I really dislike this sort of fake outrage. They're not pissed, they have a job to do and these cameras help them. I personally dislike flock cameras because I don't like passive surveillance, but we've also elected officials who've encouraged societal shifts that require these cameras over the past few decades. I'm not sure what people expect them to do.
I think he’s saying that places like SF and NY have been very soft on crime in the last decade. Things like SF not penalizing theft under $1000, or not investigating car break-ins. The natural reaction to soft on crime policies is a backlash in the opposite direction.
At least that’s how I understood it, maybe that’s not actually what he meant.
Oh, so he's saying he's a reactionary. Oh yep, in previous comments he states that LLMs have a left-wing bias, as does notable leftie (checks notes...) Mark Zuckerberg?!
Enantidromia. It's just kind of how we humans work. The more you push, the harder the backlash. Mind, that doesn't mean any policy is wrong per se, but trying to change something without taking it into account is a fool's errand.
> “I fear for the day when a visitor's National Park experience is interrupted by being pulled over and held at gunpoint because a license plate reader misread their plate.”
It's really really really simple, and I can see you are struggling. Local, disconnected, highly visible cameras that store pictures for a single person's use? Great. Centralized control over a mesh of networked cameras, queryable by a government without a warrant at any time? Bad.
No, we're supposed to hate all passively-surveilling cameras. Except for dumb ones that dump to local storage. Dash-cams are often pretty dumb, so they’re fine; your phone only takes photos when you ask it to, so it’s fine. :)
Public surveillance is a common good that can be used as a public service, for better or worse.
Your sousveillance camera helps you: fair enough. But does my neighbor's camera help me? No.
Some of my neighbors have Ring cameras affixed to their doors, and I don't mind, because that's Ring and they're ubiquitous. I know exactly the extent of privacy with Amazon Ring or Google Nest.
My next-door neighbor has a cheap-ass Chinese WiFi camera pointed right at my (her) porches. I have no idea who makes it, who controls it, where the data goes, how long it's retained, who can see it, or anything. I am therefore forced to assume that anything I do at my front door is sent directly to the CCP or the CCCP or FSB. That, to me, is far less desirable than the NSA/CIA/TLA knowing what I do at my front door.
I'm going to say it again: I don't mind Flock or Axon watching me anywhere I go. I don't mind Amazon Ring or Google Nest/Home or the home security services that watch every public move. I walk around outdoors and it's obvious I'm being watched. Just... please, I beg you: keep it within the Five Eyes!
I realize I'm an ordinary guy and nobody's going to get rich, or sink aircraft carriers, based on my actions or words. But it's the principle of the thing, and the idea that thousands of aggregated ordinary guys adds up to good foreign intelligence. I want the USA to be gleaning this from the bad guys, not the other way around. For Pete's sake!
What I do mind is sousveillance, and lazy community members who basically leak a bunch of shit to foreign intelligence, as well as private industry. I do not want Mossad, FSB, or CCP watching what we do. I think most Americans would agree with me on that point. Yet we protest Flock instead. It's silly, guys.
> Public surveillance is a common good that can be used as a public service, for better or worse.
It can also be used as a weapon by the government against you.
> But does my neighbor's camera help me? No.
Sure it can. If a crime occurs, they can hand their footage over to the police. That's different from the police having free access to all cameras, everywhere.
> I am therefore forced to assume that anything I do at my front door is sent directly to the CCP or the CCCP or FSB. That, to me, is far less desirable than the NSA/CIA/TLA knowing what I do at my front door.
Why? Local, US-based government agencies have much more power to hurt me than the Chinese or the Russian government do.
You mean the organizatin literally used to circumvent domestic surveillance laws via intelligence swapping and jurisdictional arbitrage? Do you really think most FiveEye citizens would agree that it's better to be surveilled by FiveEye orgs deliberately structured to overreach their domestic rights to enable local institutional power with direct impact on their lives?
These people are not arguing in good faith, Flock and ALPR companies know they are extremely unpopular and are pushing PR really hard right now to try to fix their reputation.
Anyone with half a brain can understand that there’s a difference between an individual citizen with a single camera on their own property and a government global surveillance panopticon.
I really dislike this sort of fake outrage. They're not pissed, they have a job to do and these cameras help them. I personally dislike flock cameras because I don't like passive surveillance, but we've also elected officials who've encouraged societal shifts that require these cameras over the past few decades. I'm not sure what people expect them to do.
> we've also elected officials who've encouraged societal shifts that require these cameras over the past few decades
Can you expand on this?
