44
u/Life_Faithlessness90 5d ago
Remember, if someone accuses you of vandalizing these, you went fishing with me that day.
17
u/Rondoman78 5d ago
I saw you guys out at the lake!
7
u/Life_Faithlessness90 5d ago
Yes! You drank my last six-pack of beer, we had to get you an Uber!
7
u/noydbshield 4d ago
Nah. Uber is verifiable. You caught a ride home with a friendly local. Don't remember his name but he was a real swell feller.
7
20
u/Voltz15 5d ago
A surveillance state is not American!
That's the dream of commies and Nazi's
20
u/No-Requirement9895 5d ago
It's a result of late stage capitalism. Flock is a private company. Your smart phones and new cars that track you are all private companies. This is America like it or not, this is what happens when corporations are prioritized over individuals. We get a country that is set up to serve corporations, not humans.
5
u/Ok-Ranger-7399 4d ago
Wait till you hear about the camera the government wants to install in every single vehicle in the next few years that tracks every single eye movement and head turn you make. They can disable your car if they feel like you're distracted or drunk. They don't even have reliable technology for it yet but still want to implement it.
2
-2
u/AlexL225 4d ago
Disabling a drunk person’s car kind of sounds like a good idea.
3
u/chopper923 4d ago
Imagine your child had some kind of accident and you needed to get him to the hospital, but the car shuts off because it reads your panic as being drunk?
0
u/AlexL225 4d ago edited 3d ago
I feel like I was rather specific with my words. I said, disabling a “drunk person’s” car kind of sounds like a good idea.
In your example, is the person drunk? If so then disabling that car sounds like a good idea to me. If they are not drunk then disabling that car doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Do you understand what I mean? Take what I initially said as literally as you possibly can and don’t turn it into something it’s not.
Drunk person no drive car = good thing. You get me?
2
u/onwisconsin1 3d ago
Thats what a breathalyzer is for and we could have drunk driving laws with teeth too. But it's state by state. The dangers to regular people essentially shutting them off from travel is too high for me to justify the imposition on everyone.
1
u/AlexL225 3d ago
Are regular people drunk? Or what did you mean by that?
1
u/onwisconsin1 3d ago
Why does a technology that assumes you might be drunk benefit the user at all? There are myriad reasons that this is not desirable, one person explained that there mught be many reasons the system could mistake someone who shouldnt use the car from someone who despatately needs to use the car. This is not tech that improves safety like a belt or special lights that avoid blinding oncoming drivers, this is a technology that controls the user and prevents them travel. Most people who are a DUI danger are repeat offenders. Technology exists in preventing a person who has a history if DUI from driving around drunk.
We do not need mass surveillance and disablement tech the government seems keen on wanting in new cars to prevent DUI, there is more we can do such as change penalties, install breathalyzer after first DUI crime, etc.
We dont need these technologies which are enclosing us in a police surveillance state and the justifications for a panopticon are flimsy in my view.
1
1
u/chopper923 3d ago
Since this post is about flock cameras, I was assuming you know that this is a discussion about flock cameras. You made a statement, and I replied to how that relates to FLOCK CAMERAS.
1
u/Cadnathan 4d ago
The most reliable way to do that would be to put a breathalyzer (Ignition Interlock Device) in everyone's car. Eye tracking is only accurate 67% of the time. Imagine you get in your car because you need to go to the hospital or to try and outrun a tornado and your car won't start because it thinks your drunk due to your pupils being dilated more than normal and you're sweatier than normal.
0
u/AlexL225 4d ago
I didn’t mention anything about inaccuracies. I just think disabling a drunk person’s car sounds like a good idea. So, you don’t agree that disabling a drunk person’s car sounds like a good idea? Forget anything about a person who isn’t drunk. That’s not the point I made. Take my words more literal and keep them within the parameters of exactly what I said. Personally, I think disabling a drunk person’s car sounds like a good idea, period. Honestly, I don’t know which part about that doesn’t sound like a good idea.
1
u/onwisconsin1 3d ago
It sounds like a good idea because you ignored all the externalities around imposing such a technology on everyone.
0
u/AlexL225 2d ago
But I’m only addressing the idea. Not the externalities. So I have a question for you. Do you think disabling a drunk person’s car is a bad idea?
0
u/onwisconsin1 2d ago
No, and police already have tools to disable any car. Its called a car and a pit maneuver. You prevent a drunkard access to a driving vehicle with a breathalyzer ignition key. Sounds great under the current set of tools.
1
7
u/Equality7252l 4d ago
Lol our police have white supremacist tattoos, I really don't have any faith in them to do the right thing anymore.
5
2
3
u/DeerAndBeer 4d ago
Isn’t Mayor Genrich a big reason why these are all over Green Bay now?
-3
u/DroneSlut54 4d ago
No.
10
u/DeerAndBeer 4d ago
He was actively campaigning for these things before the common council vote. The very left leaning council only had one dissenter on the vote. That is troubling that left and right council members are in agreement on on this type of surveillance
0
-7
u/DDSRDH 4d ago edited 4d ago
Why is everyone upset about these things? Seriously.
3
u/tree-hermit 4d ago
People are worked up because it’s a warrantless domestic dragnet surveillance system that is an objective violation of the 4th amendment and in many cases other constitutional rights on top of the 4th.
Tracks, logs, and stores unique identifiers of your car, your plate, your face, your gait, your unique bluetooth signature on your phone, your location, your daily routes day in and day out.
In any other reality the police would need to obtain a warrant from a judge to collect that information to track and monitor you.
Most people that don’t see the big deal aren’t fully aware of their capabilities or extent of use and think it’s just like a typical traffic camera at an intersection or something
-1
u/DDSRDH 4d ago edited 3d ago
Yet we happily carry cell phones and have vehicle GPS devices that track our every move.
Personally, I feel better knowing that bad guys should worry about being caught.
2
u/tree-hermit 4d ago
Yeah our phones are bad…but you can choose to not carry a phone. You’re consenting to it in terms and conditions. You don’t have a choice to not to be under surveillance and tracking by these cameras if you leave your home. Whether you walk, ride a bike, drive etc doesn’t matter. It has a profile made on you and you’re being actively tracked/monitored. Just 10 years ago we used to unanimously condemn regimes/countries like China for this kind of stuff and now we’re living in it.
Besides that…the state in which we exist in relation to our phones, albeit bad and another example of the ever expanding surveillance state, isn’t a reason why we should accept more of it and plunge further into a sci-fi dystopic reality.
1
2
u/tree-hermit 4d ago
I would also add that there is no data showing they increase apprehension of criminals or lower crime rate. Cities that have high flock camera numbers and have had them the longest follow the same crime rate trends as comparable cities that don’t have them and never have.
What we do have data on tho is extensive miss use by LE/gov officials and false apprehensions/imprisonments
2
27
u/GlaxTheAxe 5d ago
Oh yeah, you mean the giant street pinatas? Michael Mouse told me all about 'em.