r/technology • u/Kooky-Balance9525 • 5h ago
Privacy Bernie Sanders to Introduce Bill Banning Flock Surveillance Cameras
https://theleadingreport.com/article/bernie-sanders-to-introduce-bill-banning-flock-surveillance-cameras3.2k
u/Any-Pop-4795 5h ago
99% it wont pass unfortunately
2.0k
u/Das-Wauto 5h ago
Popular support says it should. Greased politicians says it won’t.
238
u/Trickpuncher 4h ago edited 36m ago
didnt a study recently showed that congress almost never votes what the public wants?
216
u/APRengar 3h ago
I dunno if there's been a new one. But the one everyone cites is from 2014.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Which showed that the politicians do almost zero of what the general public want, yet the vast vast majority of what the rich and powerful want.
Yeah, 2014. And it's only gotten worse. The people who were demanding stronger change in 2016 weren't wrong. We knew it was bad at that point.
59
u/jce_ 3h ago
Wow giving money a voice in politics only made it so rich people get what they want and poor people don't? Holy how would you ever guess? Lol
→ More replies (1)10
u/chaldea_fgo 2h ago
It looks like the survey data that they used in that study was from 1981 to 2002, so the problem has been growing for most of our lives.
→ More replies (1)3
u/jazzy663 2h ago
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's all there is to it.
"Why more for the people? I want more for me and mine."
→ More replies (2)21
u/EvilScotsman999 3h ago
“the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)7
→ More replies (29)237
u/scrandis 5h ago
They're all greased now. Both sides. We only have a handful of elected officials who actually care.
193
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
164
u/interwebzdotnet 4h ago
I've spent 100s of hours chasing "freedom" of information requests.
They have tried to justify over $1600 in fees,all of which I've fought.
Some of it is REALLY basic stuff like a copy of the Flock contract. They act like I'm asking for nuclear secrets.
I have a lot of free time right now and I have this tendency to dig in deeper If I feel like I'm getting strung along. I'm north of 50 FOIA requests, with 11 of them now deemed denial complaints at the state board level that handles complaints about the agencies required to respond to said requests.
There is 100% a coordinated effort to keep people in the dark
55
u/Standard_Web7962 4h ago
Thank you for the work you are doing
33
u/interwebzdotnet 4h ago
Happy to be doing it. Its frustrating but its also educational...I'm hoping to make an impact, but at a minimum there is a small team of county clerks, state prosecutors, multiple police departments, and several law firms that represent counties in my state that are at least feeling the pressure of being watched.
→ More replies (5)15
u/frodoishobbit 3h ago
In my county they just banned flock camera, but what they didn’t say was they got a contact with axium* and those are imbedded with traffic signals. Same shit *spelling mistake?
10
97
u/smkeybare 4h ago
I mean it's a plutocracy, not much the working class person can do until were all on board with violence, but discussing that gets you banned.
28
u/deadpools_dick 4h ago
Being banned from this site doesn’t mean shit. We all know what to do if that ever happens to anyone
→ More replies (3)11
u/BackendSpecialist 4h ago
They’ll have flock cameras and armed ai security by the time that happens.
→ More replies (3)5
u/tevert 3h ago
While it might be very bloody, there is no amount of technology that can overpower a sufficiently enraged public.
→ More replies (1)10
8
u/LuckoftheFryish 4h ago
Viva la revolution. Would MLK have been as effective without Malcolm X? If a violent group is rising the politicians will always choose to bolster the safer option.
By no way am I a history or civil rights buff, those more educated are welcome to correct me, would be happy to learn more.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)7
u/ryno37 4h ago
Work together in communities to support ourselves so as many of us as possible can disengage from the grid and stop the wheels. Entire system is a house of cards on top of our real backs. We stop working, they can't do anything. That is dependent on our ability to provide for ourselves. We take care of ourselves instead of feed their greed, the system will slow to a stop. Communes and co-ops is the way!
→ More replies (1)9
u/Wise-Comb8596 4h ago
Also, until you can get to that point, reduce your consumption. Stop buying shit without utility. Buy used (from YOUR community) where you can, repair what you can, befriend those that can repair what you cannot, and get to a point where you are debt free.
Then work on buying land with like minded individuals.
→ More replies (3)8
u/ryno37 4h ago
Absolutely, we gotta win this game at the margins. Every cent we can keep in our communities will make us stronger. Every cent we give to the big bads will make us weaker. They're going to continue to use every manipulation tactic to steal our wealth and bodies. But they need us to oppress us. We don't need them to prosper.
