ABATTBQ11 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?

---

Cops can be criminals too

---

Yep, and the 700,000 or so in America have to be vetted before they can access those databases and they still have some who slip through the cracks. There are 330 million people in America. Keys say 100,000 of them are legit stalkers. You want to give them access to a database that will allow them to study the movements of those they stalk? What could possibly go wrong?!!

JB said:

---

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!

---

https://blog.ring.com/about-ring/ring-and-flock-cancel-partnership/

Ring canceled their association with Flock because of IMMEDIATE public displeasure over privacy practice concerns regarding constant SURVEILLANCE

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.

---

If there is no invasion of privacy, why isn't the information public.

Is the information:

1) An invasion of privacy if it is provided to the public, but not an invasion of privacy if the government has it, but that is OK.

2) Not an invasion of privacy to be provided to the public, not an invasion of privacy if the government has it, but the government still doesn't have to provide the information due to safety reasons?

Why would this not be an invasion of privacy for the government to collect it, but an invasion of privacy for a private person to have access to that same data that is not an invasion of privacy for the government to collect? Why is it magically not an invasion of privacy if the government is the one collecting it, but it is too sensitive for the government to share it?

Bocephus said:

---

ABATTBQ11 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?

---

Cops can be criminals too

---

Yep, and the 700,000 or so in America have to be vetted before they can access those databases and they still have some who slip through the cracks. There are 330 million people in America. Keys say 100,000 of them are legit stalkers. You want to give them access to a database that will allow them to study the movements of those they stalk? What could possibly go wrong?!!

---

You arent doing yourself favors with logical fallacies

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.

---

Maybe you're just too dense to understand how these cameras are used by large cities. No one is stopping you from hanging out under the flock cameras and recording exactly what they record. No one is stopping you from using that information to figure out where a car is traveling and whether there is a pattern. There is no expectation of privacy in public. If you're too dense to comprehend that, that is a you problem.

They're not going to provide you with license plates and addresses for politicians bc that's a liability issue bc they receive threats on a regular basis. They have no expectation of privacy out in public and you can follow them and record their license plate and movements in public areas to your hearts content.

If the politicians are refusing to reveal the details of the contracts, you need to replace the politicians. Where I'm at, we don't use sound. They're strictly license plate readers. Right now we use them more than anyone else in the metroplex. If we decided to use sound, that would be fine with me because again, you're in public.

Bocephus said:

---

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.

---

Maybe you're just too dense to understand how these cameras are used by large cities. No one is stopping you from hanging out under the flock cameras and recording exactly what they record. No one is stopping you from using that information to figure out where a car is traveling and whether there is a pattern. There is no expectation of privacy in public. If you're too dense to comprehend that, that is a you problem.

They're not going to provide you with license plates and addresses for politicians bc that's a liability issue bc they receive threats on a regular basis. They have no expectation of privacy out in public and you can follow them and record their license plate and movements in public areas to your hearts content.

If the politicians are refusing to reveal the details of the contracts, you need to replace the politicians. Where I'm at, we don't use sound. They're strictly license plate readers. Right now we use them more than anyone else in the metroplex. If we decided to use sound, that would be fine with me because again, you're in public.

---

Keep on digging

BusterAg said:

---

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.

---

That sounds an awful lot like capitalism to me.

TAMUallen said:

---

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.

---

I work at an understaffed department in a county with a DA who enjoys letting criminals out. I like anything that helps take bad guys off the street for at least one night.

Bocephus said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

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.

---

I work at an understaffed department in a county with a DA who enjoys letting criminals out. I like anything that helps take bad guys off the street for at least one night.

---

I'm aware.

That doesnt make it right.

Pinochet said:

---

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.

---

The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.

Bocephus said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

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.

---

The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.

---

So, you have the data. You have DA that doesnt prosecute criminals. You have a council that doesnt want to pay for encryption. We are to trust you, your department, your council, your DA, your city/county and Flock to handle this well?

JB said:

---

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?

---

Bc I've seen it successfully used to put bad guys in jail and return property to citizens. Might as well use technology to help keep us safer. There is no expectation of privacy in public.

So let me get this straight, you think it's ok to violate people's privacy even further because it's already been done and because you've seen it apparently do some good?

Well going based off that logic, would you say it's okay for your wife to sleep with other men? I mean she's done it in the past so what does it matter now? Also, I can guarantee you she would be more than satisfied thus increasing the happiness in the world.

TAMUallen said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

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.

---

The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.

