Then he pretty much can't do anything today without being upset. Given all the cameras around towns, facial recognition, etc., not only on homes but businesses and computers in our cars, phones and watches, you name it. There's nothing you can basically do today without it being able to be tracked.

Very much used when people are under suspicion of murder or crime. Even when they think they're being clever by leaving their phones at home. That's just a small part of it.

That ship has sailed. But again, license plates are on your vehicles. There is nothing private about them, regardless of who's recording them or how. That's what this original post was about.

annie88 said:

---

Then he pretty much can't do anything today without being upset. Given all the cameras around towns, facial recognition, etc., not only on homes but businesses and computers in our cars, phones and watches, you name it. There's nothing you can basically do today without it being able to be tracked.

f

---

I mean I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean we just give up say "Ahh shucks, let them do whatever! It might catch a package thief!"

annie88 said:

---

Then he pretty much can't do anything today without being upset. Given all the cameras around towns, facial recognition, etc., not only on homes but businesses and computers in our cars, phones and watches, you name it. There's nothing you can basically do today without it being able to be tracked.

Very much used when people are under suspicion of murder or crime. Even when they think they're being clever by leaving their phones at home. That's just a small part of it.

That ship has sailed. But again, license plates are on your vehicles. There is nothing private about them, regardless of who's recording them or how. That's what this original post was about.

---

I think Clayton Williams got in a good deal of hurt over his own similar words on just accepting it

JB said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Then he pretty much can't do anything today without being upset. Given all the cameras around towns, facial recognition, etc., not only on homes but businesses and computers in our cars, phones and watches, you name it. There's nothing you can basically do today without it being able to be tracked.

f

---

I mean I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean we just give up say "Ahh shucks, let them do whatever! It might catch a package thief!"

---

I never said you had to like it. I'm just telling you reality. At this point, there's really nothing you can do about it. being upset about it 24/7 isn't going to help your life either. Live a good life and don't commit crime.

And honestly, I think it's good when they track down murderers because of things like this. Especially for those families of the murder victims.

I'm constantly amazed at how stupid your average murderer is. Especially the ones that are going out of their way to try to cover everything up and all they do is draw attention.

But again, there's a lot of things about the world I don't like, but if I'm gonna hit my head up against the wall about all of them, it isn't really gonna help me.

annie88 said:

---

I never said you had to like it. I'm just telling you reality. At this point, there's really nothing you can do about it. being upset about it 24/7 isn't going to help your life either. Live a good life and don't commit crime.

And honestly, I think it's good when they track down murderers because of things like this. Especially for those families of the murder victims.

I'm constantly amazed at how stupid your average murderer is. Especially the ones that are going out of their way to try to cover everything up and all they do is draw attention.

But again, there's a lot of things about the world I don't like, but if I'm gonna hit my head up against the wall about all of them, it isn't really gonna help me.

---

I don't disagree with anything you just said.

I do think that this surveillance will be misused more than it will be used for good

Geolocation needs to be used and require all posters in BCS to acknowledge that Texags is a website not limited to only people in BCS, therefore location context in a post is relevant.

I hope you get your camera/tax issue resolved. I can't imagine there are that many necessary in Alaska but it is clearly upsetting some people.

TAMUallen said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

annie88 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

You do realize that cars today can track your movements because they're run by computers. Same thing with your phone, etc. not directly by the government, but I'm still not understanding why recognizing your license plate is a problem. It's on your car. It's already out there.

---

It is not. He has a strong dislike for police and it extends to any tool they use.

---

So the purpose is surveillance to be used as a tool by the police.

---

The purpose of Flock? Yes, it is a tool (one of the most effective I have seen in 20+ years) used by police.

JB said:

---

Because a private company is using taxpayer dollars to track your car wherever it goes so they can then sell that data to whoever. And doing it under the disguise of safety.

I can think of plenty of bad things that bad guys could do with hacked info from these cameras.

---

They can do the same bad things with hacked info from a variety of databases. What makes Flock special?

Bocephus said:

---

JB said:

---

Because a private company is using taxpayer dollars to track your car wherever it goes so they can then sell that data to whoever. And doing it under the disguise of safety.

I can think of plenty of bad things that bad guys could do with hacked info from these cameras.

---

They can do the sand bad things with hacked info from a variety of databases. What makes Flock special?

---

Which databases?

JB said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

JB said:

---

Because a private company is using taxpayer dollars to track your car wherever it goes so they can then sell that data to whoever. And doing it under the disguise of safety.

