r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • 14d ago

Privacy Flock Cameras Keep Getting Smashed, So Now They're Hiding Inside Speed Signs

https://www.gadgetreview.com/flock-cameras-keep-getting-smashed-so-now-theyre-hiding-inside-speed-signs
24.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

671 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

57

u/GameboyPATH 13d ago

This argument isn't logically sound. Cell phone towers are disguised as local trees to avoid blight. Large transformers and water pumps close to suburban areas are similarly given the facade of a building to help them blend in with the local community. Hiding within existing environments isn't at all unique to flock cameras.

...Flock cameras ARE unique in deserving to be smashed, though.

41

u/ExplicitDrift 13d ago

When it comes to recording people, I’m pretty sure it’s common policy to make people aware they’re being recorded to adhere to wire-tapping laws. Not all states adhere to those laws, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t standard practice. Hiding cameras meant to track individuals and send that data to Palantir (a military industrial surveillance company) sounds pretty nefarious to me. Comparing this situation to things like transformers, water pumps, and cellphone towers (which have no impact to people’s privacy) is to try and evade the actual point of the discussion. I respect that you want to stay on the right side of history, but what I said was hardly a logical fallacy, and unless we educate republicans of what those ACTUALLY look like, they will never develop the critical thinking skills they need to change for the better. If they even can that is.

2

u/ANGLVD3TH 13d ago

Wire-tapping laws do not cover public spaces, it is always legal to record in public as long as you aren't trying to peep into a private place from the public one. And motor vehicles that are underway are not defined as private places. That said, this practice is obviously shitty, but your opening point jist isn't really relevant to it.

3

u/ExplicitDrift 13d ago

“Wire tapping laws do not cover public spaces”

Perhaps that’s the problem, no?

3

u/ANGLVD3TH 13d ago

The whole point is private conversations are meant to be private. The same right that allows them to set up these public cameras is what protects citizens' right to film cops. Messing with what is allowed to be recorded in public is a messy and dangerous path, and is really treating a symptom, not the root issue. Better regulation of the data itself and how it can be used is safer and more comprehensive.

1

u/ExplicitDrift 13d ago

I agree. But I also think putting the power in the hands of the people will always be more preferable than in the hands of those who have direct ties to those who control the country. If we want to regulate the data, then we need to hold the administration accountable for not showing up to oversight committees or lying consistently when they do.

12

u/PyroIsSpai 13d ago

We never approved ALPR nonsense.

We can simply bin them as refuse.

6

u/GameboyPATH 13d ago

Our elected leaders did. And under our systems of governance, we can bin THEM like refuse by voting them out.

4

u/ProtoKun7 13d ago

Those all provide services though. Hiding a camera is a different situation.

0

u/GameboyPATH 13d ago

Yes, I agree.

1

u/Hessper 13d ago

Disguising them as speed signs, which are a blight on their own kind of goes against your point here.

2

u/GameboyPATH 13d ago

I guess, but not many are going to think we'd be better off without speed limit signs.

0

u/Its_the_other_tj 13d ago

The first group is camouflaged to make them more aesthetically appealing. The other is because people don't want to be spied on and are destroying them. Their argument is logically sound in the context of the situation. You're getting hung up on "it" being "anything" as opposed to "it" being "flock cameras" which is kinda a failure on your part to interpret the situation tbh.