---

So, you have the data. You have DA that doesnt prosecute criminals. You have a council that doesnt want to pay for encryption. We are to trust you, your department, your council, your DA, your city/county and Flock to handle this well?

---

If you're argument is that the government by rule is inefficient, dumb, and will ultimately screw this up, I believe that's a viable argument. I think in the cost/benefit analysis, the benefit to society will way outweigh the cost when it comes to this tool. I also think there are way more worrisome databases (DCAD) than a collection of license plate numbers when it comes to Dallas.

For whoever asked, I can't look up photos and I don't have access to the license plate data. The people who do have access to the license plate info have access to much more sensitive data than that, so that is of no concern to me. If they were going to do something nefarious, flock data is the least of my worries.

TAMUallen said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

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.

---

The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.

---

So, you have the data. You have DA that doesnt prosecute criminals. You have a council that doesnt want to pay for encryption. We are to trust you, your department, your council, your DA, your city/county and Flock to handle this well?

---

If you're argument is that the government by rule is inefficient, dumb, and will ultimately screw this up, I believe that's a viable argument. I think in the cost/benefit analysis, the benefit to society will way outweigh the cost when it comes to this tool. I also think there are way more worrisome databases (DCAD) than a collection of license plate numbers when it comes to Dallas.

For whoever asked, I can't look up photos and I don't have access to the license plate data. The people who do have access to the license plate info have access to much more sensitive data than that, so that is of no concern to me. If they were going to do something nefarious, flock data is the least of my worries.

losingistrevor said:

---

So let me get this straight, you think it's ok to violate people's privacy even further because it's already been done and because you've seen it apparently do some good?

Well going based off that logic, would you say it's okay for your wife to sleep with other men? I mean she's done it in the past so what does it matter now? Also, I can guarantee you she would be more than satisfied thus increasing the happiness in the world.

---

What privacy do you have driving your car down a public street?

Please god go F my ex wife. I'm sure you're amazing and she'd be delighted with your skill. I'm quite sure she would be impressed with your false equivalency too.

Bocephus said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

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.

---

The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.

---

So, you have the data. You have DA that doesnt prosecute criminals. You have a council that doesnt want to pay for encryption. We are to trust you, your department, your council, your DA, your city/county and Flock to handle this well?

---

If you're argument is that the government by rule is inefficient, dumb, and will ultimately screw this up, I believe that's a viable argument. I think in the cost/benefit analysis, the benefit to society will way outweigh the cost when it comes to this tool. I also think there are way more worrisome databases (DCAD) than a collection of license plate numbers when it comes to Dallas.

For whoever asked, I can't look up photos and I don't have access to the license plate data. The people who do have access to the license plate info have access to much more sensitive data than that, so that is of no concern to me. If they were going to do something nefarious, flock data is the least of my worries.

---

My argument isnt about your efficiency or cost benefit analysis. I understand your perspective. I do not agree with it. The law bends at times, especially in extreme situation when the public would also will it regardless of legality. Doesn't mean it is legal or a good idea when it is abundantly ripe for abuse and illegal misuse though.

Bocephus said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

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.

---

The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.

---

So, you have the data. You have DA that doesnt prosecute criminals. You have a council that doesnt want to pay for encryption. We are to trust you, your department, your council, your DA, your city/county and Flock to handle this well?

---

If you're argument is that the government by rule is inefficient, dumb, and will ultimately screw this up, I believe that's a viable argument. I think in the cost/benefit analysis, the benefit to society will way outweigh the cost when it comes to this tool. I also think there are way more worrisome databases (DCAD) than a collection of license plate numbers when it comes to Dallas.

For whoever asked, I can't look up photos and I don't have access to the license plate data. The people who do have access to the license plate info have access to much more sensitive data than that, so that is of no concern to me. If they were going to do something nefarious, flock data is the least of my worries.

---

I don't think you really understand what you're using. You can yawn at my comments about them rounding people up by race all you want, but their own patent says they can tie neural networks in that can categorize PEOPLE based on race, clothing types, weight and so on.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US11416545B1

Here's the link to the patent so you can look into it yourself instead of falling for the bill of goods you've been sold to make your life easier.

TheAggieWalrus said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

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.

---

The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.

---

So, you have the data. You have DA that doesnt prosecute criminals. You have a council that doesnt want to pay for encryption. We are to trust you, your department, your council, your DA, your city/county and Flock to handle this well?

