"Or others see when parents are repeatedly leaving their kids unattended."

... which is the expected, default use-case for a playground ...

I didn't want to get into an argument over whether kids should be unattended at playgrounds or not - I don't know where the other poster is front and it seems to be based on age, density, region, etc. Where I grew up it would be weird to stay, in the city I am in it would be weird to leave them.

If you leave your kids unattended at a playground I don't see how the camera changes the risk factor in any meaningful way. Either a pedophile can expect there to be unattended children or not.

▲

braingravy 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s anonymity of the viewers combined with mass open-access surveillance that enables an unheard of level of stalking capacity.

Most people don’t like the idea that strangers could easily stalk their child remotely.

It’s the easy of access to surveillance technology that is different. Has nothing to do with the park being safe or not.

Try to think like an evil person with no life and very specific and demonic aims if you’re still having trouble seeing why this would be an issue.

	▲	eightysixfour 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Try to think like an evil person with no life and very specific and demonic aims if you’re still having trouble seeing why this would be an issue. That person already has incredible power to stalk and ruin someone's life. Making Flock cameras public would change almost nothing for that person. It fascinates me how fast people jump to "imagine the worst person" when we talk about making data public. We have the worst people, they're the ones who profit off of it being private, with no public accountability, who don't build secure systems. The theater of privacy is, IMO, worse than not having privacy.