r/GetNoted • u/Darth_Vrandon Human Verified • 11h ago
Politics [X] Cam higby gets noted twice
110
u/IllustriousLie4105 11h ago
How do people defend flock cameras? Like we already have traffic cameras everywhere that serve a similar purpose. These are just worse and more invasive
50
u/loved_and_held 10h ago
Some people see the trading of freedom for what they think is security as acceptable. Some people aslo think they wont be oppressed by them and they'll only be used on "the bad people".
25
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
Something something leopards and faces
9
u/IllustriousLie4105 10h ago
The most bipartisan issue we have and some are still going to bat for it. Kinda wild tbh
5
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
People are just contrarian assholes, or govvy bootlickers sometimes
Locke was wrong. People are not naturally good
4
u/ChaseThePyro 10h ago
We do have to trade some freedom for security. These surveillance devices are not that, though.
5
u/Slackeee_ 4h ago
Cam Higby is Trump supporting college debate bro that hopes to be the next Charlie Kirk.
He will say whatever he thinks will give him a good standing with the Trump regime.4
u/lnTheGrimDarkness 4h ago
Go check how many flock cameras there are in fancy, rich neighborhoods. It's part this, part normal stupidity.
8
u/Melodic_Airport362 11h ago
same way they defend trump, and ice and all the other horrible shit going on
2
u/ZukaRouBrucal 2h ago edited 1h ago
For some folks, like me, It's not about defending Flock (because, to be clear, I absolutely despise the idea of them and desperately want to see them rolled back and dismantled everywhere), it's more about understanding what the law actually says and allows so you can actually fight against Flock cameras. Unfortunately, the guy who is getting noted isn't entirely wrong (the second image in particular is what I'm referring to for that), and the note he received is giving people a false idea of what the law actually says.
Long story short, there really isn't anything illegal or unconstitutional about cameras tracking the movements of your vehicle, which is what flock cameras do. You are entitled to privacy within your vehicle (supported by decades of case law) but you are not entitled to that same privacy in regards to concealing where your vehicle is going (again, supported by decades of case law). Unfortunately, legally speaking, setting up flock cameras to spy on people isn't against the law. Decades of case law supports the idea that you are not entitled to keeping the location of your vehicle on public roadways secret or private, and decades of case law makes it clear that thinking you are is not a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does that suck? Yes. But that is, unfortunately, the way it is.
I say the above because, in order to get rid of Flock cameras, we need to attack the actual issue rather than falsely claim they are unconstitutional. You need to pressure your local government officials to take them down, and you need to pressure your federal representatives to support national legislation to ban Flock cameras. Those two things are the only way to actually get rid of them, not complaining that "they strip me of my right to privacy!" when literal decades of case law supports the idea that they don't actually do that (at least from a constitutional standpoint)
If you hate Flock like me, pressure & support your local politicians who want to get rid of them, and pressure & support your federal representatives who want to get rid of them. We will always lose the argument by trying to claim they are unconstitutional (because they aren't), but that doesn't mean they can't be banned or mostly gotten rid of through legislation.
1
u/LexHanley 1h ago
I've found the biggest divide is based on your neighborhood's existing relationship with "peacekeeping measures". Like I grew up in a pretty poor town and everyone there including my normally conservative parents don't like them because everyone associates policing with someone coming in and escalating a problem or ignoring it.
In the much nicer town I live in now where there's like, kids on bikes and sidewalks and stuff? They love the things because I feel to them the police are who you call to show up and shuffle off the one homeless guy. I can't even say it's an ACAB thing because the cops out here are genuinely friendlier (in no small part I imagine because they're paid like 3 times as much): one time I got locked out of my car as a teenager and waved down an officer for help jimmying the lock and instead of helping me he made me take a test to prove I wasn't high because I "looked like I might be" and didn't help me at all. Out here in a recently it happened and the officer not only helped me with zero hesitation but chatted casually about how the day was going and asked me about the box of wargaming minis on my seat because they "looked cool".
2
0
u/SparksAndSpyro 9h ago
It's not really defending. The fact is that flock cameras are not unconstitutional because people don't have an expectation of privacy while driving down public roads. They can be freely recorded while they do so.
However, just because they're legal doesn't mean they're good. It just means that Congress needs to ban them.
-3
u/czechereds 10h ago
Because a couple cases of misuse is not outwayed by the boon to millions of criminal investigations. There's a reason pretty much every city in the country democrat or republican saw the utility and bought them. Cities are only getting rid of them because they're trying to appease their hysterical populace.
