about the issue.
It's a clear cut 4th amendment violation and they're is zero justification for them

---

Any legal precedent establishing Flock cameras as unconstitutional would have so many implications for other modern technologies that it would essentially grind our current society to a halt.

Tailgate88 said:

---

Meanwhile, in College Station....

---

Your every movement can already be tracked by AI and any law enforcement department in the nation, and could be long before Flock cameras.

The FBI could, right now, map out your exact movements on August 19th of 2024. Your location and activity every second of the day could be immediately identified. Literally your entire life is already tracked.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

Meanwhile, in College Station....

---

Your every movement can already be tracked by AI and any law enforcement department in the nation, and could be long before Flock cameras.

The FBI could, right now, map out your exact movements on August 19th of 2024. Your location and activity every second of the day could be immediately identified. Literally your entire life is already tracked.

---

So i should just lie back and enjoy it then? Govern me harder daddy! Give me more shots too!

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

Meanwhile, in College Station....

---

Your every movement can already be tracked by AI and any law enforcement department in the nation, and could be long before Flock cameras.

The FBI could, right now, map out your exact movements on August 19th of 2024. Your location and activity every second of the day could be immediately identified. Literally your entire life is already tracked.

---

So i should just lie back and enjoy it then? Govern me harder daddy! Give me more shots too!

---

You should recognize the nature of the world you live in and acknowledge that we've all signed onto the social contract that traded privacy for comfort/convenience/safety/etc. Whether or not you like it, it's just reality. Moreover, you should recognize how silly complaining about Flock cameras is in the context of the world you've been living in for years.

As soon as we agreed to smart phones, ring cameras, smart cars, ubiquitous security camera placement, etc. we signed away a lot of our privacy as a society.

You could've saved a lot of time by simply typing "yes".

We're not all like you.

Feels like another step closer in turning many into 'the man who wanted to be left alone'. For those unfamiliar...

Quote:

---

"The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of men who wanted to be left alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know, that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over.

The moment the men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE TERROR will arrive at these people's door, and they will cry, scream and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the men who just wanted to be left alone."

-Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

---

Definitely not advocating for violence, you have to be blind to not see this potential over the horizon.

Slicer97 said:

---

You could've saved a lot of time by simply typing "yes".

---

We've all said yes already

BlueMiles said:

---

We're not all like you.

---

Sure you are. You can ***** and moan all you want but your actions belie your words. You've agreed to and benefited from the arrangement.

Either go throw your phone and computer in the river, sell your car and home and move off the grid with a refurbished 1995 Chevy truck or go sit down because whining is purely for show.

Not all heroes wear capes!

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The outrage over these is so silly. Literally every single complaint related to privacy, state surveillance, etc. is incoherent in the context of other modern technologies.

If you have the combination of a smartphone, a relatively new car model, any social media account and live anywhere but the most rural of areas your information and movements are already known and can be tracked well beyond the extent that flock cameras would allow for. Moreover, your movements within your neighborhood are already tracked far more extensively by the ubiquity of modern house and doorbell cameras, and most of these actually record audio as well.

---

Are you incapable of distinguishing between voluntary tracking via private entities (e.g., mobile cellphone carriers) and involuntary surveillance by the government while you are out and going about your business in public? Can Verizon arrest, charge, and prosecute you for a crime? Can you not voluntarily give up that smart phone if you so choose?

It seems like some of you (one is too many) would be perfectly fine with having overt and covert government electronic and photographic surveillance of you (and all of us) anytime and anywhere you are in public. All in the name of "safety". The chicoms would be proud of you. Maybe all our cities can be like Beijing someday. I guess we can dream, right?

I am realizing many Americans simply do not deserve to be free.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

Meanwhile, in College Station....

---

Your every movement can already be tracked by AI and any law enforcement department in the nation, and could be long before Flock cameras.

The FBI could, right now, map out your exact movements on August 19th of 2024. Your location and activity every second of the day could be immediately identified. Literally your entire life is already tracked.

---

So i should just lie back and enjoy it then? Govern me harder daddy! Give me more shots too!

---

It's really unbelievable isn't it?

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

You could've saved a lot of time by simply typing "yes".

