|
| ▲ | breakpointalpha 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I can't imagine that the authors of the Constitution predicted always on, AI enabled facial and license plate recognition on every street corner in America. If this is what they thought was possible, why write the 4th Amendment? Unreasonable search and overbearing government was one of the key issues of the American Revolution. |
|
| ▲ | praptak 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There's a ton of difference between a random person noting my presence at a single point in space-time and a commercial entity tracking and storing my movements all the time. Being okay with people watching me in public does not imply being okay with someone aggregating the information about my whereabouts 24/7 even though it's "the same" information. Btw it's a fallacy similar to the one debunked in "what colour are your bits". The context matters, not just the abstract information. |
| |
| ▲ | mlyle 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This is an unfortunate thing about a whole lot of legal precedent in the US. Courts made a pretty reasonable set of tradeoffs around the 4th amendment for search warrant vs. subpoena, police officers observing you, etc. During the 19th century. Unfortunately, modern data processing completely undermines a lot of the rationale about how reasonable and intrusive various things are. Before, cops couldn't follow and surveil everyone; blanket subpoenas to get millions of peoples' information weren't possible because the information wasn't concentrated in one entity's hands and compliance would have been impossible; etc. |
|
|
| ▲ | xnyan 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >This idea that there's some kind of difference between me watching you in public and Flock watching you in public is, quite frankly, bogus. The idea that me an individual observing you, and a large, well funded company allied with the US government observing you has no difference, quite frankly, leads me to conclude* you are arguing in bad faith. You can make an ideological argument that is the case, but not one based on fact and reality. *edited for spelling |
|
| ▲ | phil21 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > This idea that there's some kind of difference between me watching you in public and Flock watching you in public is, quite frankly, bogus. If you followed me around all day taking photographs of my every move for no other reason than you felt like it, I would very likely have recourse via stalking and harassment laws. There is no difference to me that some company does it via technology. If I'm interesting enough to get a warrant for surveillance of my activities - fair game. Private investigators operate under a set of reasonable limits and must be licensed in most (all?) states for this reason as well. It's quite obvious laws have simply not caught up with the state of modern technology that allows for the type of data collection and thus mass-surveillance that is now possible today. If you went back 50 years ago and asked anyone on the street if it was okay that every time they left the house their travel history would be recorded indefinitely they would talk to you about communist dystopias that could never happen here due to the 2nd amendment. |
|
| ▲ | dogleash 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >> False, he is forcing Flock on EVERYONE >> No one has permitted themselves to be surveilled > As much as I dislike Flock, this is bad logic. There's no such thing as opting out of surveillance in public spaces. You're agreeing that he is forcing flock on people. Legality doesn't make it not-forced. Not needing consent is different from receiving consent. |
| |
| ▲ | try_the_bass 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I mean, he's not. Police departments and other organizations who buy and install Flock cameras are the ones doing the "forcing". Again, I'm pretty anti-Flock, but place the blame where it's due and use good logic to support that. |
|
|
| ▲ | gowld an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Flock is not a natural person. Flock has no rights. |
| |
|
| ▲ | 8note an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| this is still forcing flock on everyone. they could instead be limiting flock to private places. > This idea that there's some kind of difference between me watching you in public and Flock watching you in public is, quite frankly, bogus. if you followed me everywhere and took pictures of me everywhwre i went outside from my door in the morning to my door in the evening, id want to get a restraining order on you as a stalker. this is stalking |
| |
| ▲ | try_the_bass 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I agree, this is stalking. But again, this is not what Flock is doing. By this same logic, traffic cameras and CCTV surveillance are "stalking", which doesn't seem accurate? |
|
|
| ▲ | ceejayoz an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > This idea that there's some kind of difference between me watching you in public and Flock watching you in public is, quite frankly, bogus. The idea that there's not a scale difference is, quite frankly, bogus. |
| |
| ▲ | try_the_bass 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Okay, can you articulate the difference? I don't disagree that quantity has a quality of it's own in some circumstances, but that's not an inherent property of "quantity". | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz a few seconds ago | parent [-] | | You peeking out your curtains at me is fine. It doesn’t scale. Everyone doing it 24/7 via their cameras and running it through AI analysis and providing it to the cops for $$$ is not. |
| |
| ▲ | AnIrishDuck an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > This idea that there's some kind of difference between me watching you from a park bench in public and hundreds of thousands of clones of me watching you from every street corner in public is, quite frankly, bogus To paraphrase the quote, quantity has a quality of its own. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 an hour ago | parent [-] | | To paraphrase the quote, quantity has a quality of its own. The central dogma of machine learning. Which Flock and its defenders know very well. |
|
|