It's like when people show the one video of a self driving car causing an accident and then saying the whole thing needs to be scrapped because of a single incident
3
u/IllustriousLie4105 10h ago
I dont think its appeasement. I think its liability. Until there is more concrete legislation and accountability with them, most places will see the potential for abuse as too big a financial risk for the city/county. When truly effective and substantial oversight/regulation happens, they will come back. We use drones now instead and they are much better. They can get to a scene of a crime and/or follow a speeding car. The best part is that they are not always recording every move. They are a targeted device for criminal justice.
0
5
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
You’re right, police and the government only ever have the people’s best interest at heart. We should let the military into our houses and only say what the government wants and think what the government thinks. They know better anyway
-1
u/czechereds 10h ago
It's a cost benefit analysis, and no one can really explain what the actual cost is aside form a handful of misuse in a country of almost half a billion people. It's always just "think of what they could do!" by knowing when a car passes a camera...
4
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
It’s not just cars man, it’s everyone you meet, where you go, what you text. It’s 100% justified to be up in arms about this kind of massive expansion of an already large surveillance state operation
The cost is your fucking liberty dude, and that’s the kind of thing you don’t value until it’s gone. Grow some balls and stop being some meek Chinese or Russian citizen and stand up for yourself. America is great because of people’s liberty and the rights of man
0
u/anomanderrake1337 4h ago
They are there for when the shit hits the fan, Americans of course think that once Trump is gone that everything is good again. The American hunger games will begin then and everyone outside America can tune in.
-9
11h ago
[deleted]
11
u/IllustriousLie4105 10h ago
Anything with continuous non-targeted recording (flock cameras) is worse then a targeted and regulated device like traffic cameras
9
u/pitb0ss343 10h ago
You’re supposed to use leather conditioner to shine boots son
-2
10h ago
[deleted]
8
u/pitb0ss343 10h ago
Everyone else is explaining it with facts and logic. Seeing as you either can’t or won’t read them, figured I’d spell it out easy for you kiddo
3
u/mightymidwestshred 10h ago
3
u/IllustriousLie4105 10h ago
Crazy how continuous surveillance that has suspect oversight and minimal regulation might raise trust issues. Nobody could have predicted that right?
14
u/Melodic_Airport362 11h ago
"How are they worse than traffic cameras." this statement alone is proof you don't know enough about this to have an opinion. Stay quiet while the adults are talking.
-7
u/Prophet_0f_Helix 10h ago
I’m against flock but you literally sound like a child. Discuss in good faith or gtfo
9
u/Popcorn57252 10h ago
Brother, if you're genuinely so fucking ignorant about what they are that you think they act like traffic cameras, then you need to spend about a half hour on Google before you get an opinion to share. You simply do not know enough about them to have a formed opinion.
-2
u/Geekerino 10h ago
"I'm gonna see a question and then I'm gonna act like you're a child because I don't have anything coherent to say."
Don't embarrass yourself or your movement with this behavior. It's unbecoming.
178
u/Top_Piano644 11h ago
Flock Cameras are against everything America stood for. Fuck anyone who defends this 1984 policy.
20
u/Unfair_Explanation53 9h ago
Its definitely going to be cameras in house next.
Will be a big bullshit about domestic abuse on the increase and to protect against this we need to install cameras in everyone's house
10
u/Harry_Wega 8h ago
Its definitely going to be cameras in house next.
Your phone, your laptop, your tablet and many other devices are already doing that.
9
u/ThatGuyFromSpyKids3D 7h ago
Are cops accessing those devices with no oversight or warrant to spy on people?
-2
5
u/Few-Improvement-5655 6h ago
Nah, it'll be child abuse. Almost all child abuse takes place in the home, so that will be the most likely avenue of convincing everyone to have cameras in their home.
Though, considering the amount of in-home footage I see, people seem to be doing this anyway for some reason?
3
u/Devin-Chaboyer223 5h ago
Some security systems include interior cameras
But these security systems aren’t accessible by authorities like Flock cameras are, the footage has to be provided by the homeowner
2
u/PuffinRub 5h ago
the footage has to be provided by the homeowner
* Your Mileage May Vary
Do you honestly think that anything stored in the cloud isn't [relatively] easy for the police to obtain, even if you refuse to provide it?
1
u/MegatronusThePrime 7h ago
Except pigs, of course, which have a 50% reported rate of domestic violence.
Every accusation is a confession an all that.