---

We've all said yes already

---

Is your understanding of the situation really that limited?

Ag83 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The outrage over these is so silly. Literally every single complaint related to privacy, state surveillance, etc. is incoherent in the context of other modern technologies.

If you have the combination of a smartphone, a relatively new car model, any social media account and live anywhere but the most rural of areas your information and movements are already known and can be tracked well beyond the extent that flock cameras would allow for. Moreover, your movements within your neighborhood are already tracked far more extensively by the ubiquity of modern house and doorbell cameras, and most of these actually record audio as well.

---

Are you incapable of distinguishing between voluntary tracking via private entities (e.g., mobile cellphone carriers) and involuntary surveillance by the government while you are out and going about your business in public? Can Verizon arrest, charge, and prosecute you for a crime? Can you not voluntarily give up that smart phone if you so choose?

It seems like some of you (one is too many) would be perfectly fine with having overt and covert government electronic and photographic surveillance of you (and all of us) anytime and anywhere you are in public. All in the name of "safety". The chicoms would be proud of you. Maybe all our cities can be like Beijing someday. I guess we can dream, right?

I am realizing many Americans simply do not deserve to be free.

---

Your distinction between voluntary and involuntary here is incoherent because, in practice, you are already involuntarily monitored every second of every day. It's only voluntarily in the strictest legal sense. Is using a smartphone in the modern world voluntary? Technically yes, in practice for most people no. And how long will it be voluntary/practical for people to drive a car old enough that it can't track them? That becomes less and less so by the year. Is it voluntary to have some sort of online presence? Again technically yes, in practice no. Is it voluntary to be tracked by home surveillance systems? Sure if you're willing to live a very rural existence. Is that possible or practical for most Americans? It is not.

But the bigger point is that you are already monitored to such an extent that in renders this entire discussion moot. Flock cameras cannot be the threshold you claim to be worried about because that threshold was crossed many years ago. It's just that it happened in ways that many people either don't know about/understand, don't bother to think about or are indirect enough to allow for a minimal amount of cognitive dissonance. But this idea that Flock cameras are unique in practice or allow for some new and unparalleled level of surveillance is just laughably naive.

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

You could've saved a lot of time by simply typing "yes".

---

We've all said yes already

---

Is your understanding of the situation really that limited?

---

Yours seems to be

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The outrage over these is so silly. Literally every single complaint related to privacy, state surveillance, etc. is incoherent in the context of other modern technologies.

If you have the combination of a smartphone, a relatively new car model, any social media account and live anywhere but the most rural of areas your information and movements are already known and can be tracked well beyond the extent that flock cameras would allow for. Moreover, your movements within your neighborhood are already tracked far more extensively by the ubiquity of modern house and doorbell cameras, and most of these actually record audio as well.

---

Are you incapable of distinguishing between voluntary tracking via private entities (e.g., mobile cellphone carriers) and involuntary surveillance by the government while you are out and going about your business in public? Can Verizon arrest, charge, and prosecute you for a crime? Can you not voluntarily give up that smart phone if you so choose?

It seems like some of you (one is too many) would be perfectly fine with having overt and covert government electronic and photographic surveillance of you (and all of us) anytime and anywhere you are in public. All in the name of "safety". The chicoms would be proud of you. Maybe all our cities can be like Beijing someday. I guess we can dream, right?

I am realizing many Americans simply do not deserve to be free.

---

Your distinction between voluntary and involuntary here is incoherent because, in practice, you are already involuntarily monitored every second of every day. It's only voluntarily in the strictest legal sense.

But the bigger point is that you are already monitored to such an extent that in renders this entire discussion moot. Flock cameras cannot be the threshold you claim to be worried about because that threshold was crossed many years ago. It's just that it happened in ways that many people either don't know about/understand, don't bother to think about or are indirect enough to allow for a minimal amount of cognitive dissonance. But this idea that Flock cameras are unique in practice or allow for some new and unparalleled level of surveillance is just laughably naive.

---

You're clearly a lost cause and one of the ones I was referring to.

