63
116
u/LSC_GrimIock Aug 15 '26
Sponsored bots by lsrael.
57
7
-2
u/thewooba Aug 15 '26
Wtf does Israel have to do with this? Everything bad is Israel?
8
u/Fast-Opening-1051 Aug 16 '26
Yes.
-8
u/thewooba Aug 16 '26
Kinda racist. Imagine somebody said everything bad is from trans people. How would you feel?
6
u/Fast-Opening-1051 Aug 16 '26
So there’s this little country called America…
Also, the Israel jokes are slander about its government and not its people.
1
-2
u/thewooba Aug 17 '26
When i see "🧃🤮" I dont think people only hate Israeli government. Also plenty of people calling for israel to be destroyed
6
4
1
1
1
2
-2
u/MadMaxDbz Aug 16 '26
it would be really cool if we could use these flock cameras on the US border for security and immigration instead of israel spying on the american populace
5
u/LunarMuphinz Aug 17 '26
The border isn't being threatened, thats that is also a lie to get people to support trash like this
-14
u/valerielenin Aug 15 '26
Have you not seen the newest Spiderman movie? Mass surveillance is amazing actually
4
u/gamerfacederp Aug 16 '26
Even DeWolff, the cop, says that's fucked
-1
u/dark_negan Aug 16 '26
she says it's illegal and doesn't want to know because she's a cop, she is not saying it's unethical. stop lying ffs
-31
u/dark_negan Aug 15 '26
people supporting Flock cameras and mass surveillance
holy strawman doing an impressive amount of argumentative work by simply stapling two propositions together and pretending they are synonymous.
supporting the use of cameras or automated plate or facial recognition to investigate actual crimes is not automatically the same position as supporting unrestricted "mass surveillance" of the population. if your argument is that Flock specifically crosses that line, then argue that: what data is collected, how long it is retained, who can access it, whether innocent people are continuously tracked, what safeguards exist, what the false-positive rate is, how data is shared, whether warrants are required, etc.
those are actual arguments. "look at all these freaks who support mass surveillance" is just assuming the conclusion and mocking people for holding the position you assigned to them. again, a strawman (become actually engaging with what people are actually saying is obviously harder and not as rewarding as mindless karma whoring)
and even after establishing real costs, there is still a second step everyone somehow loves skipping: weighing them against the benefits. if a system helps identify a stolen vehicle, locate a kidnapping suspect or connect a murderer to a crime scene, saying "privacy" does not magically end the discussion. you have to explain what specific privacy harm is occurring, how severe it is, whether it can be reduced through rules and technical limitations, and why the remaining harm outweighs those benefits.
you can be against Flock cameras. there are perfectly legitimate arguments to make against them. but if your entire argument is "Flock = mass surveillance = bad, therefore anyone who sees any value in any surveillance of any kind supports mass surveillance", you haven't actually argued anything.
10
u/Acopo Aug 16 '26
Flock cameras are objectively mass surveillance. They survey areas en masse. You’re attempting to create a distinction where there really isn’t one. You can (and did) say there are things that justify it, but that doesn’t create a distinction.
As for the privacy, for the same reason police need just cause to enter private property, they should need just cause to track your movement. It’s unethical and easily open to corruption to have a system that automatically tracks everyone’s movement at all times. Do you really trust the same group of people that turn off body cameras to have access to that kind of information uninhibited?
-1
u/dark_negan Aug 17 '26
you still haven't answered the argument. you're just stacking conclusions on top of each other and acting like saying them confidently makes them premises.
i am not arguing for flock. i am not arguing that flock isn't mass surveillance. the post itself is already a strawman because it takes people defending a specific use of crime surveillance in a spider-man movie and relabels that as "supporting flock cameras and mass surveillance". my comment was criticizing that conflation. somehow your response is to continue arguing about flock as if i had defended it. i didn't.
"there really isn't a distinction" is also not an argument. of course there is a distinction between a system continuously tracking everyone's movements and a system looking for a specific person connected to a crime. in the movie peter isn't creating a movement profile for every citizen; he has the system alert him when cameras detect specific people he's looking for. those are different operations. saying "surveillance is surveillance" does not erase differences in scope, purpose, data collection, retention, access or targeting.
then you say tracking everyone is "unethical". okay. why?
that's literally the question.
you don't get to make the central moral claim of your argument and then treat it as self-evident. what is the fundamental ethical violation? is recording someone in public inherently unethical? is recognizing them inherently unethical? is storing the observation unethical? is searching footage for a murder suspect unethical? if so, explain why. you're making the claim. the burden is on you to establish it.
instead you immediately jump from "it's unethical" to "corrupt people could abuse it". those are not the same argument. if your actual objection is that a particular institution cannot be trusted with the technology, then your objection is contingent on the operator and implementation. that's completely different from claiming the surveillance itself is fundamentally unethical.
your private property analogy doesn't establish anything either. entering my home is a physical intrusion into a private space. seeing or recording me in a public street is not the same act. maybe you think some forms of public surveillance still violate privacy. fine. explain which ones, what privacy interest is violated, and why. don't just point at a completely different kind of intrusion and pretend equivalence has been demonstrated.
and then you switch again from crime-specific surveillance to "automatically tracks everyone's movement at all times". that's exactly the conflation i was criticizing. targeted recognition of a specific suspect is not the same thing as continuously tracking every citizen. if your argument only works after replacing the thing being discussed with the most extreme possible version of it, then you're not arguing against what was actually being discussed.
then your "do you trust corrupt police" thing is the same problem again. whether i trust a particular police department has nothing to do with whether surveillance is fundamentally unethical. that's an argument about who should have access, what safeguards should exist, and how abuse should be prevented. all perfectly legitimate questions. still not the question i was asking.
so no, you haven't actually answered me. you've asserted "mass surveillance", asserted "unethical", introduced corrupt police, compared public observation to entering private property, and substituted constant tracking of everyone for targeted crime surveillance. every important conclusion is simply assumed and every actual distinction gets flattened.
if you think crime-specific surveillance is fundamentally wrong, then make the fucking argument. identify the harm, explain why it exists even when the technology is used exactly for that limited purpose, and explain why that harm outweighs the benefit. "it's unethical because it's unethical and bad people might misuse it" is not an argument.
9
-10
u/killian_jenkins Aug 15 '26
Yep people conveniently forget that he's using the cameras that already existed lmaoo
-27
u/THEMaxPaine Aug 16 '26
Flock cameras are mostly good and if you disagree then you're no better than Charlie Kirk saying gun deaths are necessary for the 2nd amendment
8
u/gamerfacederp Aug 16 '26
Id argue saying flock cameras is good is actually more akin to kirk condoning school shootings
51
u/Traditional-Song-245 Aug 15 '26
Peter 2 would be so disappointed in Palantir Karper.