all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 83 points 3 days ago*

And remove and destroy all of the installed ones...right? Right?

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    What about Motorola and Axon cameras? They all need to go, no exceptions.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    This; anything else is just surveillance companies jockeying for contracts. Let's ban the thing that's bad, government's spying on their own citizens, please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago*

    Yeah, as much as I'd enjoy seeing bad things happen to their smarmy dipshit CEO, this is true.

    I suppose a bill like this might help bring the issue to the attention of some number of people, at least.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Aren’t most of them funded by local governments anyway?

    (And then when the city councils or residents vote to stop it, the cops leave them up anyway?)

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 days ago

    federal bill to withhold federal money from municipalities and police departments that deploy Flock-style automated license plate reader cameras

    This is so such local governments have other funding withdrawn until they get rid of the cameras, presumably

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    My local government had funds offered by a federal grant they didn't apply for. A neighboring county had applied for the federal grant, received a ton of money, and was dishing it out to police across the region.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago

    Between this and local police working with ICE, it feels like a federal government takeover of everything. The sheriff of a neighboring county has his salary paid by ICE/DHS, and that isn't right. Federalized police departments.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    If it does get far enough to be introduced and to actual vote. I am guessing there will be a massive push by Flock to flood news outlets and lobbyists to how "successfully bad guys were caught" or otherwise "prevented." Probably lock-in on any instance(s) involving children being protected/found. With any and all misleading stats downplaying the actual levels of spying on literally everyone not doing anything illegal (or that children are being scanned and added to those growing databases). And the fucked up cases of false positives that drag those people into court, job losses from being accused/arrested, and financial losses from the first two.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    Giving up freedom for security..yadda yadda

    Hard counter those efforts with detailed Info on high ranking officials from flock data through FOIA. Educate themasses on what's is being watched and how all data is combined into a detailed profile

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

    This will never be passed because most of the people benefitting from Flock are the ones who will vote on the bill.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    You think politicians like that them and their family member's every move is being tracked?

    That puts them at risk

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 days ago

    Flock around and find out

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 days ago

    One can hope

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago

    When the worst person you know has a good idea...

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    At the very least, it should require a warrant to access Flock data.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    That would be amazing, but I can't even consider there's a chance that it's anything more than performative. Maybe he genuinely wants that to happen, since he does seem to be one of the few US politicians actually against raping kids, but there's no way flock doesn't own a lot of the other politicians and have financial ties and data sharing contracts with bigger companies who own the rest of them.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    Article doesnt load

  • source