Your statement that the FBI can figure out my location on a specific day 2 years ago is pretty disingenuous. They could possibly do it with several different warrants and quite a bit of leg work. Flock requires zero warrants and 30 seconds. Add that to the fact that they are a private company that has been less than honest about their data retention and security protocols and record and it makes people uneasy.
I don't get the attitude of "well you are tracked 66 different ways already so what is one more". That one more is the line in the sand for a lot of people. It is no different than being ok with some taxes but a new one gets added and it is too far for most folks, look at the stamp tax in the original colonies for example.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The outrage over these is so silly. Literally every single complaint related to privacy, state surveillance, etc. is incoherent in the context of other modern technologies.

If you have the combination of a smartphone, a relatively new car model, any social media account and live anywhere but the most rural of areas your information and movements are already known and can be tracked well beyond the extent that flock cameras would allow for. Moreover, your movements within your neighborhood are already tracked far more extensively by the ubiquity of modern house and doorbell cameras, and most of these actually record audio as well.

---

Big difference is using those to track you generally requires a judge's order and/or are voluntary. These flock cameras do not require a judge's order and they are not voluntary. Many of them are put on public roads that for many residents cannot be avoided.

Such concrete, black and white, pro- vs anti-surveillance way of thinking about this is just fundamentally flawed.

Do I "want" to be monitored to the extent I am? Not really no. Is my life exponentially better/more convenient/safer because of the technologies that as a byproduct have resulted in much of this increased surveillance. Absolutely, as is yours.

We as a society signed the contract that has necessarily compromised a degree of privacy. It just is what it is. All I'm saying is dying on this hill in particular reflects either a stunning degree of ignorance and naivete, or is so flagrantly performative as to not be worth engaging.

GM owners have been spied on since 1996 when OnStar was first introduced.

Anyone who uses any form of GPS in their car can be tracked. You think the FBI, NSA or any other 3 letter agency can't track you, I have ocean front property for sale in Arizona

But all means, flock cameras are the problem.

This is an odd thread. People usually lose their minds over government surveillance and privacy infringement, but when a private company does it FOR the government, people are like, "Welp, the 3 letters watch you all the time, so what's the big deal?" I think if folks knew more about the money and orgs behind Flock, they'd look at it differently.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Such concrete, black and white, pro- vs anti-surveillance way of thinking about this is just fundamentally flawed.

Do I "want" to be monitored to the extent I am? Not really no. Is my life exponentially better/more convenient/safer because of the technologies that as a byproduct have resulted in much of this increased surveillance. Absolutely, as is yours.

We as a society signed the contract that has necessarily compromised a degree of privacy. It just is what it is. All I'm saying is dying on this hill in particular reflects either a stunning degree of ignorance and naivete, or is so flagrantly performative as to not be worth engaging.

---

If you cant see the difference between something that needs a court order to look at and something that just needs a case number, I dont know what to tell ya.

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

GM owners have been spied on since 1996 when OnStar was first introduced.

Anyone who uses any form of GPS in their car can be tracked. You think the FBI, NSA or any other 3 letter agency can't track you, I have ocean front property for sale in Arizona

But all means, flock cameras are the problem.

---

I dont think you understand how GPS works

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Lots of good has been accomplished with these cams. I get the concern about misuse though. It's a complicated issue.

---

There's nothing complicated at all about the issue.
It's a cigar cut 4th amendment violation and they're is zero justification for them

---

Not really clear cut at all. The judicial system is heavily on the opposite side. Over 30 state and federal courts, including two federal appellate courts, have held that fixed ALPRs are not a search.

---

So you contend Flock is "just a license plate reader"
It's not.
But bless your heart if that's what you believe, let me tell you about some beach front property I'm looking to sell.

---

So what makes it a 4th violation would be eliminated if it only recorded the license plate?

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

We as a society signed the contract that has necessarily compromised a degree of privacy. It just is what it is. All I'm saying is dying on this hill in particular reflects either a stunning degree of ignorance and naivete, or is so flagrantly performative as to not be worth engaging.

---

God I hate when people bring up the so-called "social contract." It's such an idiotic thing to use as justification. First, show me the contract…I would like to read it. And then second, show me where I signed it.

The basic elements required for a valid contract include offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, and legality.

There was never an offer. I sure as hell didn't accept it if there was. The legal requirement of consideration has not been met. And the legality of this is highly questionable.

