> There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets.

Strong disagree. Life in public areas is often still part of private life. And we should treat it with the respect and privacy that it deserves. You going to the doctor? That's part of your private life. You meeting with an old friend to catch up? Also private, even though you do it in a public cafe.

▲

fusslo 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I also disagree with OP.

It seems like (to my very uneducated mind) the founders were worried about the tyranny of government. We have the bill of rights and a constitution designed to limit government powers.

But then there are people who weaponize rights against the people in favor of the government.

A private company creating a mass-surveillance network of tracking everyone in public is absolutely a weaponization of rights. Rights designed to keep our government accountable. Our rights that give us tools to prevent government from weaponizing privacy against us (secret juries, secret trials, secret government employees, records etc citing 'privacy' as a reason for secrecy).

▲

veec_cas_tant 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In the USA? Any café you go to is reasonably likely to have cameras, both inside and outside. If you mean driving to a doctor's office, you probably pass by hundreds of cameras along the way: video doorbells, dash cams, Teslas, Waymos, gas stations, ATMs, traffic-flow cameras, etc. If you are in one of the many cities with tens of thousands of existing non-Flock cameras, you are likely passing many more.

▲

dbetteridge a day ago | parent | next [-]

Not USA based so do with that what you will.

Independent cameras, often not networked let alone internet connected are not the same thing as a single entity controlling a huge, internet capable, always on, cloud recording panopticon.

Logistically the first limits things like police access by units of both access and time (is it recording? Does the memory card overwrite? Did it expire before a warrant was issued?)

Putting that all in a convenient console and handing direct god eye view to police with a "oh you need a warrant first, wink wink", massively reduces friction for abuse of power.

	▲	veec_cas_tant a day ago \| parent [-]
		When the police ask for video evidence, they simply ask. They do not need a warrant. They might need a subpoena to force someone to hand it over, but I’m guessing that’s incredibly rare because people and businesses with cameras generally want to help. The issue is the incredible waste of time and money. It is incredibly inefficient to send a team out to collect footage instead of simply checking Flock, Axon, etc. No doubt, that hurdle prevents abuse, but it also hinders legitimate investigations. I would prefer strong safeguards against abuse while still allowing for real investigative wins.

▲

vaylian 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

To put it bluntly: That's dystopian.