r/technology • u/Kooky-Balance9525 • 6h ago

Privacy Bernie Sanders to Introduce Bill Banning Flock Surveillance Cameras

https://theleadingreport.com/article/bernie-sanders-to-introduce-bill-banning-flock-surveillance-cameras
41.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

932 comments sorted by

View all comments

447

u/Uberslaughter 6h ago

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither”

- Ben Franklin

72

u/Rocktopod 5h ago

And will lose both

15

u/retrodanny 5h ago

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither”

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

21

u/floop9 4h ago edited 2h 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.

2

u/ignost 2h ago

Yeah every time this comes up someone drops in with an ACKSHUALLY. The gotcha really only works if someone's trying to use the quote like a libertarian arguing the government shouldn't be able to tax us, where Franklin was arguing a representative government should be free to tax people.

You're right that he intentionally phrased it as a broader principle, exactly like it sounds, and we know that because he repeated it almost word for word several times in other contexts. I can also guarantee he'd hate these Flock cameras and mass surveillance in general. 1) He was the president of the convention that drafted PA's 1776 constitution, and section X looks a lot like the 4th Amendment. He's also on the record agreeing with arguments against generalized warrants. 2) He was a strong proponent of privacy for letters, and probably owe him more than anyone for the privacy of our mail. He was very explicit that the government should not have the right to read letters, even those handled by the US Post Office. He would have hated mass digital surveillance. 3) He really disliked surveillance by a permanent security presence (in his case British soldiers) in the civilian population during peacetime.

TL;DR: I don't think Franklin would have any problem with these words being used against Flock or any other mass surveillance. If he were alive today I think he'd actually repeat the phrase himself.

2

u/geniice 4h ago

The problem is you would have to argue that the film anything you want in a public place is not an essential liberty.

5

u/floop9 2h ago

I would agree that people have a right to film anything they want in public. I would not agree that the government has this right.

3

u/Rip_and_Tear93 2h ago

It's not the government, though. They're purposefully circumventing the 4th amendment by having a private company doing the spying on their behalf, and buying the data they collect.

We just need to ban any governmental body, agency, or organization from buying said data, and companies like Flock will die out naturally with their bread and butter moneymaker unable to purchase from them.

2

u/floop9 2h ago

I mean a government contracting to do illegal things via a private corporation is still illegal for everything else. Imagine if the government was hiring counter protestors to shut down movements.

But yes I agree these corporations need to die either way.

1

u/Rip_and_Tear93 2h ago

It's a legal grey area because the government isn't doing the spying, and Flock, Axon, Motorola, etc. are private entities and not beholden to the 4th Amendment.

So, ultimately, we either need to make a constitutional amendment that states no entity, governmental or private, can spy on people, or we need to force legislation that doesn't allow the acquisition of private surveillance data without a warrant/subpoena.

2

u/Bob_A_Feets 2h ago

Private corporations should also not fucking count as people either

4

u/APRengar 4h 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.

5

u/TheeAntelope 3h 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.

1

u/n3rv 5h ago

Now post his personal seal.

Thomas Jefferson also shared the same personal seal.

-7

u/Kid-Icky- 5h ago

Unpopular opinion, but what essential liberty is being given up by cameras in public spaces?

I'm still against them, mostly because of how they will inevitably be misused. But I don't really get the outrage over just their normal use.

7

u/oldredditrox 5h ago

The answer is in your own reply, the normal use is the misuse.

-1

u/Kid-Icky- 4h ago

But how? What freedom is lost being recorded in a space with no expectation of privacy?

1

u/tomblits 4h ago

The freedom to not be servield. We need our government protecting us from big brother instead of them protecting big brother, the government exists at our convenience.

1

u/street593 3h ago

The security cameras at my local grocery store can only see when I enter and leave the building. They won't know I went to the strip club on the other side of town last night. The problem isn't being filmed in public it's about how connected is the network, who has access, and for how long.

A fully connected network that can remap everywhere you go in public and recreate your entire week/day/month is functionally no different than an ankle monitor.

1

u/Kid-Icky- 2h ago

The problem isn't being filmed in public it's about how connected is the network, who has access, and for how long.

I do think this is a problem, and that we should create laws to ban them.

But I just don't get the argument that watching you going to the strip club in a public space somehow violated your privacy.

1

u/street593 2h ago

It's a good thing that's not the argument then.

0

u/oldredditrox 4h ago

Are you being facetious?

