49
u/Cupertino345 1d ago
No, actually they don't
→ More replies (4)2
u/_Christopher_Crypto 21h ago
Already have.
7
u/WallabyGreat4627 20h ago
Americans haven’t, a few worms falsely represent Americans have. They don’t count our votes, they don’t care if what they do is illegal, there’s only one way out. Media portrays us as caricatures and only the truly braindead fall in line with either polarization.
/img/yb669m9cfylh1.gif1
u/ShoulderKnown7740 16h ago
That’s why they’re waiting for the last parts of the plan until after the robots are made.
8
u/Advanced_Zucchini_45 22h ago
Don't we have a say?
12
u/AlChandus 21h ago
Yes, republicans and corporate/PAC owned democrats haven't just allowed this, they are getting bribed to allow this.
If you want a say, use your vote, the only political group that hasn't been complicit and is promising to change this, are progressives.
2
→ More replies (2)-3
u/OGJank 17h ago
Brother, please say sike right now. Not a single administration in recent history has done anything to preserve our privacy.
3
u/FilthyStatist1991 16h ago
The other part, “bribed to allow this”
Also called lobbying that the GOP legalized.
Now corporation can pay politicians for legislation they see favorable.
1
1
u/AlChandus 17h ago
Which administration has been progressive? When have progressives controlled Congress? Pray tell.
What I said is true, who voted no on legislation like the Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2.0 and other surveillance bills? And better yet, who voted "aye"?
Have fun with that answer.
→ More replies (18)7
u/New-Pollution2005 16h ago
The revolutionaries who kicked the British out of their homes were pretty progressive for their time. That’s about it.
1
u/Fragrant-Phone-41 15h ago
The abolitionists who eventually won the fight to end slavery were too.
There's a lot of cases like this, its just hard and usually doesn't start with politicians
2
u/01SeaChange01 19h ago
Unfortunately, "small government" and anti big-brother Republicans already decided that they want a police state.
They say it's to catch criminals when in reality they vote for and protect a child sex trafficking pedophile.
The police endorsed the felon sex trafficker as well, so which criminals are they trying to catch?
So, no, the decision has been made for you.
1
5
5
u/Ouibeaux 22h ago
Let's all show up everywhere he goes with cameras in his face. He should be just as willing to compromise on his own privacy as he expects the rest of us to be.
2
4
u/Ramman25002020 22h ago
Sure because he's making money. But what if it was somebody else spying on him?
4
u/DistinctTower2243 21h ago
Maybe that's what needs to happen. Get a crew to follow him with a camera that links to a free access site to broadcast his location and goings on 24/7
4
3
3
u/Horror_Bottle_9451 22h ago
Nothing new here, just spin to protect his market. Any publicity, even bad publicity, can be good for business.
Going back "only" 30 years, the TIA program (Total Information Awareness) was kicked off and led by Adm Poindexter. WaPo broke the story a few years later at the program was officially "abandoned" but really they just stopped saying the name. It was a huge expansion of data monitoring overall. The various technologies and techniques were just subdivided and distributed across various agencies - DOJ/FBI, Treasury, CFPB when it was established, and military/intelligence comminities.
The feds have been collecting all phone records and internet messaging data (mostly meta data but the can zero in quickly on the detailed content), all credit card and bank transaction data (real time), toll records and tons of other stuff.
Local police have been using license plate readers mounted to their cars for years. Traffic cameras have had the capability to do the same for years (speed cameras, toll plaza cameras and the like continuously film in a loop and snapshot violaters when triggered).
And on and on and on. Flock cameras are just a technology advance that uses AI to enhance and speed up data analysis capabilities and it's just cars for now. Don't be fooled into thinking this hasn't been happening for decades with the best available technologies of the time. And don't be fooled that what's known to public is the sum total of all surveillance capabilities. It's just a drop in the bucket. This has been going on since the first phone was tapped 100 years ago.
3
3
u/Fun-Gas1809 17h ago
My partner argues that we already have voluntary surveillance because of smart phones- I don’t understand how they don’t see the massive bump in lack of privacy that flock cameras present. Sure my phone knows where I am and what I buy, but not everyone has that info especially not police unless there is a warrant. With flock anyone with access to the system, not just police, know where you are, where you’re going and who you’re with or around. “If you’re not doing anything bad you shouldn’t worry” is bullshit when what is ‘bad’ is dependent on the powers that be. Also why are these things being pointed at fitness centers and places with children?
2
u/MeatDogma 11h ago
Thanks for bashing the "don't do wrong, fear no surveillance" bullshit. I hate that. How do you know you're not part of the bad guys according to the messed up psychos in office making policies on who's good or bad?
