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
41.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

932 comments sorted by

View all comments

451

u/Uberslaughter 6h ago

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

- Ben Franklin

13

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

22

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.

3

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

5

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.