---

If you're argument is that the government by rule is inefficient, dumb, and will ultimately screw this up, I believe that's a viable argument. I think in the cost/benefit analysis, the benefit to society will way outweigh the cost when it comes to this tool. I also think there are way more worrisome databases (DCAD) than a collection of license plate numbers when it comes to Dallas.

For whoever asked, I can't look up photos and I don't have access to the license plate data. The people who do have access to the license plate info have access to much more sensitive data than that, so that is of no concern to me. If they were going to do something nefarious, flock data is the least of my worries.

---

I don't think you really understand what you're using. You can yawn at my comments about them rounding people up by race all you want, but their own patent says they can tie neural networks in that can categorize PEOPLE based on race, clothing types, weight and so on.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US11416545B1

Here's the link to the patent so you can look into it yourself instead of falling for the bill of goods you've been sold to make your life easier.

---

When was the last time America rounded people up by race? WW2?

I'll ask you, what expectation of privacy do you have out in public?

Bocephus said:

---

TheAggieWalrus said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

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.

---

The contract says my department deletes it every year unless it is evidence. The city council was concerned with how long the department kept the data. The same city council who refused to pay to encrypt their servers. The typical standard for Flock is to hold it 30 days before deleting.

---

So, you have the data. You have DA that doesnt prosecute criminals. You have a council that doesnt want to pay for encryption. We are to trust you, your department, your council, your DA, your city/county and Flock to handle this well?

---

If you're argument is that the government by rule is inefficient, dumb, and will ultimately screw this up, I believe that's a viable argument. I think in the cost/benefit analysis, the benefit to society will way outweigh the cost when it comes to this tool. I also think there are way more worrisome databases (DCAD) than a collection of license plate numbers when it comes to Dallas.

For whoever asked, I can't look up photos and I don't have access to the license plate data. The people who do have access to the license plate info have access to much more sensitive data than that, so that is of no concern to me. If they were going to do something nefarious, flock data is the least of my worries.

---

I don't think you really understand what you're using. You can yawn at my comments about them rounding people up by race all you want, but their own patent says they can tie neural networks in that can categorize PEOPLE based on race, clothing types, weight and so on.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US11416545B1

Here's the link to the patent so you can look into it yourself instead of falling for the bill of goods you've been sold to make your life easier.

---

When was the last time America rounded people up by race? WW2?

I'll ask you, what expectation of privacy do you have out in public?

---

You're literally proving my point. I was gonna say Germany didn't have a precedent of rounding up people by race yet the Holocaust happened, but you PROVIDED a historical example of it happening in our country!

That is absolutely crazy that you're dismissing that.

And then you fall back on the question you've asked everyone else in this chat who provided very valid answers to that question. I understand your point of view. It helps you do your job. It even does a lot of good. I am fully aware of many cases where a car was returned to its owner. or better yet the little girls are found in the kidnapped vehicle a state over.

I just want to encourage you to think outside of your bubble, and think in the future. It sure would be a shame if you helped pave the way for total mass surveillance all because you wanted to make your job a little easier this week.

TAMUallen 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.

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

---

Are you really comparing rape to your license plate being in public domain/cameras?

Holy cow dude

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen 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.

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

---

Are you really comparing rape to your license plate being in public domain/cameras?

Holy cow dude

---

No.

Im comparing stupid words to stupid words.

Youre saying, it's already happening so just let it happen.

He said in a different era, in joking manner, relax and enjoy it.

He didnt mean it but shouldn't have made the BAD joke.

You would like us to consent and get over it because it's happening.

People are literally being rounded up based on race at this very moment.

12thAngryMan said:

---

People are literally being rounded up based on race at this very moment.

---

No, they're being rounded up based on being in the country illegally.

Race has nothing to do with it.

Seriously, knock it off with this bull*****

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen 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.

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

---

Are you really comparing rape to your license plate being in public domain/cameras?

Holy cow dude

---

No.

Im comparing stupid words to stupid words.

Youre saying, it's already happening so just let it happen.

He said in a different era, in joking manner, relax and enjoy it.

He didnt mean it but shouldn't have made the BAD joke.

You would like us to consent and get over it because it's happening.

---

It's irrelevant if you consent or not, you can try to fight it but it's already happening. I don't know why you're arguing this point. You're gonna die and you're also gonna pay taxes it's already happening.

If you guys wanna try to fight it, go ahead. No one telling you not to. but again, I think you're gonna be banging your head against the wall. But it's your wall.

There's a lot of things in this world that we don't like.

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen 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.

