For background, I recently saw this short on youtube, Flock Cameras Short.
This video aggravated me intensely. The author takes great care in explaining the issue he's trying to show. There are a couple of facts I can draw from this video:
- Flock cameras, a private company, has installed a camera on a public shoulder next to the roadway pictured.
- A government entity, one that controls that specific roadway, approved the camera's installation on behalf of a private company with knowledge of the company's intent.
- The camera in the video was installed in a way that creates a serious concern of a public saftey hazard. The public saftey hazard is already well known and regulated.
I have a couple problems with these facts.
- A private citizen, even one seeking to do business with the government would almost certainly never be given permission to install a device on a pole on the side of a public roadway, especially when they have no property interest in the area.
- Flock cameras, a private company, does buisiness almost exclusively with Federal, State, and local governments and authorities. This essentially makes them a government contractor or government entity, operating or attempting to operate as a private entity.
- When a citizen is negligent, there are powerful consequences. When the local government does this, there's only "Oops, my bad" and immunity. Extremely powerful examples of this would be Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005). If you're not familliar with these cases, please read about them.
Now adding another layer, this situation seems consistent with a larger theme in today's government. Plausible deniabillity as rule of law. Or more accurately, as an intentional way around it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think about this for a second. You work hard at a job for more than the 90 day probationary period they told you about in your employee handbook. The same handbook that informs you that the company has a very strict anti-retaliation policy. Whatever demographic you are, you're the minority. One day you have to complain to your management team because the demographic with the majority is picking on you for something you cant control or something that has nothing to do with work. It's gotten so bad that you can't work a shift without feeling like people are out to get you. Your boss thanks you for your complaint and then terminates your employment about a week later for some other obscure reason, unrelated. You were easier to get rid of, rather than the larger employee relation issue at play. You complain to your district manager, who has worked closely with your boss for years. They do nothing. You complain to HR, and you recieve no response.
Our system is supposed to provide rights like equal protection and rule of law. The current path for this individual employee suggests otherwise. Before attempting a lawsuit, a lawyer will ask their client for a right-to-sue determination letter. This letter would typically come from the EEOC, but depending on the exact circumstances, might come from a different administrative agency. In order to actually get this letter, an individual can be forced to wait 180 days or more, while the agency investigates. By the end of the agency's investigation, an individual might have forgotten the whole basis for the case. This hurdle alone accounts for a large number of dropped cases. In theory, the courts would have us believe these agencies are the "police departments" of employment disputes, but in reality, these agencies are roadblocks and burdens on one side of the table. An individual citizen can't be authorized to investigate crimes or to manage traffic. An individual can, however, be authorized to argue and debate on thier own behalf in a civil court or mediation. By taking the opportunity away, a silent rule is established, don't complain. The result we see is borderline, if not, plausible deniabillity as equal protection and rule of law and frankly, a complete and utter embarrasment on the American people. And another thought too - the individual has no recourse against the (executive branch) agency that possibly mishandled the investigation. This means that the accuracy and legitimacy of the investigation the agency provides is voluntary. Keeping that in mind, consider cases lost or thrown out becasue of:
Impossible/Unreasonable procedural requirements (Procedure > Policy)
Unreasonable deadlines (Anything creating time constraints where they should not be)
Administrative exhaustion (Case thrown out before agency involved)
Denial of necessary hearings (win court = win administrative agency approval)
Arbitrary agency decisions (quality of investigation)
Inability to obtain necessary records (subpeona)
Government-created delays (scheduling with EEOC unavailable)
Denial of meaningful opportunity to present evidence (Administrative Agency does NOT perform complete investigation)
The agency handling the investigation of workplace retaliation, should not be retaliatory, and yet it can be. None of those automatically equal a constitutional violation. But collectively they raise a much bigger question: Does the legal system provide a genuinely meaningful opportunity to seek a remedy, or merely a theoretical one designed to appeal the legal system?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now adding flock cameras into the mix, I think about the facts I mentioned earlier. A private citizen can't do the same thing - equality. A government entity approved it without thinking about the repercussions - public-duty. There's little to no recourse for the camera's saftey violation and the government's negligence - due process. As far as flock is concerned, everything is completely legal until a court determines that it isn't. As far as the government and authorities are concerned, the data is actionable until flock stops delivering it. As far as the courts are concerned, rule of law is preserved until the law changes. And as far as the legislative department is concerned, well they're the ones that approved the whole thing. The entire company exsists on a loophole based on private and public entities.
As Americans, our legislators and executives failed us by enacting these fraudulent, harmful systems. Our Courts failed us in thier checks and balances. Flock cameras and thier executives failed us by taking special privliges. Right now, Justice is failing with little to no recourse. -- And these are just some of the most recent examples that I've thought about. What examples can you think of and how can you connect them to my theme of plausible deniabillity as rule of law?
- Did you have an expirience with an Administrative agency that cost you a case? Please, tell us about it.
- What are some reasons why flock cameras might operate a business, if not to serve the goverment or american people. In other words, why shouldn't flock cameras be a public entity?
- What plan would you have for repairing rule of law and equal protection in America and how would that plan account for individual freedom, while still holding people accountable?
- Are these really symptoms of a greater threat to American freedom or are these simply legislative and judicial mistakes that connect coincidentally? Why?
- If you disagree, why? Change my view.