I think he’s saying that places like SF and NY have been very soft on crime in the last decade. Things like SF not penalizing theft under $1000, or not investigating car break-ins. The natural reaction to soft on crime policies is a backlash in the opposite direction.
At least that’s how I understood it, maybe that’s not actually what he meant.
Oh, so he's saying he's a reactionary. Oh yep, in previous comments he states that LLMs have a left-wing bias, as does notable leftie (checks notes...) Mark Zuckerberg?!
Enantidromia. It's just kind of how we humans work. The more you push, the harder the backlash. Mind, that doesn't mean any policy is wrong per se, but trying to change something without taking it into account is a fool's errand.
> “I fear for the day when a visitor's National Park experience is interrupted by being pulled over and held at gunpoint because a license plate reader misread their plate.”
Yep, doesn't sound pissed off at all mate.
> They're not pissed, they have a job to do and these cameras help them
I mean, at least some of them are, unless you think the article completely made up those quotes.
Just because we have societal problems does not mean we need to immediately give up all privacy immediately. There are other ways to fix our problems.
[flagged]
It's really really really simple, and I can see you are struggling. Local, disconnected, highly visible cameras that store pictures for a single person's use? Great. Centralized control over a mesh of networked cameras, queryable by a government without a warrant at any time? Bad.
No, we're supposed to hate all passively-surveilling cameras. Except for dumb ones that dump to local storage. Dash-cams are often pretty dumb, so they’re fine; your phone only takes photos when you ask it to, so it’s fine. :)
Your camera helps you. Flock cameras hurt you. Simple as that.
> Your camera helps you.
Extremely self-centered take.
Public surveillance is a common good that can be used as a public service, for better or worse.
Your sousveillance camera helps you: fair enough. But does my neighbor's camera help me? No.
Some of my neighbors have Ring cameras affixed to their doors, and I don't mind, because that's Ring and they're ubiquitous. I know exactly the extent of privacy with Amazon Ring or Google Nest.
My next-door neighbor has a cheap-ass Chinese WiFi camera pointed right at my (her) porches. I have no idea who makes it, who controls it, where the data goes, how long it's retained, who can see it, or anything. I am therefore forced to assume that anything I do at my front door is sent directly to the CCP or the CCCP or FSB. That, to me, is far less desirable than the NSA/CIA/TLA knowing what I do at my front door.
I'm going to say it again: I don't mind Flock or Axon watching me anywhere I go. I don't mind Amazon Ring or Google Nest/Home or the home security services that watch every public move. I walk around outdoors and it's obvious I'm being watched. Just... please, I beg you: keep it within the Five Eyes!
I realize I'm an ordinary guy and nobody's going to get rich, or sink aircraft carriers, based on my actions or words. But it's the principle of the thing, and the idea that thousands of aggregated ordinary guys adds up to good foreign intelligence. I want the USA to be gleaning this from the bad guys, not the other way around. For Pete's sake!
What I do mind is sousveillance, and lazy community members who basically leak a bunch of shit to foreign intelligence, as well as private industry. I do not want Mossad, FSB, or CCP watching what we do. I think most Americans would agree with me on that point. Yet we protest Flock instead. It's silly, guys.
> Public surveillance is a common good that can be used as a public service, for better or worse.
It can also be used as a weapon by the government against you.
> But does my neighbor's camera help me? No.
Sure it can. If a crime occurs, they can hand their footage over to the police. That's different from the police having free access to all cameras, everywhere.
> I am therefore forced to assume that anything I do at my front door is sent directly to the CCP or the CCCP or FSB. That, to me, is far less desirable than the NSA/CIA/TLA knowing what I do at my front door.
Why? Local, US-based government agencies have much more power to hurt me than the Chinese or the Russian government do.
>within the Five Eyes
Not sure if serious.
You mean the organizatin literally used to circumvent domestic surveillance laws via intelligence swapping and jurisdictional arbitrage? Do you really think most FiveEye citizens would agree that it's better to be surveilled by FiveEye orgs deliberately structured to overreach their domestic rights to enable local institutional power with direct impact on their lives?
It's silly, guy.
It's totalitarianism really that difficult to concept for you to grasp?
Personal data is okay. Authoritarian government data is very very very bad
These people are not arguing in good faith, Flock and ALPR companies know they are extremely unpopular and are pushing PR really hard right now to try to fix their reputation.
Anyone with half a brain can understand that there’s a difference between an individual citizen with a single camera on their own property and a government global surveillance panopticon.
[flagged]