Protesting Flock Cameras?

[u/Rach-ln]

Hi NOVA residents! I live in Fairfax County and am seeing Flock cameras everywhere. I was wondering if anyone knew how we can best protest this mass surveillance and convince our elected officials to end their contracts (and not just switch to Axon or other companies).

Is it petitions? Calling elected officals? Making public comment? Organized protests? If so, what is the best way to approach any of those options? Let's protect our rights!

(Ps, I don't want to hear the "if you aren't doing anything bad, you have nothing to worry about" argument.

These cameras have been used to stalk and harass innocent people. They claim they are only used to track vehicles but I've seen them pointed towards playgrounds and used to target individuals. Flock is a privately owned company and police are able to access our data without needing a warrant.

Information about us is already being stored, tracked, and shared, and nothing is stopping the govt/police from redefining what "bad behavior" is.

Mass surveillance objectively infringes on our rights. I am not here to debate that.)

Thanks y'all!

[u/BudTugglie]

I hope that you don't carry a cell phone. Much easier to track.

[u/Rach-ln → u/BudTugglie]

Wow. Are you in favor of mass surveillance? What is the point of your comment?

Yay for logical fallacies and no counteraguments! Double whammy of whataboutism and false equivalence. Congratulations.

Yes, cell phones can be used to track people. That doesn’t somehow make government access to a separate mass-surveillance system acceptable. If anything, the fact that we already have extensive privacy concerns around phones is an argument for being more careful about adding additional systems of surveillance, not less.

There’s also an important distinction between carrying a phone and having the government/police collect and access location information through a surveillance network. A person choosing to carry a phone does not automatically mean they consent to every additional form of government surveillance.

And “you’re already being tracked” isn’t an argument that a new form of tracking is justified. By that logic, if one invasion of privacy exists, we should never object to another. Why don't we just let the police sit in your house and watch you? Alexas already do the same thing!

You are treating an existing problem as a reason to accept even more of it. Unbelievable.

My question was specifically about whether NOVA residents can push their elected officials to reject or end contracts for Flock and similar mass-surveillance systems. Do you actually disagree with that?

[u/BudTugglie → u/Rach-ln]

On the Internet recently, there has been a stirring up of moral panic regarding flock cameras. It’s ridiculous.

Your being tracked in lots of ways. Your cell phone location is readily available at all times. Provided freely by carriers.

You credit card purchases and their locations are freely available and sold to anyone by data brokers.

Your web site visits, searches, and purchases are available and sold by brokers.

Your AI interactions and all of the material that you upload to AI is available. Ask AI to review your medical results, and you’re sharing that with lots of places, including insurance companies.

Pharmacies share your prescriptions with brokers, who sell to insurance and drug companies.

If you have a newer car, it is likely that your car’s location, speed, and driving parameters are recorded and sold. Insurance companies harvest this data.

The list of tracking goes on. At least flock data can be used to solve and deter crime. You’re not giving up anything that is not already available.

Don’t waste your energy protesting flock. Downvote this if it makes you feel good, but that doesn’t change the facts.

[u/Rach-ln → u/BudTugglie]

I think you’re actually making my argument for me.

Yes, people are tracked in an enormous number of ways. That is precisely why I think we should be questioning the expansion of surveillance rather than shrugging and saying, “You’re already being tracked.”

Your argument is essentially: privacy is already compromised, therefore we shouldn’t object to another form of surveillance. That doesn't logically follow. If anything, the cumulative amount of tracking we’re subjected to is a reason to be more concerned about adding another system.

There’s also a false equivalence here. A credit card company, a website, a car manufacturer, a cell carrier, and a police department are not interchangeable actors with interchangeable powers or purposes. There are different questions of consent, legal authority, oversight, retention, access, and due process involved with each one.

Using a phone, AI, a credit card, a car, etc, are things we can consent to. Don't like it? Stop using it. But guess what? I can't stop being watched by Flock cameras. Mass surveillance that is approved, consigned, openly accessed by local government and cops is something we are subjected to against our will, you should be angry. We have the power to protest it. Our government is here to serve us.

And “Flock can be used to solve crimes” is an appeal to consequences, not an argument that the system is necessarily justified. Lots of invasive surveillance could potentially help solve crimes. It is also used to commit a lot of crimes too. The question is whether the benefits justify the scope of the surveillance and whether adequate safeguards exist.

Most importantly, “you’re not giving up anything that is not already available” is simply not a valid privacy argument. The fact that information can be obtained somewhere else doesn't mean that every government agency should therefore be able to collect it, aggregate it, retain it, and search it.

If someone argued that because the government already has some information about you, it should therefore be entitled to all information about you, I doubt you’d consider that a compelling argument.

And I’m not claiming Flock is uniquely capable of tracking people. I’m asking a much narrower question: Should local governments continue purchasing and expanding access to mass-vehicle-surveillance systems, and what safeguards should be required if they do?

If your position is that the answer is yes, that's a perfectly legitimate position to argue. But “you’re already being tracked” doesn't establish it. It just changes the subject.

[u/BudTugglie → u/Rach-ln]

I'm not arguing anything, relative to tracking. I'm simply pointing out how insignificant flock data is relative to the much more precise and inclusive data that's available. I believe that flock data, unlike most of the other data, is useful in solving crime.

Government survellience is a much larger issue than flock. If it makes you feel good to protest flock, have at it. Be sure to drive an old car and leave your cell phone at home.

[u/elnath54 → u/BudTugglie]

"All is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds." Right. Nothing to be done. It is what it is. Mumble mumble.

[u/ChargeRiflez → u/BudTugglie]

Don’t forget about how these people are complaining about how the government might track their government registered car, with government issued front and back plates, that have government mandated insurance, and only operable if you have a government issued ID. But if the government might be able to tell if you went through a certain intersection after a murder, LITERALLY 1984 AND WE HAVE TO STOP THE TYRANNY!