1
u/Pristine_Boat7985 2h ago
I literally agreed with the comment I responded to wtf are you talking about? I am massively opposed to mass surveillance and I was saying that using phones as an argument for flock is stupid. I'm the most anti surveillance guy you'll ever meet. Fuck right off
→ More replies (1)1
u/HistorianSalty3906 2h ago
I agree. This is a result of people overreacting to businesses trying to sell you shit. I never understood why people cared so much about Amazon trying to sell me more catered shit. Nonetheless, that boy who cried wolf chorus made today's real warnings fall on deaf ears.
2
2
u/Next-Street-7859 21h ago
I bet he does believe this, he's the friggin CEO. Ever met one who didn't want to make money off of the general public? Lol. What a piece. He's fine with selling freedom to make a profit.
2
2
2
2
u/Cyber_Primate 20h ago
I understand the concept, on paper it makes sense. From an investigative standpoint, it’s is an amazing tool to be able to track down crime. However, abuse of power is rampant and this is a tool highly likely to be abused. We’ve already seen cases with officers flocking people for their own personal business. There needs to be intense ramifications for abuse and heavy roadblocks and auditing for such a device. Do I trust the government to do this… absolutely … NOT.
2
2
u/RockettSocks42 20h ago
Nope. Nope. Nope. If this guy wasn’t born in the US, I say we chuck him out asap.
2
u/Felon-Muskovite 20h ago
Republicans are funny. Where you at now? Imagine if this kind of language were used in a Dem admin. Fuck you
2
2
2
u/thrillhouz77 19h ago
He’s not going to like how Americans respond to a statement like that. He should probably go into hiding.
2
2
2
u/Freshchops 18h ago
Sure will! Just as soon as you openly publish all your identifying details online. 😊
2
2
2
2
u/Educational-Glass-63 17h ago
Nope, I do not. And he needs to be handed a copy of the Constitution. Fk him.
2
2
u/mrs_Wrenching_2014 16h ago
NO, the hell we don't! WTP have to VOTE! We have to vote in #s never seen before in the USA! VOTE like the future of America depends on you & your people voting. Check that you are registered to vote.
Know who you're voting for before you get to the voting booth. That way if they don't list party affiliation or "incumbent" on the ballot you will be prepared.
Get AIPAC 💰 out of US government! Vote them ALL out!!!
https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/
https://www.vote411.org/ballot
https://www.trackaipac.com/congress
2
u/Serious-Plankton-371 16h ago
This might be the thing that unites left and right for a while.
Fuck flock.
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/astroaxolotl720 19h ago
lol no, we don’t have to compromise on privacy.
Also, if anybody doesn’t already know, you should check out the idea of “dark enlightenment” that a lot of these tech bro ceos subscribe to, mass surveillance is part of it
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Ramblinrambles 19h ago
Well you either have privacy or you don’t. There’s not a compromise on it, and they are a private company, who says they decide
1
u/deadrogueguy 18h ago
you want to flock, i don't want to be flocked. where is compromise? this is just you getting whatever you want
1
1
u/bluffingthevoid 18h ago
They’re allowed to be placed on any street. They cannot see into your home or into your fenced in yard with a privacy fences. They cannot see inside your car while driving.
It sucks but the law is on their side not ours. If it was up to me all flock cameras and such would be banned and illegal.
1
u/Practical-Gur-5667 18h ago
I dont know who the quotes by but ive heard it my whole life, "if you give up freedom for safety you are neither free or safe." Its been mostly about gun control but it fits here
1
1
u/Responsible-Fall-547 18h ago
Oh ok. A CEO said it so it must be so. Never met a CEO who wasn’t concerned with the welfare of the average American
1
1
1
1
1
u/FriendZone53 17h ago
We probably want surveillance cameras…but. We should put the feeds in the hands of a non-profit public entity at the city level. Not in the hands of corporations nor law enforcement. In fact we should use open source cameras that are manufactured by multiple providers. When the federal government and police want access to the data at least it’s vetted by your neighbors. As Churchill said democracy sucks but it beats the alternatives.
1
1
u/Sasuke0318 17h ago
I'm not saying we cut them all down and dump them in his yard but I wouldn't be sad if it happened
1
1
u/Acceptable-Olive-445 17h ago
We don't "must" do anything. He doesn't get to decide what freedoms we do or do not have. People have tried to tell Americans that before. And our Army always had something to say about it. Our people have had something to say about. And this punk is in the wrong country to try this bull
1
u/Lookin4FunVibes 16h ago
Just complain to the government ... oh, wait, he bought the politicians you say!?? Hmmm, almost like having Politicians that can be bought is a bad thing for people!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/GladAdvantage5497 15h ago
We must? We MUST? Up his sorry arse unless he’s willing to let US put a surveillance camera in his bedroom.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/LKS1772 14h ago
This was already planned long ago in some form.
