Comment by nullbio
1 day ago
I agree with that too. So if the argument is: "Flock is good in principle but right now it doesn't have the necessary safeguards", well, that's exactly what I said in my original post.
1 day ago
I agree with that too. So if the argument is: "Flock is good in principle but right now it doesn't have the necessary safeguards", well, that's exactly what I said in my original post.
The problem is that the safeguards will inevitably be bent, ignored, parallel constructioned, or repealed. As long as the cameras are there, they are a threat.
You also said you "honestly don't understand the hate Flock gets". Which seems to suggests that the status quo is really no big deal, even with the current (lacking) safeguards.
My real argument would probably be that this system is probably not unconstitutional but is very problematic and easily abused. Flock gets the hate that it does because it can be abused, and has been abused, and will in all likelihood continue to be abused.
All kinds of ideas - especially involving having a very powerful government - would be great in theory if we could have "the necessary safeguards", but the necessary safeguards do not exist and I am not sure if they can be made to exist, at least in a practical realistic way.