I can think of plenty of bad things that bad guys could do with hacked info from these cameras.

---

They can do the sand bad things with hacked info from a variety of databases. What makes Flock special?

---

Which databases?

---

Vehicle registration, drivers license, water utilities etc

annie88 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

You do realize that cars today can track your movements because they're run by computers. Same thing with your phone, etc. not directly by the government, but I'm still not understanding why recognizing your license plate is a problem. It's on your car. It's already out there.

---

All those things you mention can be turned off by you and are optional. They also come with privacy policies and restrictions on sharing and disclosure.

It's not the recognition, it's the recording and tracking. Every time one of those cameras scans your plate, it is recorded, and given enough coverage, Flock can give the government, or anyone with access to their data, a timeline of your movements without your knowledge or consent. They can know when you leave your house, when and where you drop your kids off, when, where, and how you drive to work, etc. Their entire goal is a privatized surveillance state.

As an example of how powerful this data can be, in 2018 Strava released a heat map of fitness tracker information in their app. Incidentally they revealed not just the location of secret special forces bases in Syria and forward operating bases in Afghanistan, but all of the routes used by the soldiers in and around those bases in exacting detail. Stopping that was as easy as banning fitness trackers and location sharing. Flock can do something similar to you, but you can't turn them off or stop them.

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

---

We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?

---

Because that usually requires a warrant.

And, if that doesn't work, allow private companies to set up camaras right next to the government camaras and do basically the same thing, and sell the data to the public.

The government should not be spying on its own citizens. If, when a private person does something, that person is invading privacy, then, when the government does it, they are invading privacy, too.

Bocephus said:

---

annie88 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

You do realize that cars today can track your movements because they're run by computers. Same thing with your phone, etc. not directly by the government, but I'm still not understanding why recognizing your license plate is a problem. It's on your car. It's already out there.

---

It is not. He has a strong dislike for police and it extends to any tool they use.

---

No, I have a strong dislike for bad cops and those who enable and excuse them. There's a difference

Bocephus said:

---

JB said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

JB said:

---

Because a private company is using taxpayer dollars to track your car wherever it goes so they can then sell that data to whoever. And doing it under the disguise of safety.

I can think of plenty of bad things that bad guys could do with hacked info from these cameras.

---

They can do the sand bad things with hacked info from a variety of databases. What makes Flock special?

---

Which databases?

---

Vehicle registration, drivers license, water utilities etc

---

None of those track your car

Bocephus said:

---

JB said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

JB said:

---

Because a private company is using taxpayer dollars to track your car wherever it goes so they can then sell that data to whoever. And doing it under the disguise of safety.

I can think of plenty of bad things that bad guys could do with hacked info from these cameras.

---

They can do the sand bad things with hacked info from a variety of databases. What makes Flock special?

---

Which databases?

---

Vehicle registration, drivers license, water utilities etc

---

I guess I don't follow.
Most would say those are necessary things. I don't think ALPRs are and I don't trust the government or Flock to use the information gained appropriately

Bocephus said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

---

We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?

---

Because having a badge doesn't make you or any other cop more trustworthy than a random person off the street.

---

Still does not answer the question. We cannot let the random guy on the street have access to those databases bc the public has too many criminals who would immediately use that info for nefarious reasons. I already have access to way more invasive databases than Flock. What is the concern with giving those same people access to Flock?

---

When it comes to spying on citizens, if we can't give it to a random guy on the street, we shouldn't be collecting it as a government.

The 4th:

Quote:

---

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.

---

SCOTUS has ruled that dragnet surveillance of citizens is not ok. Basically you have to:
1) Use a technology that is already widespread in use;
2) Only be capturing data related to crime, and not capturing data not related to criminal activity; or
3) get a warrant.

The entire problem is that the government should not be collecting data that it can use to arbitrarily enforce justice. So, for example, if the FLOCK system could only be used to identify people that were driving a stolen car, and the data was not available to anyone else for any other reason, it might be legal. But, you can't just have the data there for the police to query whenever they want to if it is not also available to the general public.

Here is a good discussion on surveillance jurisprudence: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10704392/

Bocephus said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

annie88 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

You do realize that cars today can track your movements because they're run by computers. Same thing with your phone, etc. not directly by the government, but I'm still not understanding why recognizing your license plate is a problem. It's on your car. It's already out there.

---

It is not. He has a strong dislike for police and it extends to any tool they use.

