The country needs to find a “compromise” between privacy and safety, according to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley.

“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”

  • ShellMonkey@piefed.socdojo.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    242
    ·
    15 days ago

    How about we compromise by saying remove them all, give back the money spent, delete all data and in exchange you don’t get the treatments due one helping enable orwillian levels of suvelance

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    ·
    15 days ago

    Interesting that he’s framing it as a balance between privacy and safety instead of privacy and security.

    Flock cameras haven’t been proven to make anyone safer.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      77
      ·
      15 days ago

      If anything they actively make people unsafe by falsely flagging drivers with a partial tag match for a stolen vehicle

      • BonsaiBoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        15 days ago

        Don’t forget all the stalking by many various people abusing the database and live feeds

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      15 days ago

      they are designed to flag dissidents in the end, nothing about it is safety. why all the sudden 120k cameras being installed in the last year alone.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      Yeah what even is the argument for that? Even if a crime is caught on one of these things they’re still not making anyone safer. The crime still happened and that’s the best case scenario where the crime is caught on tape. From what I’ve seen usually these things provide circumstantial evidence at best.

    • Librerian@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 days ago

      It’s a false dichotomy, pure and simple. They try to frame it in a way to make their invasion of your privacy seem as if it’s in your best interest, even though the opposite is true. Typical fascist rhetoric.

  • faythofdragons@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    15 days ago

    It’s wild, because when I was a kid, there was this huge conservative talking point about how trading freedom for security was bad.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    14 days ago

    And the zombies said “all we want to do is eat your brains, maybe we can compromise…”

  • Pika@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    15 days ago

    I think the window of compromise has long since passed. Flock as a company went in with a guns blazing, anti-privacy, record everything, give the information to anyone style business style, and then chose to double and triple down on the style when the controversy/outcry first started. Once you’ve hit the stage where there’s people starting to protest and riot and cities have started to go out of their way to ban the product and retract contracts due to the fact that they’re concerned about public support. It’s too late. That’s a fire that’s not being put out.

    • KeithD@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      15 days ago

      I propose they compromise by going out of business after deleting all data and removing their cameras from everywhere.

    • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 days ago

      hey bb, i cn only reed the top fore lines, so u wan sum fuk den?

      (I’d normally use a winky emoticon down here to indicate I’m being silly here, but I know you younger kids interpret that in contexts like this with sexual overtones. :shakes fist: Leave my 1980s emoticons alone, damn you kids! heh)

  • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    14 days ago

    Compromise offer: you stop spying on us and we’ll stop breaking your cameras.

  • LoafedBurrito@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    14 days ago

    The more you learn about Flock, the scarier it gets. They have FULL profiles built on EVERY american that has flock cameras nearby. All your shopping, driving, financial habits are tracked. They know who all your friends and family are and how often you visit, they track your vehicles specific identifiable features like bumper damage, stickers, faded paint, etc. All of that is a complete violation of the 4th amendment and all these companies need to be sued.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 days ago

      Even deeper, they claim to be able to read “pet tags,” which would mean they can read ANY RFID, they know your gym code, if you have a fob for your apartment they can clone it and get in like a kid with a Flipper 0.

      Idk how it’s physically possible so hopefully they’re lying, they should have to be basically touching the tag, but they claim they can. I’d believe they can read UHF RFID but that isn’t what they claimed, they specified “pet tags” (which again, would mean they can do all tags.) And that would mean they can add NFC and read your cards in your wallet, if they wanted, because that isn’t far off from RFID. Now ostensibly they’d have to perform the handshake with your card so they’d only have the same partial info a Flipper could pull, but like, still not a fan of that personally.

      • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        14 days ago

        Before asking for a source for commonly known information, you should first demonstrate that you’ve done a modicum of searching yourself first.

        • morriscox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 days ago

          I mostly agree, though the onus for proof is on the one making a claim. They could have provided a link to backup their claims.

    • njordomir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      14 days ago

      Yup, violent crime has been dropping for decades and not an insignificant drop. We did not need mass surveillance, we did not want mass surveillance, nor do we want it now.