|
| ▲ | bumblehean 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There are already numerous examples of law enforcement abusing data from Flock to track and stalk citizens who have done nothing wrong. There are already numerous examples of Flock misidentifying citizens as suspects of crimes and them being arrested or otherwise harassed by law enforcement. You can say that these are individual problems rather than systemic problems, but with the US' gradual descent towards authoritarianism and being a militarized police-state I do not see how this technology will be used to make a positive impact on the lives of everyday citizens (which IMO has been happening since the 80s at least before you just imply I don't like the current administration). I am personally willing to incur a higher risk of being the victim of a crime if it means government/police/private companies/etc. are not able to violate my privacy every waking moment of my life. |
| |
| ▲ | RussianBot9580 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I am personally willing to incur a higher risk of being the victim of a crime if it means government/police/private companies/etc. are not able to violate my privacy every waking moment of my life. This is it precisely. Thank you for stating this so clearly. And I am not. Practically speaking, invasion of privacy from the government or private companies affects me not at all. Petty crime does make daily life unpleasant. And before you say "but you don't know how that'll turn out" - we do. There is China, there is Russia, there is Dubai. These are places where a female can walk around safely in the middle of the night. |
|
|
| ▲ | codingdave 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > all they'll find out Who is "they"? Flock collects data which is given/sold to police departments or other entities. Regardless of how you feel about law enforcement having this data, how do you feel about Flock being a middle-man who controls the flow of the data? How do you feel about knowing Flock is VC-driven and will be making decisions based on ROI, not societal benefit? |
| |
| ▲ | RussianBot9580 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | And a public officer would instead be driven by corruption, like that nice San Jose policewoman who signed off on customs forms for fentanyl shipments. |
|
|
| ▲ | collingreen 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The "you shouldn't need privacy if you aren't doing anything wrong" is such a tired yarn. There are many many many examples of abuse, both in the short term (flock gymnastics pedophiles, cop loveint, cross state abortion suspicion tracking) and long term (the "red scare", the administration performing loyalty tests). There are also plenty of discussions outlining how everyone should support privacy because some need it more than others and we're all on the same team. Pretending people who are against flock or government illegal surveillance care more about criminals then their families is so bad faith it makes them an asshole (not you but a comment above). |
| |
| ▲ | froggy 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | And this administration has been talking about “the enemy within” for so long, when do we see the Executive Order declaring protesters as “treasonous enemy combatants” (or similar nonsense) followed by a beefed up ICE-style militia offshoot making arrests from a Flock list of 100,000+ Americans who were tracked within the vicinity of No Kings protests. If republicans maintain control of congress, I’d give it a greater than 1% chance which is way too high. | |
| ▲ | RussianBot9580 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But think of it from another angle. It's easy to assume that everyone is on board with your cause when you are in a bubble and all of your friends are. But it could be that there's no grand conspiracy to suppress the public opinion. It's just that public opinion isn't quite what you think. And yeah, there will be bad apples. On the balance, I think these bad apples are better than the ones they replace. |
|
