Comment by jofer
4 months ago
Flock really does have a huge amount of potential for abuse. It's a fair point that private companies (e.g. Google, etc) have way more surveillance on us than the government does, but the US and local governments having this level of surveillance should also worry folks. There's massive potential for abuse. And frankly, I don't trust most local police departments to not have someone that would use this to stalk their ex or use it in other abusive ways. I weirdly actually trust Google's interests in surveillance (i.e. marketing) more than I trust the government's legitimate need to monitor in some cases to track crimes. Things get scary quick when mass surveillance is combined with (often selective) prosecution.
> I weirdly actually trust Google's interests in surveillance (i.e. marketing) more than I trust the government's legitimate need to monitor in some cases to track crimes
You shouldn't.
When a company spies on everyone as much as possible and hordes that data on their servers, it is subject to warrant demands from any local, state, or Federal agency.
> Avondale Man Sues After Google Data Leads to Wrongful Arrest for Murder
Police had arrested the wrong man based on location data obtained from Google and the fact that a white Honda was spotted at the crime scene. The case against Molina quickly fell apart, and he was released from jail six days later. Prosecutors never pursued charges against Molina, yet the highly publicized arrest cost him his job, his car, and his reputation.
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/google-geofence-locatio...
The more data you collect, the more dangerous you are.
I would rather trust companies making a legitimate effort not to collect and store unnecessary data in the first place
you, maybe politely, imply the police might abuse these tools, rather than actually they do routinely abuse the tools. For instance, one recent case which isn't speculation: https://local12.com/news/nation-world/police-chief-gets-caug...
Yeah; I don't exactly trust Google with tracking data, but at least Google doesn't have the power to imprison or kill me on a whim.
Problem is that if Google has it, the government can get it.
The thing is though, cops harass people, cops abuse their power, courts prosecute who they want, with or without Flock. This is a valid concern, but the root of the issue, I think what we should focus on first or primarily, is that the justice system isn't necessarily accountable for mistakes or corruption. As long as qualified immunity exists, as long as things like the "Kids for Cash" scandal (which didn't need Flock) go on, it doesn't really matter what tools they have, or not.
> As long as qualified immunity exists, as long as things like the "Kids for Cash" scandal (which didn't need Flock) go on, it doesn't really matter what tools they have, or not.
But, given that those abuses exist and are ongoing, we should not hand the police state yet another tool to abuse.
I don't think this is weird at all. Corporations may be more "malicious" (or at least self centered), but governments have more power. So even if you believe they are good and have good intentions it still has the potential to do far more harm. Google can manipulate you but the government can manipulate you, throw you in jail, and rewrite the rules so you have no recourse. Even if the government can get the data from those companies there's at least a speed bump. Even if a speed bump isn't hard to get over are we going to pretend that some friction is no different from no friction?
Turnkey tyranny is a horrific thing. One that I hope more people are becoming aware of as it's happening in many countries right now.[0]
This doesn't make surveillance capitalism good and I absolutely hate those comparisons because they make the assumption that harm is binary. That there's no degree of harm. That two things can't be bad at the same time and that just because one is worse that means the other is okay. This is absolute bullshit thinking and I cannot stand how common it is, even on this site.
[0] my biggest fear is that we still won't learn. The problem has always been that the road to is paved with good intentions. Evil is not just created by evil men, but also my good men trying to do good. The world is complex and we have this incredible power of foresight. While far from perfect we seem to despise this capability that made us the creatures we are today. I'm sorry, the world is complex. Evil is hard to identify. But you got this powerful brain to deal with all that, if you want to
>I don't think this is weird at all. Corporations may be more "malicious" (or at least self centered), but governments have more power. So even if you believe they are good and have good intentions it still has the potential to do far more harm. Google can manipulate you but the government can manipulate you, throw you in jail, and rewrite the rules so you have no recourse. Even if the government can get the data from those companies there's at least a speed bump. Even if a speed bump isn't hard to get over are we going to pretend that some friction is no different from no friction?
That's all as may be, but you're ignoring the fact that governments are buying[0][1][2][3] the data being collected by those corporations. That's not "friction" in my book, rather it's a commercial transaction.
As such, giving corporations a pass seems kind of silly, as they're profiting from selling that data to those with a monopoly on violence.
So, by all means, give the corporations the "benefit of the doubt" on this, as they certainly have no idea that they're selling this information to governments (well, to pretty much anyone willing to pay -- including domestic abusers and stalkers too), they're only acting as agents maximizing corporate profits for their shareholders. Which is the only important thing, right? Anything else is antithetical to free-market orthodoxy.
People suffer and/or die? Just the cost of doing business right?
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/us-government-buys-dat...
[1] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/when-the-government-buy...
[2] https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116192/documents/...
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/28/government...
Did I?
I believe that this was a major point in my argument. I apologize if it was not clear. But I did try to stress this and reiterate it.
Oh come on now, I definitely did not make such a claim.
You're doing exactly what I said I hate.
The reason I hate this is because it makes discussion impossible. You treat people like they belong to some tribe that they do not even wish to be apart of. We're on the same side here buddy. Maybe stop purity testing and try working together. All you're doing is enabling the very system you claim to hate. You really should reconsider your strategy. We don't have to agree on the nuances, but if you can't see that we agree more than we disagree then you are indistinguishable from someone who just pretends to care. Nor do you become distinguishable from an infiltrating saboteur[0].
Stop making everything binary. Just because I'm not in your small club does not mean I'm in the tribe of big corp or big gov. How can you do anything meaningful if you stand around all day trying to figure out who is a true Scottsman or not?
[0] See Sections 11 and 12. https://ia601309.us.archive.org/14/items/Simplesabotage/Simp...