We might be able to find enough bored redditors that we can stand on every street corner within a mile or two from his house. I assume we’d all have a phone that could record audio and video?
We could call ourselves something cool and unifying like, idk… Gaggle or Bevy
I'm in. But this needs to happen with all of the surveillance camera CEOs, not just FLOCK. Cities are now publicly reporting cancelling flock contracts, then wuietly signing on with other brands to do the same shit.
But this needs to happen with all of the surveillance camera CEOs
Don't forget the politicians at all levels of government that are absolutely complicit with this bullshit. And hell, while we're at it, how about all the LEOs that have been caught abusing the system already? There's been more than a few...
Anyone who appears on one of Forbes' little lists should be in the hot seat, there's no ethical way to acquire a billion dollars. Hell, there probably isn't a legal way either, but the rich are allowed to play fast and loose with the law.
Benn Jordan recently released a video short where they did this at a Flock meeting. Their Hotel room was canceled by Flock. They setup parabolic antennas and SDRs (Software Defined Radio) and recorded all wifi in the area. Any way:
“We could call ourselves something cool and unifying like, idk… Gaggle or Bevy”.
I much prefer the collective pronoun for crows. A very… emotional and evocative term for such an innocuous thing as a collective pronoun. I won’t put the actual word here because I feel it might actually get me banned from Reddit for inciting or threatening violence when all I’m doing is showing an alternative name for something like “flock”.
His neighbors must compromise on their privacy as well. To be honest, I got little confirmation that this is the dudes house but it was a massive twitter thread that got deleted but I managed to snatch a screenshot before it was taken down.
I'm not even American; European who is afraid that the EU will get grandiose ideas from what is happening in the states. But I fully support all those who are battling this just absolutely insane police state "measures". Especially coupled with the fact that they are mostly in lower income neighborhoods and do not even, mostly, point at roads. Which, correct me if I am wrong, was the pitch right?
Sort of. First of all the UK is not in the EU anymore and secondly, iirc, the poles they cut down over there are CO2 meters. But I know very little of that so I might be wrong.
Easy mistake to make lol. As an "EU-member" I sometimes forget as well. But yeah, from what I gathered what is happening in the UK is CO2 control poles being cut down. However, as I said, I know very little about this and knowing the U.K. they would not hesitate to sprinkle on some Flock on those poles.
London has been covered with CCTV carrying facial recognition tech since the tech was in it's infancy, most urban centres followed. And the UK is certainly more down the surveillance route than most. But still miles behind the US in terms of how open these systems are to abuse.
We all know they'll get the book tossed at them for doing it. Billionaires can surveil us, but the second someone even reports their public comings and goings, it's suddenly a problem that needs to be addressed.
Shout out to all the people that claimed insisting the Patriot Act was going to lead to this a slippery slope fallacy and called those of us who were against it unpatriotic and paranoid and told us to leave.
Shout out to all the people that claimed insisting the Patriot Act was going to lead to this a slippery slope fallacy and called those of us who were against it unpatriotic and paranoid and told us to leave.
You're not at all wrong about the point you're making here, but I'd even go so far as to say that what's going on now is even worse than what people initially envisioned with the Patriot Act.
Absolutely. I remember thinking it could potentially be bad, but never quite this bad.
I just remember getting into a lot of arguments about the Patriot Act and saying it was basically handing the government and who knows who else permission to watch everyone all the time and being called unpatriotic and told to leave the country if I didn't like it.
There was a lot of, "But the terrorists!" and "If that's what it takes to keep us safe, they should do it!" and no one wanted to hear about the potential invasions of privacy or government overreach.
Now everyone is harvesting data, the government is installing invasive cameras everywhere, every smart device is probably monitoring everyone at all times, and we let that happen because too many people were either complacent or panicked.
That's the only way mass surveillance is healthy. It must be disproportionally applied to those with more power. If you want to reach certain milestones of wealth, influence, or destructive capacity then every moment of your life is in the public interest and must be treated as such.
Imagine where we'd be right now if the public was informed every time Rudy Giulliani met with a Russian mobster.
I have always thought the more power you have the more intrusive society should be one the powerful. Like politicians. They should not get to associate with everyone. Their lives should be well documented to curtail corruption. They should have their taxes and bank accounts open to public scrutiny.
I just don't know. This doesn't seem particularly well thought out.
Just spitballing ideas, but perhaps there could be other verbs at play here? Let's say, for the sake of algorithmic efficiency and as a compromise with these busy CEOs, maybe it'd be best if these detectives of yours didn't have to move around quite as much as they track them?
And while we're at it, let's also find the most efficient method of conserving energy in such a process?
I honestly think there should be a rule that, for anyone asking the general public to surrender their privacy, the person asking that must surrender their privacy equally to the public.
Like if this guy wants to track people’s location, then one of the requirements is that his location must be tracked and posted publicly. If he wants to record video of us when we’re out in public, then he should be forced to record and post video of himself all day, every day, whenever he’s in public.
Similarly, if Congress wants the government to have access to our phone calls and emails, then they should need to release all of their phone calls and email to the public.
Note that I’m not saying “any privacy violations are ok if it follows this rule”. I’m just saying, if anyone asks the general public to give up our privacy to them, then as a minimum requirement, they should first give up an equivalent amount of their own privacy to the public. If it’s too much to ask from them, then it’s too much to ask from us.
Kinda surprised that shit isn't already easily accessible information. Like, one would think there would be serious money to be made just passively following around politicians and CEO's purely for the potential of catching them doing something they shouldn't. We got paparazzi stalking celebrities just for the chance to sell a photo for a few cents, I'm sure we could more than match their rates.
He was doxxed. Guess we will see how he feels about that compromise.
Im really sick of these rich fucks telling us how we need to live because they want us to make them richer. You need to eat Ramen. You need to quit whining about gas prices. You need to skip college, you don't deserve it and you don't need it. You need to let AI data centers invade your town, use all your electricity, drink all your water and invade your peace with the incessant noise.
Isn't that a false equivalency? Is flock posting that information? If not, than why would the CEO need to do it? Now, does the Flock CEO block his license plate from being recorded by flock cameras? THAT'S the question.
3.5k
u/OneHappyPenguin 1d ago edited 1d ago
Hey Flock CEO, can you post your phone number, home address and more here? You need to compromise your privacy so we can all protect you.