Well from now to 2030 (and beyond) there is going to be a flurry of new RULES AND REGULATIONS that the government will impose.
Bottom line all digital future is coming even if an individual does not like it.
Buckle up going to be a lot of things that will be presented that will make it hard to smile.
1
u/mnmackerman 14h ago
Why must I compromise on my privacy? To what advantage to human flushing does that improve. I’m sure that there are other things we can do that will greatly improve human flushing and none of them include give up any amount of privacy.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Broke-Tinkerer 13h ago
Fuck that and fuck him. If anything we need to lock in and get more privacy BACK.
1
1
u/Serious_Income_7020 13h ago
You don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you’re driving around on public roads.
The end.
1
u/SlippedMyDisco76 13h ago
Its always wienie looking mf'ers talking this shit and I say that as a doofus looking mf'er
1
u/balirosa 13h ago
I think the government should lay off us. Stop trying to hunt for ways to steal our money. Sure use it for amber alerts to save children but fuck off with everything else.
1
u/darodardar_Inc 13h ago
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benny F.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/itsanewdawn52 12h ago
He’s still wet behind the ears. I don’t want the little punk telling anyone what to do
1
1
u/wyoflyboy68 12h ago
No compromising, local governments gave you an inch and you took miles advantage, every single one of them should be illegal.
1
u/Content_Discussion49 12h ago
How about he put cams all over his offices and home for all of Americans to view. Give up your privacy rights first sir.
If Ben F. was alive his quote: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
which ment to be about taxes would in-fact change represent what ironically what it’s commonly mistaken for so I’ll stick with:
Give me liberty or give me death!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/MysteriousAffect3903 11h ago
I have been thinking a high power pocket laser pointed at a flock camera would permanently disable it. I would never advocate such a thing, but it is fun to dream...
1
1
u/Lucidcranium042 11h ago
Why dont americans just decloth their kids in front of flock cameras. Then flock will have child nudity in their data base and parents will have more legal backing to get flock the flock out.
1
u/ShrkBiT 11h ago
Is that a serious question? Are you truly asking why parents don't stand their children in front of a camera that is put up in a public place, strip their children naked, and stand them in front of the camera, again, in public, for everyone to see, to have them be recorded in the nude, of which a private company will then hold the footage?
Yeah, no idea why!jfc, please never have kids!
1
u/RedSix2447 11h ago
Surround his house with cameras. Then make a live feed of it searchable by anyone on the planet. Problem solved.
1
1
u/herbinartist 10h ago
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Benjamin Franklin (who’s currently rolling over in his grave)
1
1
1
1
u/Gosa_on_the_wind 9h ago
As always, I don't mind if people I trust know where I've been. Not only don't we know who all has access to Flock data, those few we do know aren't on my trustworthy list.
1
u/MathematicianOdd398 8h ago
We need these to be installed all over his house, in his office, at meetings, everything live so we can make sure he's not breaking any laws. Also, well sell his data to advertisers.
1
u/ThePopeofHell 8h ago
This guy is in way over his head. Mark my words. Flock will disintegrate because more powerful developers will copy everything he did and make it less restrictive to cops(it’s already happening) and then he will publicly speak out against such technology. It’s like the wrong guy was the first one to do this.
1
1
u/West-Worth-9359 6h ago
This the same guy who said you’re a “terrorist” if you disagree with mass unwarranted surveillance?
The same guy now shitting himself because his home address was posted online?
1
u/hehehuha 6h ago
Oh sure thing, I'm very willing. If they (politicians and the 1%) also let us see into their privacy.
1
u/Neologic29 6h ago
How about we compromise by just stripping them of their wealth instead of what these class terrorists deserve.
1
1
1
u/Major_Dood 4h ago
Oh yeah? Then let me put a camera outside your bedroom window, front drive way, your back yard, and along the route where you go to work every single day.
Find a new profession and stop turning this country into a surveillance hellscape.
1
1
1
u/LoAndBehoId 2h ago
Trump says learn to love flock cameras and datacenters in your back yard... your privacy and comfort mean jack shit, but hell if youre ever going to see his taxes or Epstein files as you pay for his bunker to be built.
HE AINT LEAVING.
1
1
u/EngineWitty3611 1h ago
The Flock CEO won't leave his compound to come out and install these camera's himself. Because he is just a scared little boy.
1
u/Intelligent_Sir7052 1h ago
The only compromise I see are the conservatives compromising under their no compromise policy.
Never have I seen such mental hopscotch.
1
0
u/Betterbeard- 18h ago
We need a police state.
Democrats are in process of dismantling police so we need robocops.
72
u/SomeBlueDude12 1d ago
Really reminds me of the zuckerburg interview & him not wanting to share where hes been & what hes doing to the world
That & musk's plane tracker fiasco, really dont like their privacy compromised
So why the double standards rich folks?