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?”
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.
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.
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.
All crimes punish the group of people doing that crime. A bill of attainder targets an individual or a related group of individuals (like family members). But legislation to criminalize an action that happens to be done by only a small number of individuals is not a bill of attainder.
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
its illegal (I think) to suggest or call for the hanging of someone
Only if it’s a specific, actionable threat intended to be taken literally. But if, for example, it’s advocating a prosecution that might end with capital punishment, that’s protected speech. “Let justice be done.”
is it illegal to publish and support legislation calling for the execution of public figures involved in X Y Z?
No.
Interesting that he’s framing it as a balance between privacy and safety instead of privacy and security.
Flock cameras haven’t been proven to make anyone safer.
They’ve proven that police are just dumb as fuck.
That was well known before Flock.
Yeah what even is the argument for that? Even if a crime is caught on one of these things they’re still not making anyone safer. The crime still happened and that’s the best case scenario where the crime is caught on tape. From what I’ve seen usually these things provide circumstantial evidence at best.
It’s a false dichotomy, pure and simple. They try to frame it in a way to make their invasion of your privacy seem as if it’s in your best interest, even though the opposite is true. Typical fascist rhetoric.
I like the sounds of this. Here’s an offer:
Fuck off, and the guillotine gets put away.
Everybody wins!
The only thing is we have to actually pull the guillotines out first.
So…. this weekend? :)
The compromise is that he lives
It’s wild, because when I was a kid, there was this huge conservative talking point about how trading freedom for security was bad.
Conservatives are all about freedom until there’s profit involved.
Conservatives will say anything to align with the in-group, to hurt the outgroup, or for personal power. They have no internal beliefs beyond those.
Conservatives are liars and thieves who support felons and pedophiles.
Never trust a conservative.
Just wait til Flocko’ween.
I’ve already picked out my costume!!
Sexy Lumberjack?
A combo costume with my partner. Going as Kylo Ren and Stimpy
Inspired choice
Something easy to take off and stash in my bag.
hey bb, i cn only reed the top fore lines, so u wan sum fuk den?
(I’d normally use a winky emoticon down here to indicate I’m being silly here, but I know you younger kids interpret that in contexts like this with sexual overtones. :shakes fist: Leave my 1980s emoticons alone, damn you kids! heh)
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!
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.
I think the window of compromise has long since passed. Flock as a company went in with a guns blazing, anti-privacy, record everything, give the information to anyone style business style, and then chose to double and triple down on the style when the controversy/outcry first started. Once you’ve hit the stage where there’s people starting to protest and riot and cities have started to go out of their way to ban the product and retract contracts due to the fact that they’re concerned about public support. It’s too late. That’s a fire that’s not being put out.
I propose they compromise by going out of business after deleting all data and removing their cameras from everywhere.
Compromise offer: you stop spying on us and we’ll stop breaking your cameras.
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
If you get rid of your right to privacy, you get rid of your right to safety.
So the compromise is they get cameras, and we get to hunt them for sport.
We’ve just not been holding up our end of things.
Fuck off with compromise. take your shit and get out no one wants you in case the guillotine wasn’t fucking clear