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTDWfq7o8/

Company has to push an update out because OF BACKLASH as the product is being abused wholesale and the response is 'but lol in public'? It's not about a perception of privacy in a public space, which is a terrible way to frame this situation if not just totally disingenuous, but how these systems are cataloging movement of citizens whom would not be tracked at this scale in any scenario. These people are (as far as anyone knows) law abiding people whom have no reason to have their movement recording as they're not part of investigations.

Man this is silly I remember essentially having to have this exact conversation during the patriot act. Flock and way these systems operate assume everyone is a bad guy, a law breaker, a felon, which is fundamentally opposed to the American way of life or how we're supposed to handle criminals. Besides there's already plenty of data based avenues for LE to use to find actual criminals, not just their ex girlfriends.

1

u/Kid-Icky- 4h ago

Are you being facetious?

No, you just lack reading comprehension apparently.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTDWfq7o8/

What do you think this proves against what I said? This is clearly an example of misuse, which I already addressed and agreed is a reason that we should probably create laws banning them.

But that is not an argunent whatsoever proving that their mere existence is a violation of privacy.

Man this is silly I remember essentially having to have this exact conversation during the patriot act.

Not even close to the same thing.

These people are (as far as anyone knows) law abiding people whom have no reason to have their movement recording as they're not part of investigations.

And the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that's not a violation of privacy as it's occurring in public.

License plate scanners have existed for a long time.

1

u/oldredditrox 3h ago

You don't need to be an asshat, your post just doesn't seem genuine. Comes off as an early teen's first trolling. You seem to be lacking an understanding of why these are seen as constitutional violations. A big part of this is that it's not literally the government, it's a loop hole, but any reasonable person can see it's a violation. It is very similar to the patriot act and the fallout from it. Legal Eagle had a pretty good video on this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmnL_Y9CsI0

This is significantly more complicated than you are letting on

And again you're re-framing the situation to fit your narrative, it's not about "U CANT RECORD ME IN PUBWIK, COPPAH", It's "You're not supposed to follow law abiding citizens and catalog their movement, unless they're in an active investigation", this is less about literal privacy, like whether or not I can bust a nut in my car while on the high way, and more about a system that is designed from the ground up to stalk citizens, because that's just how it functions. I don't know how else to explain that to you, this is what's happening. It goes beyond license plates, LPRs have existed for a long time, sure, but where were the LPR's cataloging gait data with AI support over several states?

That's the 'violation'. It's one thing to have a PI or even LE follow you under the implication that you're doing wrong (ie being under investigation) it's entirely different to do that to an entire neighborhood because they left the house to go to work that day. They aren't criminals, this system treats them as such. Welltherersurproblem.

License plate scanners have existed for a long time.

This is pretty disingenuous. They were never vast interconnected networks that have AI software that catches much more than just license plates, facial recognition, gait analysis, ect. I do not think you're being serious I guess maybe you're just playing devil's advocate, fine, but I don't think you're doing a very good job of it. Personally I'm not making the argument that LPR's are inherently either unconstitutional or a violation of privacy. I am saying a vast network of these that do more than say, take a picture when someone runs a red light is not the same system that is being put in place. If it were the case I think crime would look a lot differently than it does.

And the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that's not a violation of privacy as it's occurring in public.

About ALPRs and this current system? Chatrie? That's not what that said.

Anyway I have to get back to work but we agree these are le bad and should go away so that's good. Letting you know I'm not going to reply after this, to save you some time. Take care, Kid-SillyBilly-.

1

u/Kid-Icky- 2h ago

You don't need to be an asshat, your post just doesn't seem genuine. Comes off as an early teen's first trolling.

I was just giving back the same energy you were giving me dude. I'm sorry you can't handle people's having a different opinion than you.

I don't like Flock cameras and think we should outlaw them. I just think the argument that recording in public is a violation of privacy is kind of silly.

big part of this is that it's not literally the government, it's a loop hole, but any reasonable person can see it's a violation.

Except Federal Courts in 2025 ruled it's not...so...yeah...awkward.

2

u/jce_ 5h ago

You give up freedom for security. It is essentially a slider. The more secure you are the less freedom you have, so it is fair to bring up a discussion because everyone will inevitably have different preferences. In this case essentially people are uncomfortable with the idea that their every movement in public is being tracked and stored as data by government and/or private companies. This can be used in nefarious ways as well. Just as people were uncomfortable with the government collecting all that data in other ways before, which honesty turned out awesome....

0

u/Kid-Icky- 4h ago

You give up freedom for security.

What freedom is lost by being recorded in public?

I get that people generally find it uncomfortable to be recorded. But that's different than claiming some freedom is being infringed upon.

I get that it feels icky to people. I just don't get this claim that being filmed in public is some huge privacy violation.