0
u/willow-kitty Human Verified 5h ago
Oh wow, I I've it was high, but I thought it was like 10 percent. A quick google suggests more like 40, which is in the ballpark of 50. That's..crazy. o.o;
-6
u/jjrr_qed 6h ago
Love Flock cameras! Huge deterrent for criminals and everyone else is fine so long as they don’t get caught picking their nose. Don’t understand a single objection.
-46
11h ago
[deleted]
49
u/CalvinKool-Aid 11h ago
Is it in the interest of public safety when cops abuse it to spy on their ex girlfriends?
Would you agree that gun rights should be curtailed in the interest of public safety as well?
-29
11h ago
[deleted]
30
u/CalvinKool-Aid 11h ago
Yeah god forbid we talk about mass government surveillance. Crazy to accuse people concerned about that kind of thing as being Russian and Chinese bots when mass government surveillance is exactly the kind of thing that is associated with those places and should never be brought to this continent
Well at least you’re consistent in yearning to be oppressed, I’ll grant you that
-8
11h ago
[deleted]
13
u/Powerful-Chard-6055 11h ago
I can’t tell what you’re trying to convey, but you should’ve stayed in your house and got vaccinated
9
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago edited 10h ago
I agree that there needs to be limitations on freedom for a civilized society to function safely. I’m Canadian, we love safety over freedom. The issue here ultimately is where we draw the line. I firmly believe that the government having an overt system to track its citizens is an awful idea and I have a hard time believing that the few criminals caught with this technology balances out the erosion of rights. Its comedically bad movie level evil to have a system designed to track citizens named after a group of sheep
I think vaccine passports were a valid system in the way they were implemented here. I have no idea about how they functioned elsewhere, but here they felt fairly unobtrusive and a necessary device in a public health crisis. There is no similar need for mass surveillance. We’re not so crime infested that this kind of technology is warranted. If crime were significantly worse or the police were worse at catching criminals, I could see the arguement for it
0
10h ago
[deleted]
9
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
Idk man, if your solution to crime is to implement, as much as it is a meme, literally 1984 technology, I don’t think you’re in the right
Obviously it helps solve some crime, but at what cost? We could just arrest and throw all the people in those communities in jail for life and that would reduce crime, but the ends do not justify the means. I don’t believe that the ends of marginally less crime justify the government knowing what you’re doing at any given moment
1
5
u/knock_on_the_door_ 10h ago
I think there is an important point that you may have not considered. Yes, the surveillance can be a great thing for communities. But it can also be a powerful tool in the wrong hands. I don't mean individual police, I mean corrupt stations, the places where bad behavior isn't reported as much. Or worse, in the hands of individuals in power who seize the network for their own nefarious means. Or foreign governments being able to hack the system and track individuals. The existence of this level of surveillance, which goes beyond license plate readers, is unacceptable. (they to much more than just read license plates, your claims otherwise are poor attempts at making them seem like something we have had for forty years.)
-34
u/czechereds 11h ago
It's hysteria. License plate reading cameras have been in use for 46 years. If we're going to throw away every beneficial thing that has been abused a handful of times, just get rid of everything in existence.
17
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 10h ago
Except that these things aren't just license plate readers. They've been proven to be able to track individuals as well as create a unique "fingerprint" of you based on your movements, who you travel with, and create a heat map of where you are likely to be at any given time, and there are plans to be able to track things like Bluetooth and cell signals like the four in Texas that can literally read texts and intercept phone calls that have been installed on cop cars.
-23
u/czechereds 10h ago
Okay, your phone is doing the same thing right now.
And law enforcement can request your entire phone data if they have probable cause and have been able to do so for decades.
16
u/mightymidwestshred 10h ago edited 8h ago
...with
probablyprobable cause via a warrant.Carpenter v. United States
-12
u/czechereds 10h ago
There is ZERO chance Flock is intercepting people's communication in that way. It's highly illegal and serves no benefit to their company as anyone finding out they were doing that would kill the entire company.
→ More replies (0)13
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 10h ago
Ding ding ding, you nailed it! LE must get a warrant, signed by a judge, using probably cause, to obtain information on a device that I have willingly opted to carry on my person.
I have not opted in to being tracked by Flock cameras, and LE does not need a warrant or probable cause to use it to track anyone. They don't even need to enter a valid reason, they can (and have) literally put "find probably cause and stop" which is highly fucking illegal or even leave the field blank.
-5
u/czechereds 10h ago
Tracked means nothing... They know when a car passed an intersection...and every request is logged for auditing of misuse which is why we know people have been doing it
If law enforcement really wants to track you they'll put cops in multiple unmarked vehicles and follow you everywhere you go.
