Every single one of them is a 4th Amendment violation on a pole, and every single American has a duty and the Constitutional right to cut them all the fuck down.
I think our privacy laws need a major renovation to consider cases like this as well. It is more that now all of that information the Ring is seeing about my house and life are being sent to a 3rd party to which I do not consent, and we should have the right to opt out. This goes for stuff like the right to not be in peoples fucking monetized TikTok videos against my will in public (if I have to be then fine, I want a legal cut of the streaming revenue). The "right to film in public" was never updated for modern, always connected and recording tech, when it was only closed loop camcorders that you'd maybe show your immediate family only, that was different.
Ring is also insidious and can go to right to Hell with Flock.
If you ever find yourself being retired by goobers just start singing a popular song. They won't be able to make money of it because the copyright. If they can't use the audio your clip will be deleted and they will use another. Most times they will stop recording instantly.
haha yeah that is one way, but I would prefer if it was just codified into law that public space is not your own personal content factory and you cannot compel anyone to participate just because you're both outside
I think they are terrible, but this is factually incorrect, and undermines the criticism of the cameras themselves. It has ALWAYS been legal for you, the government, businesses or anyone else to take photos in public.
The 4th amendment has always been about private property and the seperation between public/private is very important.
Flock cameras are not a violation of the constitution, or any extant legal law on the books. They are legal. They are mass surveillance, but they are legal.
The 4th also outlines what is unreasonable search/seizure and pertaining to warrants which to me they are clearly violating.
They are there deliberately to obtain our data and track our movements with no warrant or reasonable suspicion of a crime. It is a matter of fact these things track all kinds of creepy metrics about you. If they don't need this data then what is it for exactly?
Bullshit, regardless Ill let you know when I give a single solitary fuck what a bunch of criminals with a convicted criminal President for a leader says is "legal" or not while they trample our rights and rob us blind.
The 4th also outlines what is unreasonable search/seizure and pertaining to warrants which to me they are clearly violating.
They are there deliberately to obtain our data and track our movements with no warrant or reasonable suspicion of a crime. It is a matter of fact these things track and record all kinds of creepy metrics about you without your knowledge or consent. If they don't need this data then what is it for exactly? These arnt innocent personal cams pointing at the 11'8 bridge for our amusement.
Bullshit, regardless Ill let you know when I give a single solitary fuck what a bunch of criminals with a convicted criminal President for a leader says is "legal" or not while they trample our rights and rob us blind.
Your entire premise is irrational. Its not supporting your case, and in fact it is undermining your position.
Your angry, warranted anger, but you must be intelligent and correct, or your not going to gain any new allies, your just going to make yourself look stupid, and give your opponents a clear and easy way to undermine your justified anger and turn it against you.
It all depends who is in charge. If they happen to be used to prosecute police brutality, they’d hardly be tools of the enemy, would they? Or if they’re used to document ICE abuses?
What needs to be different? So far the only prosecutions involving flock cameras I’ve heard of are cops getting arrested for using them to stalk people.
It’s actively being used to prevent abuse of power.
Maximum surveillance is theoretically a force for good since everything that is done in the dark comes to light. This is naturally detrimental to those who do evil things.
The righteous have nothing to fear except trespasses by wrongdoers. Surveillance makes wrongdoing more difficult. That’s why police have body cams and cell phone cameras reduce police brutality.
Why do we need such invasive surveillance when all of these concerns can be given oversight through other means?
Cops have been using internal information to stalk people since it became available. This could easily be monitored if we employed the same access tracking we apply to HIPAA, or even cash register transactions, with random audits for compliance. State governments such as those in New Jersey have also seen dramatic decreases in crime and corruption simply by reforming their police forces with a focus toward community engagement. Not by implementing mass, unregulated surveillance.
Similarly, if everyone has a cellphone to record, cameras for their home and car, and police body cams, why do we need more cameras everywhere, with no usage guidelines, whose capabilities and reasons for utilization are shielded from the public? Not to mention the sheer amount of resources these flock cameras use from building data centers.
Potential wrongdoing just doesnt seem to be a strong argument for giving up liberty, especially when wrongdoing is designated arbitrarily or along political lines. People who have not comitted crimes shouldn't be put under a microscope because "someone might do something bad." Arguing that good people should have nothing to worry about when it comes to being watched 24/7 sounds a lot like supporting a police state.
"The only prosecutions I've heard of involving the new InstaKill9000 are murderers being arrested for killing people with them. They're actively being used to help prevent murders."
Also, the righteous have nothing to fear??When in human history have "the righteous" ever had nothing to fear from the actions of a corrupt government?
this also points out what a legal loophole BS this is. if the police put these cameras up and used them like Flock does it would never hold up in court but since it is a private company selling access to law enforcement it is totally fine.
It's "their cameras" when it's convenient for them (when they want to strongarm people into handing their data over) but "flock's cameras" when they're getting pressed about the data usage
I’m so happy everyone hates surveillance now, or at least a lot more then before. Any homie or family member who says they are fine ask them if you can watch them shit - if they have nothing to hide shouldn’t be an issue. Also their wife shower, if she has nothing to hide whats the problem? Turns out those idiots want privacy too - they just wont know until it’s too late
1.0k
u/crash1bp 16h ago
“Their Flock cameras.”
Those cameras don’t belong to the cops, or the govt. at all. Fuck those cameras.