| ▲ | The Government Is Monitoring Anti-Flock TikTok and Instagram Accounts(404media.co) |
| 49 points by Jimmc414 an hour ago | 11 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | Cider9986 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't see anything so wrong with cutting them down. I see it similar to maintaining a local trail. Removing obstacles like fallen trees or brambles. These are pests that are unconstitutional. It seems like a statement to the prosperity of the American ideals of freedom that they are being removed both by local activism and illegal means. Along with the general sentiment on social media. It's genuinely insane the power social media has on earth. It's attributed to the revolution in Nepal, major protests in India, and there were a bunch more in other countries[1]. We as humans have been brainwashed with the nothing to hide fallacy. It's good to see it dismantled once we see mass surveillance in practice. [1] Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Morocco, Madagascar, Peru, and Bulgaria from a Brave overview (can't say I researched any of these). Prompt: other countries that had uprisings like the Nepal 2025 one |
| |
| ▲ | linkjuice4all 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Cutting them down isn’t the worst idea but it would be nice if we could just elect people that wouldn’t allow this in the first place. Knowing that won’t happen, the only chance reasonable people have to stop this is to turn these systems against the decision makers until they yield. Some kind of Flock@home volunteer surveillance network that tracks politicians, records LEO interactions (including those involving masked unaccountable agents), and provides the only accountability that the public has left. | | |
| ▲ | willis936 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | What do you mean "allow"? Police chiefs are not elected positions and they often find funding outside of the town's budget for these automated bill of rights violation machines. |
| |
| ▲ | ericmay 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't really care too much one way or the other about these cameras, and generally think it's probably bad to have more surveillance but could you help me understand what exactly is "unconstitutional" or even nefarious with these cameras provided they are bought and installed on property that is owned by the installer or an entity such as the government which presumably has legal justification for installing them? I'm genuinely asking since I'm a bit out of touch with this latest controversy, but how are they any different than a dash cam, doorbell camera, or my alley camera, for example such that they deserve special consideration? | | |
| ▲ | snazz 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which is loosely supported by Supreme Court precent in Carpenter and Jones. See my previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46359826 Edit: To be more clear, the issue courts have considered is warrantless searches of ALPR databases (and whether that evidence should be excluded), not whether it’s constitutional to put up cameras. | |
| ▲ | harimau777 8 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizure. Tracking people's movements without specific reason the believe that they are a criminal has generally been regarded, at least by the public, as a classic example of government overreach. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | altairprime 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [delayed] |
|
| ▲ | blakeashleyjr 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A plague on our land. Hopefully the recent Chatrie v. United States decision gives courts the ammo they need to shut these down. There is a big difference in a cop seeing you go by, checking a list, and coming after you than scanning every license plate, bumper sticker, etc. and putting in a database for every cop in the country. |
| |
|
| ▲ | actionfromafar 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And here of course. |
|
| ▲ | danielrmay 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "I hope our names are touching on the watchlist" |