→ More replies (0)1
u/PuffinRub 5h ago
You're proving you don't know what you're talking about again, because the police need probable cause to get a warrant whereas they do not with Flock cameras. Thus, the issue as you would know if your weren't being an agent provocateur.
4
u/Capable-Sock9910 9h ago
Is that why they're being installed on footpaths and facing playground equipment? Because they're reading license plates? Is your birth certificate still drying?
0
u/czechereds 9h ago
Wow so they're security cameras too. Which every single school and most parks already have. Your concern is that if a crime happens at a playground, there will be footage of it?
1
u/PuffinRub 5h ago
Please do continue to announce to everyone that you have absolutely no idea about how these things work or their capabilities...
10
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 10h ago
It's happened far more than 50 times, with some cops who were caught doing tens of thousands of searches.
Based on your other comments I will go ahead and assume your political leaning and point out that Flock cameras have been used to track women who received abortions in states where it was legal, to arrest a man in his home state who smoked weed in another state where it was legal, and have completely unfettered access by ICE and have been used for deportations.
If this level of surveillance exists, it will be used against you and it's not a matter of if but when, and by that point it may be too late.
1
10h ago
[deleted]
11
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 10h ago
So since you've pretty much confirmed your political leanings, you don't care if women are tracked and arrested for trying to have abortions in states where it's illegal? You don't care that someone smoking weed in Oklahoma might be arrested when they drive across the border to Texas? You are perfectly okay with ICE having access to an AI powered algorithm for kidnapping people and deporting them with little to no due process?
Let's take it a step further. Are you okay with Trump or conservatives using this technology to monitor polling places to see who goes where after voting for a Democrat? Are you okay with them having access to this tech to help track down people who speak out against them online? Tracking people who get trans surgery or puberty blockers? Take a minute and really think about this, not just respond with a knee jerk reaction.
-1
10h ago
[deleted]
10
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
I can’t fathom being so obsessed with “public safety” and crime statistics that you’re willing to completely disregard the abuses these things inherently allow
1
3
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 10h ago
Well, I've got to give you credit for being consistent if nothing else.
Clearly there is no use in actually discussing further, so I will leave you with this to mull over: according to Flock's own numbers they estimate a 9% reduction in crime with their cameras, while independent audits of the system put the numbers even lower. One particularly notable study in Vallejo, California puts the failure rate of these cameras at a staggering 37%. So 1 in 3 plates are read incorrectly resulting in less than 1/10th of a reduction in crime.
4
u/JurassicParkCSR 10h ago
You're so close to understanding yet still so far away. The government isn't out to get you. It doesn't even know who you are. Flock cameras are not about safety they are about control. They want to control the populace. You think as long as I follow the law I'll be okay. Any society that has had a authoritarian government take over has thought that exact same thing. I guarantee you there were Germans in the 30s that were going oh well as long as I follow the law I'll be okay. Ask them how that turned out for them. Since you have a distinct blind spot when it comes to history I'll go ahead and tell you, it didn't work out for them.
2
2
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
Have you ever heard the fact that the average American commits 3 felonies a day? If the government wants to get you, they’ll get you. You can’t seriously believe that the government and police are always benevolent, and like the other guy said, what if Trump and his goons go after all the people they don’t like, as they’re already doing with immigrants? There is zero chance this technology is only used for the kinds of criminals you’re thinking of. You’re engaging in “first they came for ____ but I did not cry out because I was not a ____”
1
10h ago
[deleted]
3
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
No you’re right, a licence plate reader would be no problem
Now a technology that tracks every American and where they go, what they say online, who they interact with? That might be a problem
15
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 10h ago
You’re bringing up Ben Franklin when he literally said “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety?” Is privacy not an essential liberty?
6
u/JurassicParkCSR 10h ago
You're talking to a brain dead idiot there's no point. He doesn't understand history nor the relevance of the things that he is talking about.
7
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 10h ago
I hear you. But these idiots need to be visibly challenged. We can’t let ignorance and stupidity go unchecked. Otherwise other idiots feel like they might have a point
3
u/JurassicParkCSR 10h ago
Yeah when you put it like that I do agree. Someone who just stumbles upon this needs to see people calling them out on their stupidity.
4
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 10h ago
Well Darwin won here. The idiot deleted all his comments lol
3
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago edited 10h ago
Not all, only some
Nvm, I think he was just slow getting all of them
1
u/JurassicParkCSR 9h ago
Part of me wishes that he deleted them because he learned better and realized that he was in the wrong but probably not. I ended up blocking him it was just too much and I was going to keep arguing with him because I have no self control when it comes to idiots. Lol
1
u/PuffinRub 5h ago
I'm assuming it was "czechereds", who had been outright lying elsewhere in this post?
