| ▲ | bko 8 hours ago |
| I think using technology to capture alleged criminals is a good thing. |
|
| ▲ | inigyou 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I agree. You stole $5 from me and I'm glad with the help of Flock you can be tracked down and brought to justice. |
| |
| ▲ | baobabKoodaa 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I can confirm. I saw him take the $5. | |
| ▲ | bko 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | ycombinatrix 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, I saw you take the $5. Good luck convincing the police you didn't. | | |
| ▲ | bko 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're living in fantasy land dude. You can point cops to your stolen property, have the guy dead to rights, on video in possession of your stolen property and you still can't have them do anything. I love your naivete when it comes to police and law enforcement. Never change | | |
| ▲ | timcobb 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's just the ol', "I don't need privacy because I have nothing to hide" routine, which is, in fact, the naive perspective. | |
| ▲ | inigyou 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I smelled weed on you when you took my $5. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | preg_match 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think everyone agrees. Where the disagreement lies is if this is how the technology is actually used, and the answer seems to be: no. Regardless, even if the technology was used currently purely for good, when you’re “pro surveillance” you’re actually arguing it will always be used for good, even in some hypothetical future with hypothetical politics. That’s a very hard sell. |
| |
| ▲ | bko 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm pro technology. Being pro something does not mean I'm arguing it will always be used for good. What kind of standard is that? |
|
|
| ▲ | goda90 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Party was great at using Viewscreen technology to catch thought criminals. |
|
| ▲ | nemomarx 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| does this work for any allegation? if it was a serious one surely they could get a warrant. if it's not enough for that it might as well be gossip imo. |
| |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | According to Flock's CEO, yes. He has stated he sees a false positive as a better outcome than a false negative. | | |
| ▲ | bko 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Flock provides technology. They don't set the laws. It's like complaining about the CEO of Ford bc a police Ford vehicle damaged some property | | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure. I actually worked for Flock. I watched them happily train officers from Agencies on doing things they were not allowed to do by law, that Flock knew they weren't. That "Chinese wall" of separation is nowhere near as concrete as you like to act. Flock might not set the laws, but when the Flock CEO says he would prefer you to be collateral damage on his company's mission for "a world without crime, thanks to Flock" than dare risk someone not get caught for a crime or alleged crime, via Flock, then sorry, they absolutely are participating in things, and complaints against them are entirely appropriately targeted. | |
| ▲ | antonvs 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Flock provides tools and information that influence and encourage bad behavior from police. Yes, we need laws to help stop this. Ideally, those laws should entirely destroy Flock's business model and lead to its bankruptcy. The issue is not whether cameras are useful for law enforcement. The issue is how that camera information is managed and overseen. What Flock is doing would fit right in in a cartoon authoritarian state, but it doesn't belong in the real world. |
|
|
|
