The country needs to find a “compromise” between privacy and safety, according to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley.
“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”
The torchwielding villagers are not interested in compromise.
Ole Ben Franklin is particularly relevant here:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
In other words, Flock can go fuck themselves with a stiff wire brush.
Compromise: Quit now, and keep your head.
I like the whole “publicly hanged for treason” thing.
was about to make a similar post.
Stop building the invasive bullshit, or we start building guillotines.
Here’s my compromise: we give the Flock CEO twenty to life instead of sentencing him to public flaying like he deserves.
Im on board with this.
public flaying?
No, no… Blood Eagle.
Elect me your president and I’ll bring back tarring and feathering.
I don’t think it was ever official policy so technically in never went away. Tar just got really expensive
Compromise dez nuts
Fucking fascist.
Compromise offer: you stop spying on us and we’ll stop breaking your cameras.
The more you learn about Flock, the scarier it gets. They have FULL profiles built on EVERY american that has flock cameras nearby. All your shopping, driving, financial habits are tracked. They know who all your friends and family are and how often you visit, they track your vehicles specific identifiable features like bumper damage, stickers, faded paint, etc. All of that is a complete violation of the 4th amendment and all these companies need to be sued.
Even deeper, they claim to be able to read “pet tags,” which would mean they can read ANY RFID, they know your gym code, if you have a fob for your apartment they can clone it and get in like a kid with a Flipper 0.
Idk how it’s physically possible so hopefully they’re lying, they should have to be basically touching the tag, but they claim they can. I’d believe they can read UHF RFID but that isn’t what they claimed, they specified “pet tags” (which again, would mean they can do all tags.) And that would mean they can add NFC and read your cards in your wallet, if they wanted, because that isn’t far off from RFID. Now ostensibly they’d have to perform the handshake with your card so they’d only have the same partial info a Flipper could pull, but like, still not a fan of that personally.
Source?
Before asking for a source for commonly known information, you should first demonstrate that you’ve done a modicum of searching yourself first.
I mostly agree, though the onus for proof is on the one making a claim. They could have provided a link to backup their claims.
There should be no compromising our right to privacy and these cameras need to go. Fuck Flock and their cash grab.
Fuck flock AND Axon.
Fuck Flock, Axon, and the entire rest of the surveillance state, both government and private.
Palatir along with Meta and Google are all the surveillance state
You could list basically every Big Tech corporation here.
So true all of them are corrupt asf
I don’t know if corrupt is quite the right word. They all certainly engage in heavy amounts of corruption to gain their power, but they also heavilly engage in other horrid practices to the same end, such as exploitation of their collective workforce, userbase, and supply chain.
The root of all of this, of course, is capitalism, which not only enables, but encourages this sociopathic power-seeking behavior.
Are Axon cameras also tracked on the defrock website?
Also as illustrated again and again, from ICE hunting down good people to cops stalking women because they are pigs, surveillance is not safety. It’s rather the opposite. I want privacy so that I can remain safe.
I don’t think anyone who ever lived in a totalitarian regime would describe it post fact as having made them safer.
The compromise is you scrap every camera, or we do.
There is absolutely no reason to track people everywhere they go. We were fine before these things.
Yup, violent crime has been dropping for decades and not an insignificant drop. We did not need mass surveillance, we did not want mass surveillance, nor do we want it now.
Lead levels dropped
And the zombies said “all we want to do is eat your brains, maybe we can compromise…”
“We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes”
That will be stuck in my head for the rest of the day. Great reference
We promise to access the brains from behind so your face still looks great!
to be fair, to Magastanians, the eyes are more valuable. That way they wouldn’t lose anything they’d miss.
What the fuck kind of compromise? “Let us technical loophole around your constitutional rights just a little bit?”
How about we compromise and let that guy in Tennessee hang you just a little bit.
How about we don’t duplicate George Orwells 1984 irl?
How about we compromise by saying remove them all, give back the money spent, delete all data and in exchange you don’t get the treatments due one helping enable orwillian levels of suvelance
Yup, the compromise is not sending him to Tennessee to be publically hanged.
What are you talking about?
Hey question… its illegal (I think) to suggest or call for the hanging of someone. But is it illegal to publish and support legislation calling for the execution of public figures involved in X Y Z?
If not, I call for legislation to be passed that criminalized the usage of personal data for surveillance. Data collected without permission…
I need to think this through a little more but fuck it right? Make a proposed law that people can publicly support that show just how goddamn serious people are about this shit.
We’ve kinda had that legislation for about 235 years, now.
They just don’t give a fuck.
It’s been tried before, and abandoned because it’s generally a bad idea. What you’re describing is a bill of attainder, a law passed specifically to punish an individual or group.
a law passed specifically to punish an individual or group.
Such as. … a tariff aimed at one specific country?
Not sure exactly, but international trade law is weird, and generally bills of attainder are targeted at one or more individuals rather than classes of individuals. If a law defines a class, like “anyone selling goods from China” then I don’t think it qualifies as a bill of attainder. I did find this article on Lawfare from 2019 where Huawei challenged parts of the NDAA because it specifically forbade the executive branch from buying Huawei gear. The courts ultimately did not agree with Huawei.
wouldn’t a law against murder also be punishing a specific individual or group?
No, but making it illegal to be named Garrett Langley and CEO of Flock would be
If a law punished a specific murderer or group of murderers it would be, but not if it punished an entire defined class of murderers equally. Lawmakers generally describe the qualifications of a crime (e.g. “anyone who knowingly and willfully causes the death of another person”) and prescribe a punishment for anyone convicted of it, and then the courts determine whether or not individuals are guilty by whether they meet the qualifications laid out in the law. Bills of attainder are laws that define individuals or specific groups as guilty by identity, not qualification, which means they don’t get a trial and the judiciary doesn’t get to act as a check on the legislature.
While not illegal to propose such a law, that would be a bill of attainder, and thus unconstitutional under article 1, section 9, clause 3.
Which toilet paper perforation is it between
I can guarantee this has been said already, but the compromise is simple; no flock cameras (or comparable tech) anywhere.
Corporate CEOs can all have 1 camera each, on their front lawn, for them to hang from.