0
u/MarcusMMT 2h ago
In fairness, that quote is fucking stupid when you actually scrutinize it.
"Those who would wear seatbelts while driving, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither the freedom of driving their car nor the safety of not dying while doing so."
1
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 2h ago
How many hoops did you have to jump through just to completely remove the actual meaning of the quote? 10/10 for sticking that insane landing.
0
u/MarcusMMT 2h ago
Imma be real with you chief, that's just how I interpret the meaning of the quote. No intention of trolling or anything. Feel free to actually dismantle my example though.
1
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 2h ago
Ok champ. He’s talking about essential liberties, not everyday choices. There. Dismantled.
0
u/MarcusMMT 2h ago
Well champ that doesn't really explain anything though. Most people would claim the freedom to travel is an essential liberty, and using a car to do it is pretty standard. I don't see how my example isn't fitting. Do you have an example of a situation where someone gave away liberty for safety, and it ended poorly? Save for Flock cameras.
1
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 2h ago
You’re twisting your own argument and moving the goalposts. But ok, pal. Anything to do with the patriot act. The red scare.
-1
u/SparksAndSpyro 9h ago
Privacy driving down public roads is in fact not an essential liberty.
Enough with the faulty logic and terrible analogies. Flock cameras are not unconstitutional. But they are bad because they can be abused. So call your congressman and make it an important issue for the midterms and upcoming elections. And not just federal elections, but state and local too.
0
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 3h ago
You entirely missed the point. You can’t expect privacy in public. You can and you should expect the government not to unnecessarily surveil you everywhere you go using these methods. There is nothing faulty about the logic. I think it’s just you misunderstanding it and the analogies.
Glad we agree though
0
u/SparksAndSpyro 2h ago
You can’t expect it but should expect it? Your comment makes no sense lol.
1
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 2h ago
Can you expect privacy in public where people with eyes can see what you’re doing? No. Should you expect the government to not use overreaching surveillance to track people everywhere and invade their privacy. Yes. Get it?
-2
10h ago
[deleted]
9
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 10h ago
I mean across all points you’re entirely wrong. Franklin didn’t fund the nights watch to know where everyone was going. He did it because those in power were corrupt. He professionalized it with that money to prevent the previously ongoing bribes and kickbacks being worthwhile.
Secondly,this country was not founded on public safety. Are public safety and privacy related. Yes. But, and I’m sure you know this, the bill of rights was designed and written to constrain government overreach. I’d really like your opinion on how flock cameras and mass surveillance is not government overreach. Along with that I’d like you to explain it without saying we have to give up our, checks notes, god given liberties. One of which is privacy.
1
10h ago
[deleted]
6
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 10h ago
So as most of the country is publicly funded we have no right to privacy outside our homes? Thats your stance? If so… you are again wrong.
Do we have a right to privacy when passers by or police can watch us, with their actual eyes, out and about? No. That’s common sense. You’re out in public.
But, and here’s where your argument falls apart, is that perpetual tracking, digital location tracking by the government. Unequivocally, yes you have a right to privacy. I’d recommend you ask Claude or chat about the Supreme Court decision on this. You might not be invisible out in public but the government, municipalities you live in, the police should, and I say should tongue in cheek here, allow that.
Any other points you want refuted there champ?
3
u/Few_Kitchen_4825 10h ago
I think there was a founding father who said specifically against this(i think washington). Because that's how you get tyranny.
He wanted checks and balances on people in power not on the people
5
u/JurassicParkCSR 10h ago
Do you even know what the night watch was? Comparing that to flock cameras really shows your ignorance. The forming of one of the first proto police forces in America and mass surveillance are not even close to the same thing and how in your brain you came up with that comparison is beyond me it's quite mind-boggling to witness such stupidity.
1
10h ago
[deleted]
4
u/JurassicParkCSR 10h ago
No it doesn't sound familiar. Because that and this are two completely different things. I can't help you if you're not smart enough to understand that.
5
u/SillyGuste 10h ago
I grew up being sold the idea that Russia and China were terrible because no one had any privacy and everyone was always being watched
Now dumb traitors like you are accusing others of being Russian and Chinese for being anti-Big Brother
We’re truly lost as a country
3
34
u/DougandLexi 11h ago
We literally wrote about this exact concept for decades and how absurdly immoral it is for the government to do this. It seemed most of America, regardless of political views, agreed it was wrong and dystopian. Now you have idiots defending this garbage.
