Comment by afarah1
1 day ago
The same can be said about Flock, or other surveillance state mechanisms.
It's good for security, it's more convenient than police doing police work.
Until it's not. Until it's hacked or abused as powerful mechanisms commonly are.
There's some level of difference to be fair
Hacking is a concern in both but the bigger issue is potential for abuse of power.
In the case of border checks the target is by necessity someone that isn't a citizen. This means that:
1. We generally afford them less safeguards than citizens so it creates less precedent (both legal and in terms of overton window)
2. The potential for abuse is ultimately less because a traveler on a short term visa is unlikely to still be in the country / unable to leave if a hostile government comes to power and intends to abuse the data
Also fingerprints and a picture are significantly less invasive than pervasive video surveillance in public spaces
Some amount of surveillance leads to a better society. See SG. Flock is needed for current USA. That's why idiots are up against it.
Flock is run by incompetants. Their systems are comically insecure and access is easily abused. And the amount of surveillance data they routinely collect is not small. There needed to be a lot more discuss of who is doing the surveillance, how, and why before this was foisted on the public.
Then that should be fixed instead of vandalizing.
And let's be honest, that's not why "some" people are against them.
Please explain why Flock is needed.