---

So the purpose is surveillance to be used as a tool by the police.

---

The purpose of Flock? Yes, it is a tool (one of the most effective I have seen in 20+ years) used by police.

---

Cops have no problem with constant surveillance until it's on them. If Flock came with body cams they couldn't take off, turn off, or mute and always on cameras in their cars, they'd drop it tomorrow.

Bocephus said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

---

We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?

---

Because having a badge doesn't make you or any other cop more trustworthy than a random person off the street.

---

Still does not answer the question. We cannot let the random guy on the street have access to those databases bc the public has too many criminals who would immediately use that info for nefarious reasons. I already have access to way more invasive databases than Flock. What is the concern with giving those same people access to Flock?

---

Cops can be criminals too

BusterAg said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

---

We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?

---

Because that usually requires a warrant.

And, if that doesn't work, allow private companies to set up camaras right next to the government camaras and do basically the same thing, and sell the data to the public.

The government should not be spying on its own citizens. If, when a private person does something, that person is invading privacy, then, when the government does it, they are invading privacy, too.

---

You're not invading privacy when it's in public. Nothing is stopping you from standing at an intersection in Dallas with a camcorder and recording every license plate. You do not need a warrant for that. That is what flock does and every 6 weeks or so they delete the data.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

JB said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

JB said:

---

Because a private company is using taxpayer dollars to track your car wherever it goes so they can then sell that data to whoever. And doing it under the disguise of safety.

I can think of plenty of bad things that bad guys could do with hacked info from these cameras.

---

They can do the sand bad things with hacked info from a variety of databases. What makes Flock special?

---

Which databases?

---

Vehicle registration, drivers license, water utilities etc

---

None of those track your car

---

They are all databases that can be searched. Why haven't you come out and protested against traffic cameras? They do the exact same thing as Flock. So do tollway cameras.

JB said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

JB said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

JB said:

---

Because a private company is using taxpayer dollars to track your car wherever it goes so they can then sell that data to whoever. And doing it under the disguise of safety.

I can think of plenty of bad things that bad guys could do with hacked info from these cameras.

---

They can do the sand bad things with hacked info from a variety of databases. What makes Flock special?

---

Which databases?

---

Vehicle registration, drivers license, water utilities etc

---

I guess I don't follow.
Most would say those are necessary things. I don't think ALPRs are and I don't trust the government or Flock to use the information gained appropriately

---

Police and hackers have access to all of the above databases and more. Why the fear now of a camera set at one spot that is recording license plates that are in public view?

BusterAg said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

---

We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?

---

Because having a badge doesn't make you or any other cop more trustworthy than a random person off the street.

---

Still does not answer the question. We cannot let the random guy on the street have access to those databases bc the public has too many criminals who would immediately use that info for nefarious reasons. I already have access to way more invasive databases than Flock. What is the concern with giving those same people access to Flock?

---

When it comes to spying on citizens, if we can't give it to a random guy on the street, we shouldn't be collecting it as a government.

The 4th:

Quote:

---

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.

---

SCOTUS has ruled that dragnet surveillance of citizens is not ok. Basically you have to:
1) Use a technology that is already widespread in use;
2) Only be capturing data related to crime, and not capturing data not related to criminal activity; or
3) get a warrant.

The entire problem is that the government should not be collecting data that it can use to arbitrarily enforce justice. So, for example, if the FLOCK system could only be used to identify people that were driving a stolen car, and the data was not available to anyone else for any other reason, it might be legal. But, you can't just have the data there for the police to query whenever they want to if it is not also available to the general public.

Here is a good discussion on surveillance jurisprudence: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10704392/

---

I think you may be confused at what Flock is. It doesn't tell you who is driving the car. It just tells you when a car with a certain license plate drives by a certain point. That is it. Flock has been fooled when people change license plates bc it is just a license plate reader. There is no invasion of privacy involved bc again, this is out in public.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

annie88 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

You do realize that cars today can track your movements because they're run by computers. Same thing with your phone, etc. not directly by the government, but I'm still not understanding why recognizing your license plate is a problem. It's on your car. It's already out there.

---

It is not. He has a strong dislike for police and it extends to any tool they use.

---

So the purpose is surveillance to be used as a tool by the police.

---

The purpose of Flock? Yes, it is a tool (one of the most effective I have seen in 20+ years) used by police.

---

Cops have no problem with constant surveillance until it's on them. If Flock came with body cams they couldn't take off, turn off, or mute and always on cameras in their cars, they'd drop it tomorrow.

