BrodyDad

....and once again, this is a states' rights issue why?

quote:

---

It's the logical continuation of your own logic.

---

You keep using that word, but I do not believe it means what you think it means.

quote:

---

You're basically saying if a tool exists to theoretically make society safer- even if it strips them of all privacy and freedom to move or think unmonitored, we should trust the tool because safety needs to come first? Yeah, ok.

I am guessing you haven't read much up on why the 4th amendment was included in our Bill of Rights, or a fan or history.

---

Alright Sparky....you keep assuming facts not in evidence. How in the world does a flock camera prevent you from moving or thinking unmonitored?

They cant read your mind and cameras are present in lots of places that you have zero control over whether the government has access.

Be better.

quote:

---

So to be clear you think I should trust warrantless mass serveillance... because it's a tool?

---

The technology is a tool in the same way a gun is. It can be used to protect or harm. The tool itself is amoral.

quote:

---

Cool. So do we, the public, have access to these tools?

---

Yep. You can buy them.

quote:

---

It kind of sounds like you think people can't be trusted with freedom, so they need to be tracked in case crime happens.

These sorts of threads remind me of a time when people said they live in the free world, as if to contrast something Soviet Russia would do (warrantless tracking, presumption of guilt, no expectation of privacy). Instead they are willing to trade freedom as currency for security in the naive hope it pays off.

---

Nice deflection. I notice you didnt address my point. I will address yours though. Most people can be trusted with freedom. However, there is always a segment that will take advantage of that freedom to hurt others. The camera is a tool. It cannot do evil on its own. In my mind you punish the evil doer without hamstringing society by eliminating effective tools. In fact, you seem to be the one with a trust problem.

quote:

---

so there was no myocarditis? pulmonary embolisms? deep vein thrombosis?

---

Of course there were....at ranges of 3 cases per million vaccinations up to 8 to 9 per million. That is what you call statistically insignificant.

quote:

---

Except flock creates a heat map of every vehicle in the system, tracking where every car goes. This has been admitted by flock. How can you say it's not individualized when Flock admits they do it?

---

Im not saying it would be an interesting case. What Im saying is it is external surveillance on everyone passing a point as opposed to a GPS placed on a car. You could accomplish the same by posting live officers there. I believe it is distinguishable. SCOTUS could prove me wrong, but they would have to take up the case....dont believe precedent is clear enough here.

quote:

---

LINK

---

Looks like they sell equipment directly to companies so it is not data that is coming from government sources. Kinda creepy, but still you have zero expectation of privacy in a public setting.

quote:

---

Yes. That is their stance.
Flock sells the cameras, maintains the records, maintains access, sells the service.
Then claims they own nothing.

---

Right. So can you point me to any reliable evidence or documentation that they are selling info gathered from the cameras?

People act differently when they are a talking head on a news channel and operate with impunity. When they are bound by laws, rules and ethics, the overt the top stuff normally stops.