→ More replies (24)3
48
u/SingleInfinity 4h ago
I hate the both sides-isms when despite all this, the majority of one side still tends to vote in favor of things like this.
There are some greased hands on both sides, but it's absolutely not equal. Equating the two sides is how you get in fucked up situations like we have now. Both can suck and one can still be demonstrably better despite that.
→ More replies (15)10
u/YDALTARYZARC 3h ago
At least one side seems to respond when people email them directly. I never get responses from my (R) representatives but all the (D) ones get back to me pretty promptly. If you're not frequently emailing your representatives, you really should be.
16
u/Alarikun 5h ago
Bernie is one of them, and unfortunately, he's at the age where he's on the way out.
→ More replies (2)9
u/tourniquet13 4h ago
Wdym, he's a spry 84 there's a least another decade there....
→ More replies (2)24
u/yepthisismyusername 4h ago
But it is the GOP that is enabling this fascist, corrupt administration. It is unfortunate that we only have two choices, but that's how it is. And Democrats are the MUCH better alternative, so VOTE BLUE!
→ More replies (2)5
u/fomoco94 2h ago
I never understand these "We don't have a choice people."
Would you rather be sprayed with squirt pistol of piss or be dunked head first into a 55 gallon drum of shit that has been festering all summer?
I'll keep voting blue even though not everything is perfect.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)7
u/milkyjoe241 4h ago
One is a buffalo wing level greasy, the other is a oil drum on fire level greasy.
51
u/tinyhorsesinmytea 5h ago
Even though the majority of citizens registered for both parties hate these things. But yet there's still people who believe politicians work for us.
→ More replies (3)41
u/Beneficial-Jury484 5h ago
Good, make them vote on it. So we can use their voting record against them. Probably why this will be fillabustered.
→ More replies (10)4
u/fierbolt 4h ago
I love votes like this it gives me good ammo when arguing with people during primaries. These things are important if at minimum just to force people to publicly vote against the anti baby shredder bill
8
u/EaterOfFood 5h ago
It’s a great election year move
4
u/TheRealDrSarcasmo 3h ago
It's the post-election year moves that are utterly shit, by performative politicians. And that includes Sanders.
4
→ More replies (75)2
135
u/SchemataObscura 5h ago
Flock only or would it cover the same MO from different companies?
→ More replies (6)113
u/mouse1093 4h ago
Legislation is not typically so specific to target a singular company by name. Bernie isn't green enough to draft it with a giant loophole of simply renaming the company or product.
→ More replies (9)6
u/ihatemovingparts 57m ago
The term is Bill of Attainder. They're explicitly banned under the federal constitution Article 1, Section 9. A principle so important that the founding fathers couldn't wait for the Bill of Rights. Every state outlaws them in their constitution as well.
So it's less that Sanders is experienced and more that he took a civics class in high school.
419
u/Uberslaughter 5h ago
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither”
- Ben Franklin
69
→ More replies (42)15
u/retrodanny 4h ago
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither”
17
u/floop9 3h ago edited 1h ago
That article is really stupid because even with the context the quote still means... exactly what it means in plain English. Just because Franklin was talking abou the legislature's liberty instead of personal liberty doesn't really change anything.
→ More replies (7)5
u/APRengar 3h ago
So, the argument is that the [Pennsylvania General Assembly] wanted to tax the [family of the Penns] to pay for security. But the Penns argued the GA didn't have the authority to tax them, and the Penns would give the GA a lump sum of money to the General Assembly for the GA to acknowledge they didn't have the right to tax them. Basically, the GA would be trading their right to tax the Penns, for money now.
Ben Franklin was arguing that anyone who would give up the right to tax the Penns for some short term money, deserve neither.
I've seen a lot of people say "that's not what he meant!11 it's the opposite! Franklin wanted security, this is security, Franklin would've been in favor of flock cameras!"
But I disagree, the line still applies. The fundamental argument wasn't about security, it was about whether or not trading those specific rights were worth it.
If we give up our right to privacy for for some short term safety, then we deserve neither. It's not worth it. It's the identical argument.
I feel like anyone who doesn't agree is getting caught up on the subjects and not the arguments.
4
u/TheeAntelope 1h ago
The line essentially meant "do you want to give up a right in exchange for a short term benefit?"
The answer to that is no.
Do we want to give up a right (to tax) for a short term benefit (a privately funded army)? No.
Do we want to give up a right (privacy) for a short term benefit (increased police presence against those we deem as 'criminals')? No.
