Being against mass-surveillance should be a bipartisan struggle. Given our political polarization, each side is highly distrustful about what "the other side" will do with mass amounts of data about their side. This should be a cause that unites everyone.
We do have some bipartisan initiatives, it’s just that they are not news worthy. Take for example the initial push for banning TikTok. It had unprecedented bipartisan support.
All the evil shit (war, funding genocide, mass surveillance, privacy invasions or curtailing free speech in the name of protecting children) nearly always has bipartisan support.
Having binged on a bunch of modern British detective fiction in the last year or so - Rhys Dylan as an example. The reliance on cameras in society, yes it is fiction, but there is also truth is an interesting thing in terms of what a society accepts.
Why does it matter his political party? Many otherwise good people have fallen for a con of some sort at least once at some point it their life.
The man has some time and uses it in a non destructive manner to do what he thinks will help his community rather than just posting nonsense online, that in itself is commendable . I find the article trying to forment division by naming him a Republican...who cares, human privacy and the imbalance of power is something every American and even non Americans should care about.
Because the modern GOP is itself a con.
Its great that he is protesting flock cameras but he should also be protesting his own party, which is engaged in unprecedented corruption, murders american civilians, attacks democracy, and seeks to disenfranchise our daughters and wives.
I cannot stand it that disingenous and ignorant people pretend this isn't the case, you can all go to hell.
Last month I said to my wife that we should start paying homeless people to hold their signs while standing in front of the radar speed cameras the city has been putting up around our town.
Curious if hoisting an Ipad on the end of his pool skimmer that just showed a video of random cars and their license plates, causing the camera to register a bunch of false positives?
i've said this before on Hn but I called the sheriff to discuss these in our neighborhood and asked if they could search for our whereabouts and he said "only if there's an active crime for your plate", so I said "what if the governor imposes a 'bird flu curfew'?" and after some kerfuffling said in theory yes they could then use it to track offendors.
The other issue is that the company obviously has access to the streams nationwide, and they likely don't have the same oversight that a local police might have to document when/how they are used, if they have any oversight at all.
If done obliquely enough... e.g., just making a tracker and having the ability for people to report broken cameras, you're probably fine in theory. In practice, this is a litigious society, so you'd want to build this anonymously.
In a country where not attending a protest gets you 30 years in prison, and attending a protest where you set off a firework gets you 70, and where a government thug can pin you down and execute you on the sidewalk, and get recognized for his heroism and bravery... you tell me.
Hey if anything we should keep protesting. You should read about what the British did to Indians protesting for independence. Protest in spite of consequences is a singular act of bravery. The cops want people to give in.
The United States, the first two in Texas and the latter in Minnesota.
In that bit, an unarmed man was murdered, the killers scatter like roaches, the federal police is covering for them, while actively preventing the state from giving the guilty a fair trial and a swift sentencing and imprisonment.
(What they did is a state crime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and also a federal crime that carries the death penalty.)
Anyone with eyes can see that those killers are guilty. You don't need to split hairs on that, you can look at the video yourself.
As anyone else, though, they constitutionally deserve a fair trial where the onus is on the state to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, before they can be sentenced. My assessment of their guilt has little bearing on the state's ability to do that.
Proving that guilt would be trivial if the federal government weren't actively complicit, by preventing such a trial from taking place. There's no need to cover for it, it's behavior is unconscionable and treasonous.
Why “republican” man?
Editorials like this piss me off. Just say “Man from Florida”. Why bring party politics into an article that isn’t about party lines?
The developments of political parties’ positions are themselves newsworthy, as well as the ways in which writers attempt to frame them. You’re right to notice it.
Most of the people very against Flock are more left wing and I feel like another left wing protest about it isn't particularly engaging. I'm sure putting Republican there gets way more interest as Republicans turning against them is necessary to have anything actually happen.
I cannot stand it that disingenous and ignorant people pretend this isn't the case, you can all go to hell.
Last I looked it up, $2500 per year per camera in the surveillance area.
To be clear, I do not support Flock cameras.
[0]: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/san-fran...
I suppose "blocking the view of surveillance cameras" is probably illegal though.
If done obliquely enough... e.g., just making a tracker and having the ability for people to report broken cameras, you're probably fine in theory. In practice, this is a litigious society, so you'd want to build this anonymously.
It does not gamify or otherwise encourage damaging them, which would be legally risky.
In that bit, an unarmed man was murdered, the killers scatter like roaches, the federal police is covering for them, while actively preventing the state from giving the guilty a fair trial and a swift sentencing and imprisonment.
(What they did is a state crime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and also a federal crime that carries the death penalty.)
Interesting.
As anyone else, though, they constitutionally deserve a fair trial where the onus is on the state to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, before they can be sentenced. My assessment of their guilt has little bearing on the state's ability to do that.
Proving that guilt would be trivial if the federal government weren't actively complicit, by preventing such a trial from taking place. There's no need to cover for it, it's behavior is unconscionable and treasonous.
You can argue that this shouldn't be about politics, but how many years of living under an authoritarian government do you need?
Everything is about politics now.
Moronic generalisation.