20 Comments
User's avatar
Richard Luthmann's avatar

The originalist answer is straightforward: warrant first. If government wants to search historical movement data, it should show probable cause, identify the person or vehicle, describe the data sought with particularity, and get judicial authorization. Useful tools do not get constitutional exemptions. Flock cameras may catch killers. They may also stalk ex-girlfriends, monitor political meetings, misread plates, expose innocent families to guns, and let agencies rummage through movements without suspicion. That is precisely why the Fourth Amendment exists. Public safety and liberty are not enemies. The state can investigate crime. It just cannot turn every road into a suspicionless tracking checkpoint.

Jennie Corsi's avatar

Even red light cameras, which are triggered by an event, have be found unconstitutional in certain jurisdictions, for shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. How is blanket surveillance going to stand up to that burden?

Thomas F Davis's avatar

Imminent investigations (i.e. the abducted child) can’t use warrants. What they need is two person sign off.

Casey Jones's avatar

"Let me warn you, no matter where you stand on the Flock issue, you’re not going to be happy with this op-ed.

Actually, I came to the same conclusion as the op-ed about 5 minutes after the Flock came to my attention -- and I AM happy with the op-ed. We make a religion out of forgetting that the Watchers require Watching.

KurtOverley's avatar

Hard no to the Surveillance State - “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Sewer Urchin's avatar

Just wait until every vehicle is equipped with an AI assisted interior camera to monitor the driver plus a remote activated kill switch. (I do admit the thought of using this to deal with people that aggressively text behind the wheel is intriguing.)

Susan Daniels's avatar

Somebody is making a lot of money on what used to be a right of privacy.

Thomas F Davis's avatar

There is no right to privacy in public. Never has been. We need a right to public anonymity.

Andrew L Sullivan's avatar

Take another look at the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

TriTorch's avatar

They're not bad they are horrible and intolerable and are integral to the

What You Need to Know About the Burgeoning Binary Dialectic, Digital ID Enslavement Grid: https://tritorch.substack.com/p/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-burgeoning

Never give the .gov this total level of control over you because On the throne of the world, any delusion can become fact.

Andy's avatar

If the benefits outweigh the problems, let’s put cameras in our homes, in our bedrooms, in our bathrooms, in our cars*. Let’s ramp up airport security. Let’s impose automatic fines on people rolling stop signs or going one mph above the speed limit. Let’s have those fines automatically charged to their credit cards…

*I know, I know…

Scott L Sharer's avatar

The answer of wether this technology is or isn't good or evil isn't complicated or hard to understand.

Like all technological and industrial change, depending on the human influences it can be both good or bad for other humans.

Data centers are exactly the same question at present. Nuclear power went through this in the 1970's also and humans chose the wrong direction then.

Andrew L Sullivan's avatar

Flocks need to be regulated because they are subject to abuse and I think too often, they are a rip off. Fortunately, you can find out where they are located and where they are aimed. https://deflock.org/

Jane Brittain's avatar

The fact that Flock cameras can help get the bad guys is irrelevant. Having government surveillance cameras and audio recording devices in every room of every person’s home in America could probably solve some crimes as well. If you can’t see that these Flock (and Axon and other similar) camera surveillance networks deny our inalienable rights, then you need to stop writing as if you know what you are talking about, and hit the books again.

Jack Sotallaro's avatar

Treat Flock database inquiry as a search warrant - require the enquirer have sufficient information to justify the search. Have monthly access reports signed-off by senior officers. Lock Flock cameras down the same way other law enforcement databases are, with an ID and password, and report on usage vs justification.

Law enforcement has lots of tools that can be misused - controlling the exposure is what makes these tools useful and believable. The Flock camera is that kind of tool. If use is not tightly controlled, Flock cameras are not Constitutional.

Ken's avatar

Fuck the watchers. Destroy the cameras. I am a victim of a plate misread, can prove it, the model of the car was wrong. I don't give a damn what it accomplishes. We don't need more space for abuse, inaccuracies or fraud and nobody cares if my dog is lost. Shut em all down, close the company? They won't. We'll blow em off their mounts.

Virginia Peterson's avatar

Take a look at the most recent Monkey Werx you tube video “the coming system”. It’s still up there. Monkey says they are very bad!

John Wygertz's avatar

Mistakes were made…