California city canceled Flock, removed its cameras, then found the company had put some of them back
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
maxxcool7421
Posts: 949 +1,389
He is not wrong, flock is purely for profit...
maxxcool7421
Posts: 949 +1,389
Considering we’re orders of magnitude larger, richer, with more basic freedoms?
We’re dominating, as usual.
The population of the United States is only 4.7 % of the entire planet.. were not larger than anybody.. in fact, we are the minority, and if the other 95.3% of the world decided to come over and kill us, there's absolutely nothing we can do to stop them.
And the European Union is 452 million... They have 80 million people than the usa.
You mean a subpoena, not a warrant. A subpoena has to be approved by a judge. Judges turn down these requests all the time, and Google can fight them if and when it wants to.
I'm all for the law providing information that is legally sanctioned to police. Flock doesn't do that, it skips any and all accountability and just gives the info to the police to do whatever they want with.
Be more knowledgeable before you quote me again.
Athlonite69
Posts: 116 +90
Flock management after finding those cameras missing from the network
Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine like a bunch of Seagulls squabbling over a rotting fish head
Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine like a bunch of Seagulls squabbling over a rotting fish head
ZedRM
Posts: 3,401 +2,340
Not at all. This is an unacceptable intrusion on the liberties and rights of the public. The people who did this are worse than criminals. They are information terrorists and need to be dealt with as such.
ZedRM
Posts: 3,401 +2,340
If you don't understand why this is a serious problem, you have the problem.
dangh
Posts: 1,936 +2,977
And who voted for those who installed cameras? Or you don't have any means anymore to deal with criminals and 'deleting' people is the way forward? What is that, some backwater rule-less country?(ok, that's a tricky question...) You voted for those guys, you gave them power, you always are open for business ideas, you and your mates are the reason for it. I know, I know, there are always "they" who makes stuff bad, you are always good and want to delete those bad ones.
Classic.
PXAbstraction
Posts: 164 +527
"The backlash has become so intense that police have asked rival Axon to redesign its cameras so people stop mistaking them for Flock's."
Axon's cameras as just as bad. Flock is just the brand in all the headlines right now. Redesigning the cameras to make them look different doesn't mean the outrage won't rightly eventually find them too.
Axon's cameras as just as bad. Flock is just the brand in all the headlines right now. Redesigning the cameras to make them look different doesn't mean the outrage won't rightly eventually find them too.
maxxcool7421
Posts: 949 +1,389
There is no GOOD
There is no EVIL
Just data and those who will use it for power.
Delete them.
wiyosaya
Posts: 11,725 +12,843
That isn't the case for police officers who decide to use Flock data for personal reasons. No warrant needed, in their case.
Great Britain is not part of Europe. They voted to Brexit, remember?
dangh
Posts: 1,936 +2,977
If there is no evil, what's wrong with power and with data which can be used? Or you just like 'deleting'?
ZedRM
Posts: 3,401 +2,340
Delete them too. If they are going to be a part of the problem they can accept a part of the penalties. ;-D
This is true, for now. However, what is also true is that you need a control number to pull flock data. A control number is a case number relating to a specific incident that happened. No control number, no flock query.
So yes, there are current audit procedures in place that I doubt anyone believe exist.
If you are going to pick apart semantics, best of luck with that.
Be more knowledgeable?
Your quote: “..and [Flock] just gives the info to the police to do whatever they want with”
Please, do explain this process. I would love to hear all of your wonderful experience working with the Flock system. Because I know the process, I have worked in it. And you are unequivocally incorrect here.
The police cannot “do whatever they want” with this data, that is a childish interpretation of what you most definitely read online somewhere. There are audit procedures AND control#/case checks to even query the data in the first place.
Plus, your subpoena versus warrant comment is incorrect as well. In most jurisdictions, subpoenas are not mandatorily signed by judges, an attorney or court clerk will suffice. Typically a subpoena is signed if the targeted party files an objection. The warrant then comes (signed by a judge, btw) when they come visit you.
/E: Also, in some jurisdictions, there are local laws that mandate a warrant, signed by a judge, to pull any Flock data.
Last edited:
Au Contraire
Posts: 75 +66
Please explain how the "caught" police officers were able to pull data on their girlfriends, etc., etc., so many times. While you're at it, specify exactly what punishment was tendered to the caught individuals, and exactly how the existing control procedures were changed to preclude further "work-arounds". Those procedures were either ineffective or the controllers looked aside as a courtesy to a fellow officer.
It would be interesting, too, to see how many times "the Flock" was used to target girl vs boy friends (how many female officers abuse it vs male officers), to target LGBTQ-whatever friends, other police officers vs the general public, politicians; for jealousy vs blackmail reasons, and so on.
So many reasons surveillance tools are dangerous; so many reasons why qualified immunity - as created by the Court (which had and still has no constitutional authority to make law) - is dangerous. Even to law enforcement when the backlash finally breaks out . . .
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,889 +3,550
You say that like you know the answer already.And how are your crime rates?
And if you don't, your comment is just a time waster.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,889 +3,550
Delete voters that just sit idle until it's time to check a box.
Similar threads
