Uh if the cameras are in public, they have no expectation of privacy, right?
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
338 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
34334 readers
849 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah but it's a corporation. They get more rights than us humans.
There is a question on the constitutionality of automated surveillance technology, the type of data that is being collected, who has access to them, and how they are using it. Additionally, some other concerns I can think of off the top of my head are:
- Are the taxpayers funding this?
- Is my data being sold?
- If so, who is profiting?
- Where is supporting data showing this type of surveillance is needed?
- What demographical areas are these cameras more prevalent in? Aka are there a subset of peoples being targeted by this type of surveillance?
- What are the rules and regulations agencies need to follow with the data they capture with this tool?
We appreciate your well thought out and constructive comment, but the one you were replying to was about the cameras themselves not having any expectation of privacy, a reversal of the common excuse from the camera owners that your comment addresses.
Oh, definitely not what I thought or intended. Thanks for the heads up and kind reply. For clarity, I believe those cameras shouldn't be installed or used, especially under this administration.
Aggregating location data is very different from having a picture taken in public, wouldn't you agree?
If it was a person maybe. But these are objects. Objects have no expectation of privacy.
My bad, I thought the original comment was about tracking cars, not the cameras.
Fair enough.
You may have misunderstood my comment. I was joking about Flock being mad at their cameras being tracked, by using one of the arguments for public surveillance.
Ah, gotcha, I thought it was a sincere argument about tracking people's vehicles.
Parasite big mad the host is fighting back
Uses US laws in bad faith and nothing will be done about it
that activist is clearly doing something about it by helping make the cameras less effective
Any word on local groups destroying the cameras in question, or is everyone just using the info to change their routes instead?
i think youd need more activists doing such things
But have you thought about the Parasite's profit?!
This sort of logic is not very cash money of you @[email protected]
i like to think my logic is more fuck the burgeoise than cash money
As stated above the companies name is Flock Safety
And the CEO is Garett Langley
Target acquired
Most of the time I don't worry about assassinations because I mostly avoid doing things that make people want to kill me. It's a decent philosophy that has served me well for decades.
Luigi time?
We recently prevented our city from contracting with flock. They had a city council meeting that was 50:1 opposed.
I’m so fucking sick of this. We need to outlaw using third party companies to get around constitutional protections. Ending the third party doctrine is just another reason we desperately need a revolution.
Flock Safety’s cease and desist later is just the latest in a long list of groups turning to bogus intellectual property claims to silence their critics. Frequently, these have no legal basis and are designed to frighten under-resourced activists and advocacy groups with high-powered law firm letterheads. EFF is here to stand up against these trademark bullies, and in the case of Flock Safety, flip them the bird.
Everybody say it with me: 🖕
On the site, they have a sign you can print out to put on or around the cameras. What sort of laws in my state or jurisdiction should I be looking at? Just want to see the legal implications.
What are the legal implications of hosting this information in a different jurisdiction and are there places where this data would be legally protected?
They don't even cite the datapoints, my friend. It is a trademark infringement cease-and-desist...
Thing is about trade marks… if the terms can be shown to be in common usage, the mark is struck down. Like Kleenex and Xerox.
So let’s all start talking about privacy invading cameras as being flocking stupid.
Something something land of the free.
This has to be in Denmark, right?