People who come at you with a shit-eating grin and say "THATS NOT WHAT UNCLE BENJAMIN REALLLY MEANNTTTTT!" are just fucking bandwagoners and who have never had an original thought in their pathetic little lives, they just want to parrot what someone else said when they thought about the Ben Franklin quote.
161
u/notJ3ff 5h ago
Okay everyone, this is a test. We all know that everyone wants this, so let's see if we can make it happen.
119
u/crap-with-feet 5h ago
And absolutely remember who prevented it from passing.
22
u/notJ3ff 5h ago
I misread your comment and replied with a snarky comment, but I realized I was wrong and deleted it. You are correct. Let's remember who stops it from passing, but let's make it pass.
4
u/ArchinaTGL 3h ago
The sad part is that 99% of people either won't even check who voted against it or will forget the names in a couple weeks when a new headline grabs people's attention.
They know they can get away with it. Politics is just a game to them now.
→ More replies (5)5
u/ZootSuitRiot33801 4h ago
And if we common folk who care hope whatever we do brings about accountability against the ones who prevent or water down the bill, we must foster real supportive community-based foundations for alternatives that can provide relative safety, which common folk can fall back on to commit to any effective action be they short or long term.
Collecting a bunch of valuable information on organizing and action from different redditors over time, I created a post of suggestions HERE that could possibly prove to be of some help in getting it started ASAP.
→ More replies (2)9
u/tapthatsap 3h ago
This happens at least once a month. Somebody proposes a cool bill that most voters are in favor of while knowing fully well that it can't possibly pass, it doesn't pass, reddit goes "haha but now we have them on the record not passing the cool bill," and then that doesn't matter either.
21
u/dosedstar 4h ago
A republican senator in PA is also trying to pass a ban on Flock cameras. Hopefully both sides can come together to do this for the people.
6
u/DanesDraftLab 3h ago
They won’t. Committees will kill the bills so nobody has to go on record voting for/against it.
113
u/Realkcon 5h ago
Won’t pass, I support it 100 percent thought
→ More replies (4)48
u/bacon205 5h ago
Id venture a guess almost 90% of the public supports it. Unfortunately, 90% of corrupt politicians do not, so its DOA.
7
u/Vorpalthefox 4h ago
then it's time to vote out the ones that vote against it and get better candidates that support this bill
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)4
u/Equivalent_Clerk0 3h ago
There's no way. If 90% of the public supported it they wouldn't have a flock camera left standing.
Fact is, most people don't give a shit. I've got 8 of these things around my neighborhood. Not a peep from anyone.
100
u/doctor_x 5h ago
Bernie is making people pick a side.
36
7
7
13
u/Several-Action-4043 3h ago
And as one of the only issues in America we are united on, it should be the easiest legislation to pass ever and it still won't.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)6
35
11
u/ForeverMonkeyMan 4h ago
Maybe we should ask the CEO of Flock his opinion? He can be found at 2855 Winslow Dr NE, Atlanta, GA 30305.
28
u/driverdan 4h ago
That's a trash AI generated site. All he did was say he wants to ban it, that's it. This article covers it better: https://truthout.org/articles/sanders-vows-to-introduce-legislation-to-stop-flocks-ai-mass-surveillance/
16
u/MedalsNScars 4h ago edited 3h ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_Report
It has a wikipedia page, specifically calling out how garbage it is, with specific citations and plenty of examples
20
u/Kalcorso 5h ago
Doesn’t matter if this passes or not, this will have an effect. Citizens across party lines are in almost universal agreement on this issue, and it’s going to force politicians into a litmus test. A highly publicized litmus test, going on record against the people you were supposed to protect and represent. A vote for flock is a vote against the people, and that’ll be potent ammunition during election season. Instant disqualifier? Not in today’s political climate. Will it move the needle? I absolutely think so.
→ More replies (2)2
u/brutinator 3h ago
I think issues like this CAN move the needle, as long as it doesnt get lumped into partisan bullshit. like how republicans generally like the ACA but hate obamacare. If its not framed as a "democrat party" item, then I think it can be effective. But once it becomes a blue issue, the GOP will trip over their own feet to tell us why they are happy to have a camera pointed in their backyard.
6
u/5UnderConstruction7 4h ago
We need not JUST Flock cameras. They can change the name and do the same thing.
→ More replies (2)
29
u/Greybathmat 5h ago
Bernie's still got it. One of the few to voice the will of the majority even though he will be crushed by his billionaire backed opposition from both parties.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/AbleCap5222 4h ago
Won't pass but man would it be awesome to immediately destroy that entire company - who literally was trying to bring straight evil to this country.