---

Axon already has those and some departments require them to be on for the entire shift. Flock doesn't record sound. This is a terrible analogy. Posting a camera in public to record what is in public is perfectly legal to anyone.

Bocephus said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

annie88 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

You do realize that cars today can track your movements because they're run by computers. Same thing with your phone, etc. not directly by the government, but I'm still not understanding why recognizing your license plate is a problem. It's on your car. It's already out there.

---

It is not. He has a strong dislike for police and it extends to any tool they use.

---

So the purpose is surveillance to be used as a tool by the police.

---

The purpose of Flock? Yes, it is a tool (one of the most effective I have seen in 20+ years) used by police.

---

Cops have no problem with constant surveillance until it's on them. If Flock came with body cams they couldn't take off, turn off, or mute and always on cameras in their cars, they'd drop it tomorrow.

---

Axon already has those and some departments require them to be on for the entire shift. Flock doesn't record sound. This is a terrible analogy. Posting a camera in public to record what is in public is perfectly legal to anyone.

---

No it is not.

You like it because it means you have to do less and can be constantly knowing if a vehicle/person youre looking for is near. It makes investigations easier too because with enough of them you have a verified timeline with location evidence already established.

Bocephus said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Cargo Shorts FTW said:

---

The data is public record and subject to foia requests. Get the license plate numbers for the city council members, foia their information, and post their travels online for all to enjoy.

You can extend this to other influential officials as you wish.

---

Zero percent chance that you would be able to get that data. Rules for thee and not for me, example 2,342,353

---

I requested the data from the city of Dallas and was told it would be an invasion of privacy to provide it. It would endanger the police officers by telling the public where they are and when. Other cities have said the same and only a few have been told by judges that they do have to respond. Still other cities have lied and said the data is not theirs to give (not what the Flock contract says).

Chew on that. They want to invade your privacy but don't want you to invade theirs.

---

Exactly how are your travels on public roadways, private?

The vehicle information for city council etc is withheld as a matter of safety. Nothing stops you from standing outside the city hall garage and recording their license plate when they enter it though.

---

You're either an idiot that can't read or you're being intentionally obtuse so you can regurgitate something one of your cop buddies said (even if it's not on point). The data that you say is public info and not an invasion of privacy (license plate location data, pictures from flock cams, recordings from the microphones, the actual contracts with public entities) is now all of a sudden an invasion of privacy to provide to someone. If you don't see how the city is contradicting itself, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should question what this says about your ability to see when someone is lying to you or what it says about your ability to complete a simple investigatory interview.

Maybe it's better if you just take a nap in your car while everyone else has a discussion.

Bocephus said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

annie88 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

You do realize that cars today can track your movements because they're run by computers. Same thing with your phone, etc. not directly by the government, but I'm still not understanding why recognizing your license plate is a problem. It's on your car. It's already out there.

---

It is not. He has a strong dislike for police and it extends to any tool they use.

---

So the purpose is surveillance to be used as a tool by the police.

---

The purpose of Flock? Yes, it is a tool (one of the most effective I have seen in 20+ years) used by police.

---

Cops have no problem with constant surveillance until it's on them. If Flock came with body cams they couldn't take off, turn off, or mute and always on cameras in their cars, they'd drop it tomorrow.

---

Axon already has those and some departments require them to be on for the entire shift. Flock doesn't record sound. This is a terrible analogy. Posting a camera in public to record what is in public is perfectly legal to anyone.

---

Flock does record sound. Their new cams advertise it. The old ones have been found to do so even without telling us.

Bocephus said:

---

Police and hackers have access to all of the above databases and more. Why the fear now of a camera set at one spot that is recording license plates that are in public view?

---

Why now? I dunno man. I don't like that they can access those either. But why give them another avenue?

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

---

We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?

---

Because having a badge doesn't make you or any other cop more trustworthy than a random person off the street.

---

Still does not answer the question. We cannot let the random guy on the street have access to those databases bc the public has too many criminals who would immediately use that info for nefarious reasons. I already have access to way more invasive databases than Flock. What is the concern with giving those same people access to Flock?

---

When it comes to spying on citizens, if we can't give it to a random guy on the street, we shouldn't be collecting it as a government.

The 4th:

Quote:

---

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.

---

SCOTUS has ruled that dragnet surveillance of citizens is not ok. Basically you have to:
1) Use a technology that is already widespread in use;
2) Only be capturing data related to crime, and not capturing data not related to criminal activity; or
3) get a warrant.

