Comment by kelseyfrog
20 days ago
The post you're responding to isn't arguing shifting blame. They're arguing that instrumental actions should be included. If you think expanding the scope of accountability dilutes the pool, that's another argument. But at least have good faith. They're not your enemy.
Drawing this line gets tough.
If I build a sidewalk curb, there's a perfectly legitimate use case for it. It can also be used to curb-stomp someone to death.
Can't we build the curb and forbid curb-stomping at the same time? Shouldn't that be our right?
If you build a curb for someone that is well-known for curb stomping people to death and has a bunch of people behind them saying how great curb stomping is, that's on you.
Maybe! But maybe that area still really does need a curb, and it's the curb-stomping people we need to worry about more than the curb?
The sharing of the database in clear contravention of the law is a symptom of the widespread police culture of immunity from civil oversight in the United States. They do it because they get away with it.
2 replies →
Flock didn’t build a sidewalk. Flock built the stomp-o-tron 9000 with convenient victim loading ramp and mechanical leg.
Flock built a surveillance data repository with convenient sharing mechanisms. Someone then used those mechanisms as designed for their intended purpose.
Sure. But California forsaw that, and passed a law to prevent that use case.
The cops - public servants, in theory - then blatantly violated that law.
3 replies →
> If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set
You're right, they're not shifting blame, they're straight up telling you who is to blame. And apparently, it is not the people who came up with this idea, nor the people carrying out the actions, nor the people supporting them.