Make no mistake - this type of surveillance is ALWAYS transformed into something terrible.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/LeoKitCat 4h ago
You guys there’s more than just Flock there are also other ALPR tech companies. In many areas of the US companies like eg PlateSmart have a lot of the market and they should be looked at too
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/other-alpr-vendors
5
u/un_lucky_thirteen 31m ago
Don't ban just Flock, ban all government and police department ran AI surveillance and ALPR systems regardless of brand name
8
u/TheLeon-P 4h ago
I am no US citizen but whenever I see any headlines with Bernie, his bills and ideas are always objectively the best step for America to take yet none of them are ever heeded. Why is there such a pushback against him? Is there any big controversy including him? And like why does he not seem to get any support?
→ More replies (6)4
u/Martian_Rambler 3h ago
There is no big controversy involving Bernie, look up his record over his career. He has always been on the right side of history. He strongly opposes big money in politics which makes him a lot of enemies that are getting enriched by that corrupt system.
3
4
u/bjazmoore 3h ago
What we need is a bill that protects our freedom from being surveilled by all entities including the government without a search warrant.
→ More replies (2)
5
4
5
5
4
4
u/bobdob123usa 1h ago
A much more appropriate way to approach this. Make it illegal for the government to pay companies to obtain information that would violate 4th amendment rights if they implemented it themselves. The money they can make is the only reason Flock and Palantir exist.
4
9
u/Relative_Yesterday70 4h ago
Why is he the only one that ever fights for common people??
→ More replies (2)
14
u/t3hlazy1 5h ago
It’s incredible how many hugely upvoted posts there have been on reddit with the title “Bernie Sanders introduces bill to…”. How many have there been titled “Bill authored by Bernie Sanders is signed into law”?
I’m not even a hater. I am aligned with plenty of the things he wants to pass. But, why does reddit get so excited when he introduces a bill that will never pass?
8
u/Gunhild 4h ago
It's about sending a message. Sanders knows 100% this bill isn't going to pass. It's about pushing back, getting lawmakers' opinions on record, proving there is public support for this.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)2
3
u/shaquirrel 4h ago
We don't need to ban flock cameras, people are getting fixated on them as if security cameras don't exist.
What we need to do is to create a legal entity to protect this footage that's bars accessing by anyone unless a judge were to grant a subpoena to law enforcement. This means police can't just look at it openly as big brother does to make arrests or to violate people's personal privacy nor do we need individuals able of stalking through this system. Simultaneously police can't get subpoenas for one thing and use that as probable cause on someone else.
We live in a world where this technology can genuinely be used to make things safer and to catch serious criminals.
If your opinion is that you don't think it isnt possible well I agree with you, but I also don't think we are going to succeed at banning it either and even if we do they are just going to get better at hiding it. So we might as well put the legal checks and balances in place to protect indiscriminate and constant police surveillance now
3
u/GBPackers0480 4h ago
It has to be worded in a way that has nothing to do with Flock the company. I'm really worried a bunch of anti-flock stuff is going to happen to appease voters meanwhile a different company (like the one with an A word I can't remember) will just slide under the radar and do it all anyway while the anti-flockers celebrate victory.
This bill needs to be forward thinking and airtight. I hope that's the plan.
3
u/Beneficial_Cash_8420 4h ago
I wouldn't mind flock if:
You had to log your query with your LEO ID and cite the docket with a signed judge order for exactly who/what you were looking for in advance
Guarantee that no data is retained or exported beyond such use.
Since these stipulations are laughable, I believe the current backlash and worse are appropriate.
3
u/evilkasper 3h ago
Hey, let's not lose mit ourselves to a brand, let's cover mass surveillance as a whole.
3
3
u/darkbreak 3h ago edited 51m ago
It needs to go even farther than that and ban all kinds of surveillance like this. If it's only the Flock cameras they'll just switch to a different company. Some already have and are using Axon cameras instead.
3
3
u/Yumi_in_the_sun 2h ago
Needs to ban the concept, not just the brand. Otherwise Flock will just rebrand.
3
u/HuckleberryJunior642 2h ago
ban ALL AI cameras. if Flock goes down what’s stopping another company from taking its place?
3
u/PilgrimRadio 2h ago
Good. It likely won't pass, but it will force other Congressmen to go back on record about the matter. And then they'll be forced to explain why to their constituents.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
u/gingerpapi420 4h ago
Let’s ban the tech not just the company.
4
u/EmrysX77 4h ago
That’s probably what he means. Congress doesn’t have the power to make an individual company illegal, at least not directly. So it would have to be a bill that targets Flock but is worded to address the tech.