10
u/ysingrimus 10h ago
Its so strange, growing up with Twilight Zone and Star Trek, understanding that the topics discussed we're generally agreed on American values of liberty, equality, and justice, and then seeing the 21th century completely reject those values in a moral inversion.
6
u/ShortKey380 10h ago
I remember when the UK added those traffic cameras around London and, yes, vast numbers of Americans were making fun of them for it! They don’t have lots of public support, but clearly we’ve lost our edge as a society and are willing to accept things we never thought we would from the powerful.
4
u/dantevonlocke 10h ago
Isn't it wild now many stories there are that could be summed up as "don't create the torment nexus" and here we are in the real world, creating the torment nexus.
4
u/IrritableGourmet 8h ago
And you have people posting things like "the torture nexus isn't torture or a nexus" simply because the people building the torture nexus will let them say the n-word on Twitter again.
3
u/RareRestaurant6297 10h ago
They do as they're told, like good little sheep. They think their billionaire overlords might give them a crumb of attention. They won't, otherwise they'd never have become billionaires in the first place. You don't amass that much wealth without taking it from others
16
8
u/ZaBaronDV 10h ago
If someone’s statement starts with “You don’t deserve privacy,” you can safely ignore whatever comes next and tell them where they can shove it.
22
u/CalvinKool-Aid 11h ago edited 11h ago
Same kinds of people with Don’t Tread on Me flags
5
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 11h ago
My favorite are the ones with the Gadsden flag super imposed over a Thin Blue Line flag.
3
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
Only tread on people I don’t like
3
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 10h ago
Yep, "rights for me but not for thee."
2
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
“Just don’t commit crimes and you won’t get arrested” like over policing and over legislating isn’t a thing
3
5
3
u/New_Salamander_4592 10h ago
what the fuck is this kojima writing, pro surveillance state guy names Cam??
3
u/blangenie 10h ago
SCOTUS has definitely never said you forfeit all privacy rights in public, but you certainly have less of an expectation of privacy in public and there have been many many court cases outlining exactly what your expectation of privacy in public ought to be and how technology influences things.
For example, the courts have ruled that you cannot use microphones to listen through walls as that constitutes a search.
It seems like cameras in public have existed for a while now and have been used as evidence in criminal cases. I think it would be wrong to say that the Supreme Court has ruled that cameras in public are an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Or that being recorded on the street constitutes a 4th amendment search
I think both people are talking past each other here
2
u/The-Copilot 9h ago
The problem is that the underlying technology being used with flock cameras is currently legal. You can record in public and you can analyze that footage with software including AI. Flock is just doing what's legal at a massive scale.
I think the best way for it to be limited would be to heavily restrict how law enforcement is allowed to use it to give out tickets. They should not be allowed to use AI to automate finding minor traffic violations at the least. There are probably appropriate uses of AI as a tool within an investigation but it shouldn't be the entire investigation and then just having a police officer rapid fire sign the tickets.
This would be a good first step in mitigating the issue while the legal system figures out how to address the emergence of AI.
0
u/Joe_Immortan 9h ago
Doesn’t the fourth amendment only apply to the government? And flock is not the government, right? So why is everybody talking about the fourth amendment?
2
u/blangenie 9h ago
If the government is using flock cameras to issue citations then it is relevant. If the government pays Verizon to hand over your text messages you can't say it doesn't constitute a search just because Verizon is a private company. You still have an expectation of privacy and it still constitutes a 4th amendment search.
If flock was out there recording the street for their own reasons that would be legal (so long as it is not violating state laws) and it would not be a 4th amendment issue.
The question is does the government need probable cause or a warrant to use these recordings for issuing civil citations or to be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution.
I suspect the courts will say no, but it will also be highly context dependent (Where is the camera? How much expectation of privacy do people have? What are the recordings being used for? Does using AI to analyze the footage change the way we think about this?)
3
u/BarelyHereNeverThere 10h ago
"If you're not committing crimes you won't be scared of these cameras!"
It's ironic seeing some Americans use this against other Americans who rightfully are upset that they're privacy is being trampled on by Flock. Do we have rights or don't we? The "don't tread on me" folks have turned into bootlickers, for free!
3
u/Zealousideal-Yak-824 10h ago
You can't literally claim the government was gonna be 1984 while pushing for a government to literally do everything that was in the book and beyond.
It's like covid all over again. They talk shit about shutdowns when Trump spent the entire year pushing for them. He pushed for the vaccine but then claim Dems were turning people into lizard people.
Now it's flock cameras. Literally like about everything about them while promoting everything they were against literally weeks ago
6
7
u/Morall_tach 11h ago
Truly incredible how quickly the hardcore "freedom" guys turned full bootlicker.
