First off, I don't enjoy the intense kind of Internet surveillance we have today; the advertiser tracking and logging of everywhere we go and everything we see. I think most sessions should be kept private, just between me, my ISP, and Google/Microsoft.

However, I am perfectly fine with Flock (or other) cameras existing and providing services on behalf of government. If the tech exists to watch public spaces all the time and massively process the data, then so be it; who can stop it? So there are abuses: any system can be abused, so improve the controls and stop corruption at its root, not its symptoms.

I bet that most anti-Flock people lobby hard for bodycams on police, and they thrive on those amateur social-media videos that appear to depict "police brutality" or "ICE overreach" on the streets. It only seems fair, that if amateur video can be leveraged to whip the public into a righteous frenzy, that professional video networks should be in place as well.

Lastly, I don't mind the folks who are chopping down Flock trees. I think it's kind of adorable, actually. I believe that Flock should've used better care and highway safety standards to install the things, rather than hastily throwing them in any open space. You kids with your axes like President Washington's cherry trees! Power to the people!

▲

solid_fuel 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> However, I am perfectly fine with Flock (or other) cameras existing and providing services on behalf of government.

Well of course you are, you also endorse torture!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49323719

Why anyone else should give a shit what you think, I don't know. Hey, chance for personal growth: maybe if a flock camera catches you near a crime scene you'll have a chance to enjoy the detention without trial and forced feeding that a lot of innocent migrants are being subjected to. I would love that for you.

	▲	cindyllm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

ozlikethewizard 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide, right?

Personally I see no worthwhile reason the state should be able to track the location of every person at any time. Phones make this bad enough, but at least that's warrant required and requires active intervention. Passive tracking of everybodies actions through total camera surveillance is a brutal thought, no?

▲

ButlerianJihad 5 hours ago | parent [-]

No, actually it's more than that.

While your premise is true, it's also true that if I have done something wrong then I have no problem being called out and brought to justice on those merits.

Someone who is doing wrong hopes to be disciplined. Many criminals secretly just hope to be caught so they can stop doing wrong. It seems nearly absurd that criminals who "have something to hide" continually just cover up more and more and act covertly, as if they could never be found out.

If I did something in public that was so egregious that a camera recorded me and it could be used as evidence against me, I hope that it would.

Likewise, if I were involved in any dispute or crime, as a witness or victim, and there were surveillance that indicated my role was innocence, bystander, or victimhood, I would hope that the evidence showed that as well.

I don't have any illusions, in the face of corruption and oppression, that surveillance will be entirely fair, but it can be widespread and equally applied, and it's only through its ubiquitousness that it will be ultimately effective.

	▲	jst1fthsdys an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Someone who is doing wrong hopes to be disciplined. Between the op and this comment you have to be trolling. Or you are so clueless to how the real world works you are equivalent to a child. Either way you shouldn't post.