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

---

Are you really comparing rape to your license plate being in public domain/cameras?

Holy cow dude

---

No.

Im comparing stupid words to stupid words.

Youre saying, it's already happening so just let it happen.

He said in a different era, in joking manner, relax and enjoy it.

He didnt mean it but shouldn't have made the BAD joke.

You would like us to consent and get over it because it's happening.

---

It's irrelevant if you consent or not, you can try to fight it but it's already happening. I don't know why you're arguing this point. You're gonna die and you're also gonna pay taxes it's already happening.

If you guys wanna try to fight it, go ahead. No one telling you not to. but again, I think you're gonna be banging your head against the wall. But it's your wall.

There's a lot of things in this world that we don't like.

---

Red light tickets have failed. I doubt the legality of these as they are

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen 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.

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

---

Are you really comparing rape to your license plate being in public domain/cameras?

Holy cow dude

---

No.

Im comparing stupid words to stupid words.

Youre saying, it's already happening so just let it happen.

He said in a different era, in joking manner, relax and enjoy it.

He didnt mean it but shouldn't have made the BAD joke.

You would like us to consent and get over it because it's happening.

---

It's irrelevant if you consent or not, you can try to fight it but it's already happening. I don't know why you're arguing this point. You're gonna die and you're also gonna pay taxes it's already happening.

If you guys wanna try to fight it, go ahead. No one telling you not to. but again, I think you're gonna be banging your head against the wall. But it's your wall.

There's a lot of things in this world that we don't like.

---

Red light tickets have failed. I doubt the legality of these as they are

---

OK, good for you. Maybe these will fail as well.

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen 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.

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

---

Are you really comparing rape to your license plate being in public domain/cameras?

Holy cow dude

---

No.

Im comparing stupid words to stupid words.

Youre saying, it's already happening so just let it happen.

He said in a different era, in joking manner, relax and enjoy it.

He didnt mean it but shouldn't have made the BAD joke.

You would like us to consent and get over it because it's happening.

---

It's irrelevant if you consent or not, you can try to fight it but it's already happening. I don't know why you're arguing this point. You're gonna die and you're also gonna pay taxes it's already happening.

If you guys wanna try to fight it, go ahead. No one telling you not to. but again, I think you're gonna be banging your head against the wall. But it's your wall.

There's a lot of things in this world that we don't like.

---

Red light tickets have failed. I doubt the legality of these as they are

---

OK, good for you. Maybe these will fail as well.

---

I enjoy discussing things with you even if we aren't seeing eye to eye and it's what I love about texags. We're similar in some way but different in so many others

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen 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.

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

---

Are you really comparing rape to your license plate being in public domain/cameras?

Holy cow dude

---

No.

Im comparing stupid words to stupid words.

Youre saying, it's already happening so just let it happen.

He said in a different era, in joking manner, relax and enjoy it.

He didnt mean it but shouldn't have made the BAD joke.

You would like us to consent and get over it because it's happening.

---

It's irrelevant if you consent or not, you can try to fight it but it's already happening. I don't know why you're arguing this point. You're gonna die and you're also gonna pay taxes it's already happening.

If you guys wanna try to fight it, go ahead. No one telling you not to. but again, I think you're gonna be banging your head against the wall. But it's your wall.

There's a lot of things in this world that we don't like.

---

Red light tickets have failed. I doubt the legality of these as they are

---

OK, good for you. Maybe these will fail as well.

---

I enjoy discussing things with you even if we aren't seeing eye to eye and it's what I love about texags. We're similar in some way but different in so many others

(Going to edit this out of my previous eta)

---

Thanks, you too. I'm certainly not right about everything but I usually give my opinion. Have definitely been proved wrong in the past. I'm not everyone's cup of tea, but then I don't really care. This is a fun board.

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen 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.

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

---

Are you really comparing rape to your license plate being in public domain/cameras?

Holy cow dude

---

No.

Im comparing stupid words to stupid words.

Youre saying, it's already happening so just let it happen.

He said in a different era, in joking manner, relax and enjoy it.

He didnt mean it but shouldn't have made the BAD joke.

You would like us to consent and get over it because it's happening.

---

It's irrelevant if you consent or not, you can try to fight it but it's already happening. I don't know why you're arguing this point. You're gonna die and you're also gonna pay taxes it's already happening.

If you guys wanna try to fight it, go ahead. No one telling you not to. but again, I think you're gonna be banging your head against the wall. But it's your wall.

