Regardless of the benefits (of which there are a few, despite what fellow detractors may say), I am completely unwilling to submit myself to mass surveillance. Once that kind of power is obtained by the state, it will be abused. The article already cites several instances of this, including a police officer using it to stalk someone. And let alone the malicious usage, what if there are simply errors in the software or mistakes made by human operators? I don't trust police departments and public officials to implement this capability competently.
Its commonly said by people who seem to love this tech that we don't get to have a right to privacy in public spaces (anywhere but shut inside our houses with the window blinds drawn) but it appears now we also don't have a right not to be surveilled intensely, our every movement recorded, tracked and noted down permanantly, analysed with Algorithms & scrutenized for potential crimes.
This is an opposite problem. Flock is a private unelected unaccountable corporation. That's exactly of right leaning libertarians want, for some reason.
They say "you don't have an expectation of privacy driving a car on a public road/your license plate is public info". They don't address the fact that these are cameras, not ALPRs. They collect vehicle metadata. We have no way of knowing what other metadata they collect but don't "use". We'll have no idea when the software update goes out that adds facial recognition if it's not already there.
I frankly do not trust a single word or single opinion of a person that doesn't see the immense problem with this kind of surveillance technology. They are either not arguing in good faith, making me question their entire agenda, or are simply not equipped to understand the implications.
Have you ever seen Wim Wenders’ original, “Wings of Desire”?
I heartily recommend it to anyone who is irrationally opposed to state surveillance, (or, by extension if you simply resent the idea of an omniscient God) just because it is an achingly beautiful and true film that proposes a more reasonable viewpoint.
> Have you ever seen Wim Wenders’ original, “Wings of Desire”?
Literally never heard of it, and honestly I'm not sure I care to if your response to my comment is thinking I'm "irrationally opposed to state surveillance".
Paying a private company to record everyone's phone calls and texts and emails and putting them in a searchable database will also help solve some crimes. Should we do that? How is this any different?
The most aggressive anti-surveillance legislation we can muster in the US seems to be "30 day retention".
How is this a reasonable compromise?
I don't want surveillance cameras at all, but a neutral position might sound something like "sure, put up cameras everywhere, and once you get a warrant or probable cause (sigh), you can punch in the plate number and police will get notified when they see that car."
Now, obviously it's a surveillance state that's ripe for abuse and relies on trust in government and process, but at _least_ it's predicated on some level of suspicion.
"Record and catalog every piece of movement all these cameras see, store it for a long time, hand it over to whatever person with access to the system feels like searching it, send huge amounts of data secretly in response to National Security Letters, and while we're at it, just |tee the whole feed to the CIA. Maybe tracking everyone all the time will come in handy some day!" just seems _batshit insane_. It's not even in the REALM of possibly-constitutional from where I sit.
And yet the judge in the Norfolk, VA case said "well, this technology COULD represent a 4th amendment violation in the future, but 200 cameras in our town isn't so bad". What???
Unpopular opinion: I’m fine with cameras if they can be shown to solve crimes and lower the crime rate. No, I’m not ok with ICE surveillance, or secret police punishing free thinkers, but the extreme anti position simply cedes the technology to the authoritarians. So basically, if you’re promising London safety and the freedom and safeguards of the UK, I’m all for it!
It means that there is a spectrum of outcomes, and there is a band left of center which is anti-crime enough to support cameras with laws to govern them.
>So basically, if you’re promising London safety and the freedom and safeguards of the UK, I’m all for it!
Is this sarcasm? A good friend is a criminal defense barrister and his opinion does not match yours on the justice perspective. Meanwhile two good friends were hospitalized in two separate incidents in London. Just random violence. "Nothing we can do" said coppers. Daily you tube videos of pickpockets targeting tourists. etc.
Unless you are very rich, London's surveillance state isn't helping you.
Bonus: the Mayor of London and the Mayor of the City of London are different people, because the City of London is a semi-independent state with different police force. IIRC the Tower of London, Tower Bridge and St Pauls are within the "square mile".
Uh, I guess you haven't compared my town's crime rate to London's. I'm for curtailing people's gun rights as well, for essentially the same reason as I'm for more cameras. There was an apparently random shooting at an intersection not far from me, and the shooter escaped in a car. The police pieced together some footage from the two private cameras that showed the car first getting some gas, and then parking before the shooting. They found the driver and he confessed to the shooting.
Perfect dystopia. Make sure all criminals have guns, then tell citizens "Look! We used the surveillance state to catch this one criminal!" Not all criminals. Certainly not rich criminals. Just enough of the "wrong kind" to make the news now and again, keep you scared and voting the right way.
Like, did you know that more money is stolen via wage theft, than all of shoplifting and burglary combined?
You think that's unrelated? The solution to gun violence is not surveillance state - because the state benefits from gun violence. The solution to gun violence is ending poverty and inequality.
Land of freedom they say.
I heartily recommend it to anyone who is irrationally opposed to state surveillance, (or, by extension if you simply resent the idea of an omniscient God) just because it is an achingly beautiful and true film that proposes a more reasonable viewpoint.
Literally never heard of it, and honestly I'm not sure I care to if your response to my comment is thinking I'm "irrationally opposed to state surveillance".
Wait, lol do you thing an omniscient god and the state police are the same thing?
How is this a reasonable compromise?
I don't want surveillance cameras at all, but a neutral position might sound something like "sure, put up cameras everywhere, and once you get a warrant or probable cause (sigh), you can punch in the plate number and police will get notified when they see that car."
Now, obviously it's a surveillance state that's ripe for abuse and relies on trust in government and process, but at _least_ it's predicated on some level of suspicion.
"Record and catalog every piece of movement all these cameras see, store it for a long time, hand it over to whatever person with access to the system feels like searching it, send huge amounts of data secretly in response to National Security Letters, and while we're at it, just |tee the whole feed to the CIA. Maybe tracking everyone all the time will come in handy some day!" just seems _batshit insane_. It's not even in the REALM of possibly-constitutional from where I sit.
And yet the judge in the Norfolk, VA case said "well, this technology COULD represent a 4th amendment violation in the future, but 200 cameras in our town isn't so bad". What???
I have no idea what this means. It seems to me the extreme "yes, please surveil me" position cedes the technology to the authoritarians.
Is this sarcasm? A good friend is a criminal defense barrister and his opinion does not match yours on the justice perspective. Meanwhile two good friends were hospitalized in two separate incidents in London. Just random violence. "Nothing we can do" said coppers. Daily you tube videos of pickpockets targeting tourists. etc.
Unless you are very rich, London's surveillance state isn't helping you.
Bonus: the Mayor of London and the Mayor of the City of London are different people, because the City of London is a semi-independent state with different police force. IIRC the Tower of London, Tower Bridge and St Pauls are within the "square mile".
Like, did you know that more money is stolen via wage theft, than all of shoplifting and burglary combined?
You think that's unrelated? The solution to gun violence is not surveillance state - because the state benefits from gun violence. The solution to gun violence is ending poverty and inequality.