There's no such thing as a social contract. And even if there was, it would violate literally all of the elements needed for it to be a legitimate contract.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

All I'm saying is dying on this hill in particular reflects either a stunning degree of ignorance and naivete, or is so flagrantly performative as to not be worth engaging.

---

Yet here you are.....engaging.

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

All I'm saying is dying on this hill in particular reflects either a stunning degree of ignorance and naivete, or is so flagrantly performative as to not be worth engaging.

---

Yet here you are.....engaging.

---

Because, in general, I believe the issue for most people is the former. Most people just genuinely have no idea the extent to which they are already monitored in their day to day lives. Criminals are, almost without exception, dumbfounded with they realize how modern technologies allowed them to be caught. More people than not remain confused as to how the ads they see online and on streaming cater specifically to them. Even in this thread where people have a vested interested in NOT appearing that way there is still some very obvious misunderstanding from many about how thoroughly you can be tracked and how easy it is for authorities to get access to that information.

Those people are worth engaging

Hey...so.. um said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Such concrete, black and white, pro- vs anti-surveillance way of thinking about this is just fundamentally flawed.

Do I "want" to be monitored to the extent I am? Not really no. Is my life exponentially better/more convenient/safer because of the technologies that as a byproduct have resulted in much of this increased surveillance. Absolutely, as is yours.

We as a society signed the contract that has necessarily compromised a degree of privacy. It just is what it is. All I'm saying is dying on this hill in particular reflects either a stunning degree of ignorance and naivete, or is so flagrantly performative as to not be worth engaging.

---

If you cant see the difference between something that needs a court order to look at and something that just needs a case number, I dont know what to tell ya.

---

You have no expectation of privacy when driving on the roads with respect to your physical location. It's the same reason why warrants aren't required to obtain traffic camera footage or external security camera footage in public spaces. Moreover, the authorities don't always need a warrant to obtain things like Ring camera footage or cellphone records in specific situations.

Arguing the authorities should always require warrant to obtain such footage is akin to arguing an officer requires a warrant to follow you in his cruiser.

EFR said:

---

Your statement that the FBI can figure out my location on a specific day 2 years ago is pretty disingenuous. They could possibly do it with several different warrants and quite a bit of leg work. Flock requires zero warrants and 30 seconds. Add that to the fact that they are a private company that has been less than honest about their data retention and security protocols and record and it makes people uneasy.
I don't get the attitude of "well you are tracked 66 different ways already so what is one more". That one more is the line in the sand for a lot of people. It is no different than being ok with some taxes but a new one gets added and it is too far for most folks, look at the stamp tax in the original colonies for example.

---

Again, the authorities can track you in many other ways without a warrant already and there is no legal justification/precedent for requiring a warrant to obtain footage of people driving on public roads.

Nobody is arguing that they need a warrant to take your picture on a public road. You are missing the point though. Right now there are at least some checks and balances. There are tons of data points out there about your whereabouts, but court orders are required to get many of them.
Maybe this is a better way to put it. Right now security cameras on houses/businesses are there for a reason, to protect that property. Your phone tracks you so GPS works and calls are routed to the right towers. With these things the surveillance use is secondary to the main use. Flock is surveillance for the purpose of surveillance.

EFR said:

---

Flock is surveillance for the purpose of surveillance.

---

Seems to me to purpose is to help catch people who are committing crimes. It's pretty disingenuous to imply the intent is to actively monitor housewives driving to and from Target.

And again, to reiterate, people on the left are as upset if not moreso than people on the right about these things. And it's SPECIFICALLY because they fear it will lead to a lot more criminals and illegal immigrants being caught.

Some of you should take a few moments to think on that.

Maybe if people on both the left and right are upset about something there is something to it.
And come on, I haven't heard even the most crazy AOC types say "flock is bad because it will catch illegals".

Here's what's behind Flock - the money, the people, and the orgs. It's a 6 minute video. If this doesn't change your view, then, respectfully, you're being disingenuous.
https://substack.com/@theleahfiles/note/c-281581025 if the link shows an error, refresh the page, that worked for me.

And if you don't want to watch it, that's cool too. No hard feelings.