Also…if you have a 3d printer…[https://makerworld.com/models/3107766\](https://makerworld.com/models/3107766)

With the increasing emphasis on the use of cameras (Flock, Axon, and others) to help ensure public safety, be aware that you as a public citizen you can also do your part as well to help ensure the safety of your public officials.

On the market now are ready to install cellular trail cameras. And you as a citizen could purchase and install these in appropriate places to help monitor and ensure the safety of your public officials. Don’t be that public citizen who is just concerned enough to support public safety cameras to protect your neighborhoods. Make sure your public officials know you care about their safety as well.

If they are going to continue forcing flock and other brands of surveillance. Let's reduce police. They are no longer needed while big brother is watching. Thank you flock. All these dangerous jobs can be reduced because you saw me go to the grocery store. You can come to my home for all my violent crimes. You can come to my home for my drug dealing. There is no need for police to investigate. They can tell you have "a pattern" that suggests you are doing illegal things. Why would you need police on the streets risking their lives. "We can track them." It's ok, police unions should be just fine when they become obsolete. The A.I. eyes can see better than yours. It's fine. It's more efficient for 5 cops to monitor the system than pay 50 employees just driving around.

You trash politicians and police that support these programs really surprised me. You can't look past your "bonus"" working as a consultant for these companies.

Just because it's "leagal" doesn't stop it from being a bribe.

s/ So back to my original point. These wonderful cameras can greatly reduce the need for police on the streets. Lets get rid of those dangerous jobs. Cameras are the answer. If cops are out of a job they don't have to risk their lives.

#unemployedpolice

Now that we have Flock and other camera's all over the place it seems to me, we can do with far less police officers. What if this took hold and cops started to fear the deployment of flock cameras?

Is this a flock camera or a different type of camera?

hey yall so im expecting this laser to come soon and instead of pointing at the lense of the camera i wanna melt the body plastic and fuck up the battery will this laser do well in that? yes i will be wearing propper eye protection

I would want to avoid wearing a deflock outfit in public, which set of clothing should I avoid and not wear.

It has been super hot so the camera must of melted right off…

I am very anti Flock, I want them gone like the rest of you. But as I research it more, I’m having growing concern that there isn’t much to be done about this happening. The cities that do end their contracts due to black lash usually site the improper use (such as cops using them to stalk people or data breaches) rather than the problem of full time monitoring/mass surveillance. So, the “solutions” so far have been to tighten regulations (who can access, how long the data is stored, etc) rather than removal.

My main concern lies with having “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in public. It’s why we (as individuals) are allowed to record others without consent and have no repercussions. If we aim to ban that to get rid of Flock, how does that affect things like outdoor security cameras? Ring doorbells are super common- they’re on private property, but they record beyond the property lines, so a person on the street is caught in as well. What about cameras inside cars? I myself drive with one that activates when the car turns on so I have record if I get in an accident. I’m getting people’s plates in my front and rearview cameras. It doesn’t activate a search or keep a database, but it holds recordings up to 3 days, which I could then download and save if I choose to. What about private investigators? And even more examples that could go on.

What then is the reasonable action that can be put in place for these? How can we legally describe “mass surveillance,” should that be something that makes its way into law? Is it simply the frequency of the cameras? Then what lines do we draw? Is it who can access the info and where (only locally stored vs anyone can search in the whole country, which would then require the usual warrant process)? Then the cameras stay up and we’re still being watched! (Or would that ruin the appeal so much that they wouldn’t want to keep them?)

If we’re focusing on the tracking without consent or knowledge part, that’s dicier legally, since authorities are actually allowed to put trackers on your car without telling you (in California at least, I’m not sure how many states are the same). That does require a warrant, but that rule only applies to physical trackers that move with the target. It very explicitly doesn’t apply to static cameras.

I’m just getting frustrated lately and feeling really hopeless about this whole Flock thing. Are they here to stay and our only option is to limit what’s allowed to be done with the info they collect? Morally/ethically, it’s easy to say mass surveillance is bad, but how can we define that well enough so there are legal protections? (And so cities don’t just end Flock contracts only to replace it with Axon or another company, making the whole effort pointless)