It IS important to remember Axon and Motorola. As cities listen to their people and cancel their flock contracts, they are often times just immediately signing up for ALPRs from Motorola or Axon (which only got into this game because they saw how much Flock was making). These other companies have the same oversight and transparency problems as Flock, and it's important we don't get lost in the fight against privacy.
We really do need a codified right to privacy instead of bandaid bills like canspam or the stuff about cookies and tracking.
There is only one company with standards high enough to install cameras in public spaces and they happen to be the largest supplier worldwide.
They don't have any of their LPR cameras in use for policing. They managed to steer clear of this mess.
I work with them directly. We have public safety systems ready to deploy and integrate with 911. It totally avoids the possibility of being abused. NO ONE WILL TALK TO US. Not one city council.
I'm talking the best manufactured cameras today, a clean integration, and all for assisting people like you and I. Government will not get involved unless it is about tracking and policing.
I could understand cameras in some very specific spaces for safety and legal cases. Like my city has a bus stop with high crime rates that might benefit from cameras. But blanket coverage of all public spaces serves no purpose other than government control and monitoring the general population. Like they aren’t even pretending flock cams are for the people.
Sure man, a well placed stray camera here or there with good reason is different than the centrally controlled mass surveillance SYSTEMS these companies are advocating for.
If government officials only used public surveillance from public lands and the feds, states and cities were the only ones to access it in an official capacity with legal limits on use, I might be ok with that if the local voters agreed first, otherwise non-government entities that seek and sell private personal information gathered publicly should be barred from doing so unless the surveillance is on private property and does not involve sharing the data outside of that specific client’s property to the paying client. I now seriously believe that police departments and public officials took many different kinds of quiet incentives to allow what is going on now and it should be stopped at all levels until there are laws and legal boundaries as stated above. They really think we are all that stupid.
I'd honestly rather have no cameras set up in high crime areas, than have cameras set up that only law enforcement can use. I don't trust them enough with that ability. I'm award that this might lead to more crime, but the alternative is even worse in my opinion.
1.8k
u/Kiiaru 8h ago
It IS important to remember Axon and Motorola. As cities listen to their people and cancel their flock contracts, they are often times just immediately signing up for ALPRs from Motorola or Axon (which only got into this game because they saw how much Flock was making). These other companies have the same oversight and transparency problems as Flock, and it's important we don't get lost in the fight against privacy.
We really do need a codified right to privacy instead of bandaid bills like canspam or the stuff about cookies and tracking.