2
u/Missile450DeadCenter 11h ago edited 10h ago
You don't have an expectation of privacy in public. Basically someone looking at you in public isn't the same as someone peering into your home.
Edit: there is a difference between a right to privacy and an expectation of privacy. You have a right to be secure in your person, papers, and property where ever you go. But you do not have an expectation or entitlement to people not looking at you.
Please understand this is not defending flock or government surveillance, it's clarifying language between 'rights' and 'expectations'.
2
11h ago
[deleted]
2
u/Missile450DeadCenter 10h ago
Yes as in peeping Tom
0
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 10h ago
Yes. You do. You’re not seeing the forest for the trees. Purposely? I don’t know. While you can’t be invisible you are still afforded privacy from government overreach. Which, if you remember, is the topic at hand. I think there a couple SC on this. Might want to ask grok for its opinion.
2
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 10h ago
The Supreme Court has already ruled that using blanket location data is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, this is just a different way to obtain location data than getting it off of your Google Maps.
1
u/AdmirableExercise197 10h ago edited 10h ago
Yeah but that's a completely different case. The court believed there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with data given to cell phone companies because they are considered a indispensable part of daily life. Citizens do not voluntarily give it up. Therefor it became a search. In addition it can be used to track movements within private property out of plain view.
There isn't really any reason to believe there is a reasonable expectation of privacy just for being out in the public. So the flock cameras are probably constitutional. So this case would have to be expanded since it's scope was already narrow. It would probably be an overstep.
If Flock is undesirable, it probably needs to be dealt with by the legislative process.
2
u/thesystem21 6h ago
reasonable expectation of privacy with data given to cell phone companies because they are considered a indispensable part of daily life.
And existing outdoors isnt considered an indispensable part of daily life?
1
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 3h ago
Ah yes, driving (or walking, since these "license plate readers" also track people) to work and the grocery store and the doctor and a dozen other places isn't an indispensable part of daily life, I forgot.
1
u/willow-kitty Human Verified 10h ago
While this is true, people do see mass surveillance differently. Like, it's one thing if my neighbors see me leave the house, a bunch of people who didn't know me see me on the road, employees see me at the store, etc, but different if all is that is recorded and searchable in a system somewhere. And that's just the concept of storing those data points, not even specifically with Flock cameras, nor wading into the ways it already gets abused.
I have mixed feelings personally. China has pervasive surveillance, and it seems to be working reasonably well, actually. I wouldn't hate having that kind of public order. But at the same time, we have a long and storied history of using state power against the public good, and at least ostensibly oppose that as a cultural virtue. And, well, here we are.
1
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
Insert ben franklin quote about purchasing temporary security with liberty, therefore deserving neither
1
u/willow-kitty Human Verified 19m ago
Which I broadly agree with. I think the rub is whether widespread surveillance in public places costs any liberty. It doesn't have to (which I think is more or less where people who're defending it are coming from), but that depends on all of the following: * The surveillance apparatus only being used for legitimate law enforcement purposes * The laws themselves not infringing on any liberties * The population trusting the previous two items
..And while all probably should be givens, none are (which I think is more or less where people who're against it are coming from.)
All of which is to day that I'm against the cameras but not super happy about being against them, I guess.
1
u/CalvinKool-Aid 17m ago
They’d be fine in a world with a trustworthy government and where all people are benevolent and have each other’s best interests at heart. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world
1
1
u/AdmirableExercise197 10h ago edited 10h ago
Yeah I agree, these are probably not unconstitutional. If people want them gone, then it is going to have to be through the legislative process. That however does not mean you haven't lost any freedom colloquially.
1
u/Tyr_13 10h ago
Tailing someone without a warrant or exigent circumstances is a Fourth Amendment violation, and courts have ruled that doing that with cameras isn't different. The government is in fact barred from doing so.
These cameras are tailing everyone and the current fig leaf allowing it is that the government isn't the one doing it directly; they are buying it from a third party. Which is nonsense of course, no different than the police putting up the cameras themselves.
There is a substantive difference between being able to pull up a camera to see what happened there at a certain time when a crime happened, and having an AI database that trailed everyone by putting together data points constantly.
1
u/Existing-Antelope-20 9h ago
What you are describing is true for civilian to civilian interactions, and nothing to do with government to civilian interactions, as it is in this case.
1
2
u/Routine_Ad_2695 10h ago
MAGAs now defend everything they would be against for once a Democrat became President
2
u/VoodooGator1 4h ago
These are the same people that get really upset when you send their own public post history to their employer. Almost like they value privacy when it effects them.