The entire problem is that the government should not be collecting data that it can use to arbitrarily enforce justice. So, for example, if the FLOCK system could only be used to identify people that were driving a stolen car, and the data was not available to anyone else for any other reason, it might be legal. But, you can't just have the data there for the police to query whenever they want to if it is not also available to the general public.

Here is a good discussion on surveillance jurisprudence: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10704392/

---

I think you may be confused at what Flock is. It doesn't tell you who is driving the car. It just tells you when a car with a certain license plate drives by a certain point. That is it. Flock has been fooled when people change license plates bc it is just a license plate reader. There is no invasion of privacy involved bc again, this is out in public.

---

Some are in public. Many are on private parking lots. All are Flock and would link. A camera good enough to accurately read a moving license plate has good enough quality to capture your face. Dont be misleading on the capability and that you have looked to see if you can ID somebody with a flock video/pic

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

---

We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?

---

Because that usually requires a warrant.

And, if that doesn't work, allow private companies to set up camaras right next to the government camaras and do basically the same thing, and sell the data to the public.

The government should not be spying on its own citizens. If, when a private person does something, that person is invading privacy, then, when the government does it, they are invading privacy, too.

---

You're not invading privacy when it's in public. Nothing is stopping you from standing at an intersection in Dallas with a camcorder and recording every license plate. You do not need a warrant for that. That is what flock does and every 6 weeks or so they delete the data.

---

How do they delete data that belongs to the user (DPD)? Go read the ****ing contract and quit making **** up. This is why you're a bad cop. You make **** up and act like it's verifiable truth.

Pinochet said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Cargo Shorts FTW said:

---

The data is public record and subject to foia requests. Get the license plate numbers for the city council members, foia their information, and post their travels online for all to enjoy.

You can extend this to other influential officials as you wish.

---

Zero percent chance that you would be able to get that data. Rules for thee and not for me, example 2,342,353

---

I requested the data from the city of Dallas and was told it would be an invasion of privacy to provide it. It would endanger the police officers by telling the public where they are and when. Other cities have said the same and only a few have been told by judges that they do have to respond. Still other cities have lied and said the data is not theirs to give (not what the Flock contract says).

Chew on that. They want to invade your privacy but don't want you to invade theirs.

---

Exactly how are your travels on public roadways, private?

The vehicle information for city council etc is withheld as a matter of safety. Nothing stops you from standing outside the city hall garage and recording their license plate when they enter it though.

---

You're either an idiot that can't read or you're being intentionally obtuse so you can regurgitate something one of your cop buddies said (even if it's not on point). The data that you say is public info and not an invasion of privacy (license plate location data, pictures from flock cams, recordings from the microphones, the actual contracts with public entities) is now all of a sudden an invasion of privacy to provide to someone. If you don't see how the city is contradicting itself, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should question what this says about your ability to see when someone is lying to you or what it says about your ability to complete a simple investigatory interview.

Maybe it's better if you just take a nap in your car while everyone else has a discussion.

---

He's 100 percent in favor and has admitted it's a SURVEILLANCE tool

Been front plate free for at least a decade and never been pulled over. Not sure by what factor I am minimizing my exposure, but at least its a cleaner look on my ride

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

---

We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?

---

Because that usually requires a warrant.

And, if that doesn't work, allow private companies to set up camaras right next to the government camaras and do basically the same thing, and sell the data to the public.

The government should not be spying on its own citizens. If, when a private person does something, that person is invading privacy, then, when the government does it, they are invading privacy, too.

---

You're not invading privacy when it's in public. Nothing is stopping you from standing at an intersection in Dallas with a camcorder and recording every license plate. You do not need a warrant for that. That is what flock does and every 6 weeks or so they delete the data.

---

So, nothing at all wrong with me installing my own camaras everywhere that Flock camaras are, and then selling that data to private 3rd parties? You are all good with that? Just need to rent space on the pole from Flock.

Bocephus said:

---

I think you may be confused at what Flock is. It doesn't tell you who is driving the car. It just tells you when a car with a certain license plate drives by a certain point. That is it. Flock has been fooled when people change license plates bc it is just a license plate reader. There is no invasion of privacy involved bc again, this is out in public.

---

Flock has cameras at parks and walking trails too. Its moved beyond license plates. The video posted shows it auto focusing on people and children out for a walk. I feel safer already!