Comment by sanex
6 days ago
I think the issue with Flock isn't that they're a joke security wise the issue is that they exist. If you want to police somebody you don't have to police everyone. I'd argue watching my location at all times is unreasonable search.
If someone followed me around 24x7 with a notebook, transcribing all my movements and affixing carefully attached photos of me to every page, it would be called Stalking and I'm pretty sure I could win at least a restraining order against them in court.
I don't get why we treat this any differently. The only difference is they're not as obvious.
you just described a private investigator.
stalking requires some kind of menacing or whatnot. i seriously doubt a judge would grant a restraining order just because you think someone is following you without any interaction.
>Stalking is a crime of power and control. It is a course of action directed at an individual that causes the victim to fear for their safety, and generally involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, and verbal, written, or implied threats.
> you just described a private investigator.
In most states that requires a license with actual professional standards being met to obtain and maintain one. It does not entitle you to harass someone.
> stalking requires some kind of menacing or whatnot.
Repetition, threats, and fear. The standard is "would most reasonable people perceive these actions in the same way?"
The better question is, in the cities that have installed flock, is the crime rate actually down? And can we make FOIA requests to see how often and for what the police have queried the system to receive data? I may not be able to challenge the existence of the system with a TRO but I can constrain police use of it; hopefully, to the point it is no longer economically viable for them to operate it.
2 replies →
Ok but private investigators are acceptable and stalkers are manageable individually because neither scales. You can't cover every individual in the US with a PI simultaneously.
1 reply →
>causes the victim to fear for their safety
If being pervasively spied on by an increasingly fascist government doesn't make you fear for your safety you might want to brush up on your history...
4 replies →
You can eat shit. A private investigator has a specific target and a specific complaint. The topic, blanket surveillance by a private company does not have either. Again, eat shit. Shame on you apologizing for this behavior.
I'm starting to think there should be a constitutional amendment specifying a right to privacy because the last few decades have shown they'll just keep pushing the boundaries otherwise.
The chances of a constitutional amendment, let alone one dedicated to specifically limiting the powers of law enforcement, is, and I'll go on a limb and say I'm correct in this absolute statement, 0.
There is zero chance of any amount of government in these United States cooperating in any fashion large enough to change the actual Constitution. Zero.
It could be done if two thirds of the states call a convention which might actually be more likely than getting Congress to agree on anything, I'm just not confident the red states would go for it.
1 reply →
I'm not so sure about that. A while back Virginia managed broad bipartisan support to curtail ALPR usage. Unfortunately the governor vetoed that IIRC.
Being creeped out by corporate stalkers and an invasive government seems to be something that a lot of "regular people" of all political allegiances have in common.
1 reply →
Currently true, but doesnt mean there "shouldnt" be one right?
I still think these things can be worth pushing for, it's an issue that even the older conspiracy theorists I know naturally understand. There's a persuasive use to advocating for something simple and a constitutional amendment on privacy doesn't need much explanation (unlike some laws that people propose). If it gets some support we probably won't get an amendment still but we might get some concessions (even if it's just an amendment to a budget bill, which seems to be the only thing this Congress can actually pass).
It's pretty useless. A (US) constitutional amendment would only protect Americans from US institutions.
Us foreigners still have to deal with Americans spying on us. (And other countries spying on us.) And Americans still have to deal with non-American organisations spying on them.
The US constitution limits what the us government can do.
It doesn’t limit what a private company can do. And Americans love private companies with full control over their daily lives.
1 reply →