upvote
Every technology has pros and cons. Are you insuating Flock is bad and evil (with your reference to 1984?)

I don't think Flock is this Big EviL coMpaNy you are making them out to be.

SFPD reported a 125% homicide clearance rate in 2025 (solving more cases than occurred that year), citing license plate readers (read: Flock) and drones as key factors in providing digital evidence.

reply
Not who you are replying to, but I think mass surveillance is bad and evil, period. So, any person or company contributing toward mass surveillance is bad.

Most bad things have some good part you can point to. Mass surveillance and all of the other police and government aiding technologies usually point to improved conviction rates or something similar. But making police more efficient at convicting people isn't the only goal of society. That's only one part of what makes up a country and it's society. And, as the saying goes: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

reply
That's beside the point? Gaining security by losing freedom was always on the table. What's interesting is the cultural shift toward not caring about losing freedom.
reply
I think it is the point: there is a balance between freedom and safety.

For example, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun onto a plane. Most people would agree that is an acceptable trade of freedom for safety.

There are places with even less safety and more “freedom” than the US so people who take an absolutist view towards freedom also need to justify why the freedoms that the US does not grant are not valuable.

reply
> I think it is the point: there is a balance between freedom and safety.

Sometimes. But that doesn’t imply freedom and security are fundamentally opposed.

It’s possible to trade freedom for security but it’s also possible that freedom creates security. Both can be true at the same time. Surveillance, not security, is what opposes freedom. Surveillance simply trades one form of insecurity for another at the cost of freedom.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

reply
Everything I want to do in public I can still do.

What "freedom" is lost? I gain security and lose no freedoms (unless you are doing something illegal).

When property crime is up 53%.. plenty of people are willing to lose "freedom" whatever you are referring to, in exchange for safety.

reply
How about just general privacy? I mean do you really want someone / the government to be able to track everywhere you go?

- Going to your girlfriends place while the wife is at work

- Visiting a naughty shop

- Going into various companies for interviews while employed

With mass surveillance there is the risk of mass data leak. Would you be comfortable with a camera following you around at all times when you're in public? I wouldn't be.

reply
The right to privacy, to not let the government have a master record of everywhere you've ever been and everything you've ever said just in case they decide to someday revoke free speech and due process, or decide it doesn't apply. Lately we have plenty of examples of how quickly that can happen.
reply
You were recorded smoking marijuana, an illegal drug at the federal level.

You were recorded walking into an abortion clinic, although face recognition identified as a resident of a state where abortion is illegal.

reply
The solution is to change the laws, not to stop enforcing them. Otherwise this is basically just giving up on the concept of having laws.
reply
Well aren’t both of those things crimes? I’m not a fan of mass surveillance either but maybe pick a different example.
reply
The second is clearly not. State governments don't have jurisdiction over their residents when they are out of state.
reply
Read about Texas.

It's a crime to leave the state to get an abortion. They can prosecute when you return home.

There have been vigilante patrols in West Texas, watching the necessary routes out of the state. The law gives any resident the grounds to turn in their neighbor for planning to get an abortion.

reply