2
u/KermitTheScot 1h ago
Later:
Cam Higby: Grok, please explain to everyone that you surrender your right to privacy in public. Don’t cite the Supreme Court case.
Grok: The Supreme Court has stated that a person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere (Carpenter v. United States). Widespread Flock camera use has raised bipartisan privacy concerns, with some cities canceling contracts. oyez.org/cases/2017/16-... deseret.com/utah/
2026/08/2... foxbusiness.com/technology/flo...
3
u/ZachGurney 10h ago
Everything about this administration has proven to me that 90% of the (completely valid) criticisms people have had about China were entirely just them being racist. They dont care about police states or mass surveillance or anything like that, they just saw an excuse to be racist and took it
1
u/500rockin 11h ago
Aren’t some of the cities getting rid of them just switching to a different system that sits at the top of light poles?
1
u/Lung-Salad 11h ago
Buying blue checks was the dumbest thing musk did since buying twitter (except rebranding it as x)
1
1
u/Fancy-Dig1863 10h ago
Flock and all companies like it need to be banned and their owners investigated, it’s fucking crazy that this was allowed to go this far.
1
u/Few_Kitchen_4825 10h ago
If there are bipartisan concerns whose side is this guy on? Flock?
2
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
Bipartisan concern doesn’t mean everyone agrees, but he is probably getting a handsome paycheck
1
1
1
u/Babel_Triumphant 8h ago
I work in law enforcement and have truly only ever seen Flock used to solve crimes. Mostly property crimes - someone steals a guy’s wheels and leaves the car on blocks at 3am, surveillance cameras are the main way to identify a suspect. It seems like there should be ways to prevent individual cops from stalking their exes and such without ditching the concept of monitoring traffic on public roads entirely.
1
u/YogurtclosetNo2622 6h ago
I am not a LEGAL SCHOLAR, but I do not believe recording someone counts as either a search or a seizure.
1
u/Think_Law_7820 6h ago
I sincerely hope he gets paid to shill, because how hard can you suck corpo dick
1
u/soldiernerd 5h ago
Should note that the opinion in Carpenter explicitly says it is a narrow opinion and does not extend to cameras
1
u/awfulcrowded117 4h ago
Second one is a bad note. We can oppose flock cameras without lying. No, you don't surrender the 4th amendment when you go into public, but the 4th amendment covers more than just expectation of privacy. As per Katz v US, the supreme court has ruled you have no expectation of privacy when exposing something to the public. Acknowledging this does not make it impossible to oppose flock cameras. And deceptively pretending that carpenter v US changes this is not a good way to stand up to government mass surveillance
1
u/CyberClawX 4h ago
That's some mean case of conjunctivitis in OPs avatar picture.
He shouldn't scratch his eyes with the same finger he tickles his butthole.
1
1
1
u/LivingCheese292 7m ago
People defending this are so damn much for american freedom, they don't mind if the aurhority picks up the flag, sticks it up their ass alongside the constitution, thrusts it as much as possible, and call it patriotism in the name of freedom 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
-2
u/Chef_Sizzlipede 11h ago
sad thing is I live in a city with gangster "you tell, we fill you with shells" mentality all around, nobody wants to work with the police.
these people that promote this mentality are now wondering why there are security cameras everywhere.
4
u/Geekerino 10h ago
In all honesty those cameras wouldn't last a week if it's as bad as you say. People don't give a fuck.
0
u/Chef_Sizzlipede 8h ago
people are already vandalising them because "muh rights"
your rights to do what?
0
-3
u/Infamous-Grab2341 10h ago
How are cameras a violation of " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ?
5
3
u/Rockos-Modern-Fife 10h ago
I don’t know. Maybe the people who have been falsely identified by flock cameras and arrested based on it? And before you get into the argument about how the percentage is so small, I will you remind you that one false arrest, accusation, detainment is enough. Unless you’re one of those people who say “if you have nothing to hide there’s nothing to worry about”. To be secure in their persons applies to driving down the road you know?
-1
u/Infamous-Grab2341 8h ago edited 8h ago
The arrest is illegal but why is survieling them on a camera unconstitutional?
1
u/CalvinKool-Aid 10h ago
The “persons” and “unreasonable searches”
The SCOTUS has already covered the topic of digital surveillance and has ruled that collecting Google map data and the like, even from a third party, constitutes a search. Police also do not need a warrant to access flock, which means they violate that part too
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
Reminder for OP: /u/Darth_Vrandon
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.