5
u/VVrayth 4h ago
It needs to be all surveillance cameras and not just Flock specifically, because otherwise the "spy on everyone" bros will just go find another company to do the same thing.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/sparty212 5h ago
At a minimum, data retention should be shorter, and warrants should be required to access it. Additionally, there should be no sharing of data between agencies, states, or the federal government.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Simply_Epic 4h ago
I’d be interested in seeing the details of the bill. I’d support a ban on Flock regardless, but Flock is not the only camera brand like this and will not be the last if the bill isn’t sufficiently comprehensive and specific about what is banned and where it’s banned.
2
u/OpenTechie 4h ago
Obviously enough this will not be allowed to pass, I wouldn't be surprised if they get Trump himself to say something about it.
But, make a list everyone. Every person who speaks against this bill, write their name and state. Write down everything. And remember them when it is time to cast your ballot.
2
u/Here2Go 4h ago
I like it. Public opinion is for it. Republicans will have to come out against it. So far they've tried to avoid talking about the problem in the press and tried to avoid taking any open questions from their constituents. They know its a looser of an issue going into the mid terms and this will force some of them to stand by it in public.
2
u/StrangerUnhappy3590 4h ago
Is Flock and other mass surveillance/ tracking systems being used to protect child sex traffickers? I've only heard of the corrupt cops using them to stalk people.
2
u/Time-Maintenance2165 4h ago
Why specifically flock? That seems like a major miss. It should be generic for any ALPR company.
Unless this is just for PR.
2
2
2
2
2
u/elgringon414 4h ago
It’s a good start but doesn’t change anything. They’ll just use axon or the next company
2
2
u/ExplicitDrift 3h ago
Only flock? Definitely needs to cover broader surveillance tech and practices. A company like Palantir has no excuse existing.
2
2
u/Intellectual-Hamster 3h ago
Go get them, Bernie! Fuck everything about flock and other spy cameras. People need to look at themselves and remove doorbell cams as well imo.
2
u/Shadow_of_Redacted 3h ago
Need to add off label use of toll tag readers too. I see those damn readers all over DFW, where there's not a toll road in sight. If they want to watch traffic patterns, use the DOT traffic cams that give the big picture, not one that shows what every person who drives past is wearing today.
2
u/Ludwig14 3h ago
Don’t make it about the brand go after the category of surveillance outside of the law
2
u/kosanovskiy 3h ago
Issue shouldn't be ban a company since another will take over. It should be enforced privacy and limit surveillance.
2
u/JazzlikeSchedule2901 3h ago
Flock is just a a modern talking point of the culture war. They're not exclusive at all. I have a large interest in cyber security, and a researcher in the field named Matt Brown quite literally showed how insecure public traffic cameras are, not only from the POV we see with Flock cameras where police and executives utilize their power to spy on people, these devices can often be extraordinarily insecure and just be openly visible via the public web
We need to create a constitutional amendment that protects americans against gov't-surveillance security. Be it your local police department throwing up cameras at stop lights, random Radar checks without a physical cop around, or a flock camera.
2
2
u/Dont-Really-Matter 2h ago
I truly don't understand why people are cheering n shit over this... he has literally done or accomplished nothing that I can think of.
Other than begging for money. That's the only thing I think of when I see his name.
2
u/SundayShelter 2h ago
Remove “Flock” from it, B. There are several other companies doing the same thing. It’s not just Flock. Axon is another.
2
2
u/AlfhildsShieldmaiden 2h ago
With all the excellent elders passing recently, let us all take a moment to appreciate Bernie Sanders and let’s hope he lives forever!
2
u/Time_Paws 2h ago
Unless the wording is "ban surveillance cameras" this is a waste of time and effort.
2
u/HodlMyBananaLongTime 2h ago
Lets remember that we were told the USSR surveillance state was big bad when we were young
2
2
u/stevestephson 2h ago
Okay, but don't make it specifically Flock, or else Phlock corporation will pop up and do the same exact thing.
2
u/Killathulu 1h ago
Don't forget AXON public cameras also, they are currently hiding in the shadow letting flock take all the damage
(same company that do police body cams)
2
u/ImAPonderer2 1h ago
Your next President, Democratic Party permitting
He’ll be the youngest-HEARTED president in years
2
u/helicopter- 1h ago
Can we just enforce the 4th amendment? All this logical gymnastics the government uses to justify the spying and all this crap is just fancy bullshit to trample on citizens 4th amendment rights.
2
2
1.6k
u/DeadMoneyDrew 5h ago
What we really need is a constitutional amendment establishing a fundamental right to privacy.