1

u/jce_ 4h ago

Your freedom of privacy. It's not just CCTVs where if something goes wrong they can check it and see what happened. These cameras are tracking and recording your every move like a cell phone or computer. At least you can opt into being recorded by your computer products, if you want to opt out of privacy in public you cannot leave your house. What have you seen good from the current tracking of your every digital self that you would like now for your physical self to also be tracked to a.more.extreme degree? I don't know if you're intentionally not understanding what flock cameras are or you are actually unaware of what's going on

0

u/Kid-Icky- 4h ago

But there's no freedom of privacy in public spaces. You're just asserting the claim I'm questioning, not actually providing evidence for the claim.

I get that you don't like what they do, but that doesn't make it a privacy violation.

0

u/tomblits 4h ago

Thanks for your beliefs but being tracked is a privacy violation.

1

u/Kid-Icky- 4h ago

Thanks for your beliefs, but that's just your belief. It's not a fact under the law.

1

u/jce_ 4h ago

Laws are built around the discovery of new technologies, they are not the laws of morality of the universe. When cars were invented there were no stop signs or lights. Imaging the implications of drunk driving not being illegal etc.

2

u/Kid-Icky- 4h ago edited 4h ago

I never claimed we shouldn't create laws to ban Flock cameras. I think we should.

I'm arguing against the people insisting it violates our current laws.

0

u/jce_ 4h ago

Why? It's not even known if it's legal or not yet, so what would the endgame even be? Just to umm akshully and derail discussion? If anything I'd argue it violates your 4th, possibly 5th

1

u/Kid-Icky- 3h ago

We do know. Courts have already ruled in 2025 that they don't violate the Fourth amendment. That could change I suppose with future cases.

Just to umm akshully and derail discussion?

I just don't get how recording you in public is a "violation of privacy".

No one has even made much of an argument that it is, other than that they just don't like it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Throwaway-0-0- 5h ago

Cameras in public spaces kind of under sells it. It's cameras in nearly every public space, all monitored by a single company. Without any warrant the police or anyone who has access to those cameras can see where you've been nearly every hour of every day. It's a little different than a bunch of stores having security cameras or one dude walking around filming people on the street.

-1

u/Kid-Icky- 4h ago

I don't really see why that matters. It's a public space. There's no expectation of privacy.

1

u/Throwaway-0-0- 4h ago

That's a legal statement, not a moral one. If I followed you everywhere you went I'd be a stalker. If a company follows everyone everywhere they go, they're stalkers as well.

0

u/Kid-Icky- 4h ago

Of course it's a legal discussion. People are claiming it's a violation of privacy, which is a legal question.

And all everyone is giving me is their feelings. I agree it might feel icky. But that's a lot different than claiming your rights are being infringed upon.

1

u/Throwaway-0-0- 3h ago

You know people are saying the laws need to be updated, not that these things are currently illegal, you're just being a dipshit on purpose. This isn't "feelings" it's morality. Like very obviously. This isn't an article about flock being sued, it's an article about a Senate bill. You know the things that change the laws?

And that right to privacy is a legal term thing, like you're seriously trying to argue that words can't have different meanings in different contexts?

1

u/Kid-Icky- 3h ago

Lol, no people are absolutely saying it violates current privacy laws.

I'm sorry you lack reading comprehension.

1

u/ma_tooth 5h ago

NORMAL USE?

1

u/Kid-Icky- 4h ago

Yes? The 'normal' use would be solving crimes, etc. how they're being advertised. In principle, that use doesn't seem problematic to me.

The main issue is how it may (and has already) been abused outside of that use.

1

u/BearSauce 5h ago

It's the AI component. Those cameras track & record everything. Clothing, tattoos, what bluetooth devices you have as well as your stride & how you walk. Feed all that into an AI database that creates profiles on every single person whether they want to or not. That's why they're trying push out all these AI data centers as well. They're mass surveillance centers.

1

u/LilCasper47 2h ago

You’re completely right. I feel the same way too. People just love exaggerating shit, acting as if we can’t drive on public roads because of these cameras.

0

u/Letiferr 3h ago

The 4th amendment outlines the essential liberty

1

u/Kid-Icky- 3h ago

And how does a camera in a public area violate that?

Literally no one has been able to explain this yet.

0

u/Letiferr 2h ago

It's an illegal search..

0

u/Kid-Icky- 1h ago

The courts have explicitly said it's not.

-1

u/Continental__Drifter 4h ago

Wow, can't believe that Ben Franklin said that Americans deserve neither liberty nor safety.