There's a lot of things in this world that we don't like.

---

Red light tickets have failed. I doubt the legality of these as they are

---

OK, good for you. Maybe these will fail as well.

---

I enjoy discussing things with you even if we aren't seeing eye to eye and it's what I love about texags. We're similar in some way but different in so many others

(Going to edit this out of my previous eta)

---

Thanks, you too. I'm certainly not right about everything but I usually give my opinion. Have definitely been proved wrong in the past. I'm not everyone's cup of tea, but then I don't really care. This is a fun board.

---

Don't take it as too much of an honor but you're among a few college station people I'd like to have a round of drinks with if I ever get back to regularly visiting. I'd just want to hear the **** yall (dermdoc, trouble, etc) talk and hopefully try to stay out of most of it

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TAMUallen 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.

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

---

Are you really comparing rape to your license plate being in public domain/cameras?

Holy cow dude

---

No.

Im comparing stupid words to stupid words.

Youre saying, it's already happening so just let it happen.

He said in a different era, in joking manner, relax and enjoy it.

He didnt mean it but shouldn't have made the BAD joke.

You would like us to consent and get over it because it's happening.

---

It's irrelevant if you consent or not, you can try to fight it but it's already happening. I don't know why you're arguing this point. You're gonna die and you're also gonna pay taxes it's already happening.

If you guys wanna try to fight it, go ahead. No one telling you not to. but again, I think you're gonna be banging your head against the wall. But it's your wall.

There's a lot of things in this world that we don't like.

---

Red light tickets have failed. I doubt the legality of these as they are

---

OK, good for you. Maybe these will fail as well.

---

I enjoy discussing things with you even if we aren't seeing eye to eye and it's what I love about texags. We're similar in some way but different in so many others

(Going to edit this out of my previous eta)

---

Thanks, you too. I'm certainly not right about everything but I usually give my opinion. Have definitely been proved wrong in the past. I'm not everyone's cup of tea, but then I don't really care. This is a fun board.

---

Don't take it as too much of an honor but you're among a few college station people I'd like to have a round of drinks with if I ever get back to regularly visiting. I'd just want to hear the **** yall (dermdoc, trouble, etc) talk and hopefully try to stay out of most of it

---

Cool. I wouldn't put me in Dermdoc or troubles league but I can hold my own.

But I'm a lot nicer in person than on here.

annie88 said:

---

12thAngryMan said:

---

People are literally being rounded up based on race at this very moment.

---

No, they're being rounded up based on being in the country illegally.

Race has nothing to do with it.

Seriously, knock it off with this bull*****

---

It's not bull, it's a perfectly good example for the poster who says this idea is totally unthinkable. Sure, many of them are illegals and they should be deported. I don't think we disagree there. But there are absolutely instances of people getting harassed, detained, and in some cases deported who are here legally, for no other reason than the color of their skin or their last name.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

JobSecurity said:

---

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

These need to be struck down like red light cameras were.

---

Hard to imagine, they're a pretty different issue. You have no right to privacy on a public roadway. Maybe you have an argument with how the data is used? But probably not.

---

This is not about privacy in public. This is dragnet tracking and surveillance that is the equivalent of someone following you everywhere and recording your every move. If it were an individual they'd likely be arrested for stalking.

---

besides the fact that this wouldn't meet the elements of the crime of stalking, what right is this violating? The cops, or anyone else, can follow you around all day and record your every move, no warrant needed.

Cameras just make it easier to do what is already legal.

TheAggieWalrus said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

They have been extremely helpful in fighting crime. I'm a fan.

---

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

The argument isn't HOW effective they are. I believe they are extremely effective. I am so thankful they are being used for good now. But everything that was put into place for one of these two reasons, 1) good motives to temporarily boost our economy 2) reactionary to a major crisis, all had good intentions but have never left. The income tax of 1913 was intended to be a temporary tax to help us recover from WW1, and a lot of the 9/11 patriot act as well as a lot of the COVID 19 acts and powers are all still in place. You give the government an inch on temporary terms and they take a mile forever. They rarely role back power. SO, when these cameras inevitably become the backbone of societies crime fighting, and a tyrannical government takes power, its only a matter of time that we see the same effectiveness that allows law enforcement to find kidnapped little girls a couple states over, used to round up people based on race. The only way to prevent that from being a reality is thinking about the future and preventing these from being installed, even if they are extremely useful now.

---

What liberty are you giving up?

I didn't read the rest because, no paragraphs, so it's all jumble.