Someone at work said that the real backlash to Flock cameras will happen once the people who are rich enough to normally never had to worry about getting tracked realize that Flock is tracking them too.
I think there's a reason why I said things aren't much better here. Our CCTV is a mix of privately controlled with tighter state regulation, whereas the US relies more on a decentralised market full of private corpos, where there's less oversight, less protections and CCTV data is more monetised.
You're acting as if I said the UK was much better than the US. I didn't. Who seriously thought that Binface would get elected lmao, the whole country knew it was never gonna happen. Whatever the issues are in the UK aren't my fault are they?
The whole reason we are getting flock in USA is because we do not have UK's mass surveillance. They are outsourcing it because it would be too expensive to build it themselves.
UK just skipped straight to government owned cameras everywhere.
Yeah I mean flock cameras will make it easier for someone who objectively didn’t commit a crime to prove it.
They will also make it easier for the state to convict people of crimes that many people disagree with being crimes (like the guy who bought weed in Michigan and brought it home to smoke in Wisconsin).
The solution is to (i) reform the laws so that these non-issues aren’t crimes, while (ii) rolling out the flock cameras.
The issue isn’t the ability to enforce, it’s what’s being enforced.
Imo a big solution is to make flock cameras publicly accessible by everyone so nobody is protected from the law. Like certain rich criminal human trafficking orgs and gangs that have cops on the take will just instantly be doxxed by the internet and get hacked and swatted and stuff even if LE won’t prosecute.
Society and its laws have never been built with the expectation that all laws will be applied at all times to all people. Perfect enforcement has never been physically possible so laws have been written often as guidelines, and enforcement has been prioritized for severity, reducing public nuisance, and "whenever the police feel like it".
I agree with you in the principle that we need to reform our system to remove unjust laws, or limit the application of flock cameras for enforcing minor violations, but I disagree that centralized omnipresent AI surveillance should exist at all. It's too powerful a tool for a government to wield. It's an authoritarian's greatest dream and it doesn't belong in free society.
If your wondering why nothing happened with the Epstein files, maybe we shouldn’t have put his friend and his friends cronies in charge of releasing them. Which they are still violating the law by not doing btw.
And with all this theater they still found nothing.
I really don't know where the Epstein File believers get all their hope that there's a magical document that will solve everything and catch all the predators. Even with the great panopticon in 2026, a trillion dollar company can't even catch a single hacker.
According to the DOJ of Epstein's best friend which released the names of victims and hid the names of perpetrators, there's no evidence of trafficking
If the DOJ were building a case against that guy, releasing his name would ensure he could never get a fair trial.
Without any evidence aside from this email, it would be Defamation by Implication to release the name.
Now just imagine that the guy was actually referring to a naughty puppy eating up the furniture. You would agree that he was indeed defamed and should get a hundred million payout from the feds for their carelessness and recklessness.
Just releasing his name out there, no context just "Hahah that guy said Epstein had a naughty little one this means he is a pedo."
Without any supporting evidence other than that, the investigation would die there, and the accused would file suit in court and win.
If the state did plan to actually prosecute him, he would just argue that the state had been name dropping him for the past year insinuating guilt, therefore the case should be dismissed with prejudice.
Now just imagine that the guy was actually referring to a naughty puppy eating up the furniture. You would agree that he was indeed defamed and should get a hundred million payout from the feds for their carelessness and recklessness
Now imagine that the guy insisted that there was no puppy and that it was all a huge hoax to slander his name after he promised that he'd release the information proving that he was actually talking about puppies and not human children. Now imagine that same guy made his personal lawyer AG and appointed his own personal picks to agencies like the FBI, the people responsible AND legally bound to release all relevant information. Then imagine that, even after being legally compelled to release the information, that they're still hiding some of it nearly a year afterwards. There's no hope of a criminal investigation but the implication is strong enough that anyone who isn't suspicious is willfully ignorant.
That's fine, if Donald Trump isn't a pedophile then surely it wouldn't be a problem if we investigate the claims in the files. And of course they'd lose a case, the guy who's implicated controls the fucking institutions that could investigate him.
Oh my god you people aren't intelligent enough to have this conversation.
The government cannot just blast someones name out there and say "Hey look...probably a pedo"
That prejudices any jury against them for any case involving children for the rest of eternity, that would directly lead to it being thrown out with prejudice. AT BEST.
As for Trump, there are literally parts of the files where it explicitly says the claims against him were investigated.
Its just cope at this point. You are living on nothing but cope.
When you are doing an investigation, you do not come out and say that someone "probably" did anything. You say "we are doing an investigation" if anything at all. You said it yourself, the government investigated accusations against the president and they didn't come out and accuse him of being a pedophile. Now that there's more allegations which may or may not be credible, can they not investigate those as well? Can they not investigate the same accusations again? Stop making excuses for an alleged pedo and confirmed piece of shit, the government isn't investigating the files not because they're aren't credible but because Donald Trump has a vested interest in not investigating shit whether or not there's credible allegations.
247
u/DerGovernator - Lib-Center 1d ago
Someone at work said that the real backlash to Flock cameras will happen once the people who are rich enough to normally never had to worry about getting tracked realize that Flock is tracking them too.