
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Its just a License Plate Reader
Posted on 8/11/26 at 10:46 am to Stinger_1066
Posted on 8/11/26 at 10:46 am to Stinger_1066
quote:
Did you consider that his reply may have been sarcastic?
Did you consider taking 13 seconds and clicking on their profile, to see multiple comments defending these intrusions
Posted on 8/11/26 at 10:48 am to Salmon
quote:
Its not that we don't understand that China has interests in competing with US AI capabilities, its that we also understand that the US is heavily invested in AI and the "anti AI data center is just Chinese propaganda" is very clearly propaganda itself to quell the anti AI data center sentiment
whenever the usuals repeat the same thing in every single thread, it immediately tells me that there was some type coordinated social media campaign that put out that particular talking point
Exactly.
There's also a similar amount of evidence that china has poured millions/billions into influencing anti-ev and anti-renewables sentiment in the US (two industries that china is very openly trying to become the dominant world supplier, with the US being the only real potential competitor). Somehow that never happened and you're crazy if you think china would do such a thing according to those same people.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 10:55 am to geauxturbo
It may annoy you, but I fail to see where the constitutional violation is.
1) You have zero expectation of privacy in public.
2) The tag is already registered under someone's name.
3) Insurance likewise
4) Your driver's license is actually state property.
I get that it is a different level of exposure, but tell me what danger these flock cameras put you in that you were not already subject to?
If someone can give me an actual clear and present danger, I am open to changing my opinion.
1) You have zero expectation of privacy in public.
2) The tag is already registered under someone's name.
3) Insurance likewise
4) Your driver's license is actually state property.
I get that it is a different level of exposure, but tell me what danger these flock cameras put you in that you were not already subject to?
If someone can give me an actual clear and present danger, I am open to changing my opinion.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 10:58 am to Willie Stroker
quote:Like four of them on an overpass on I-10 (Pedersen Road) that track every plate and device that leads to more than 10,000 homes with a value at a minimum of 300k, South of I-10 off of Texas Heritage Parkway? It sure as shite hasn't solved any vehicular robberies, or stolen Chevy/GMCs. Crimes get solved because cops pull over the right car at 2AM, as Fulshear PD has repeatedly posted. It's not ALPR that's getting anything done. We have almost no property crime as it is, but that intersection alone has multiple cameras. The latinos building houses all over the area aren't stealing shite.
transit routes to and from neighborhoods where cars have been broken into and stolen.
I get scanned six times on the way to and from the gym I go to in Katy three exits down I-10. For what?
Posted on 8/11/26 at 11:01 am to BrodyDad
quote:
but tell me what danger these flock cameras put you in that you were not already subject to?
Monitor and record your movements and tie them to an individual (flock disagrees because they don't record who is in the car)
Flock then claims they aren't responsible for the ownership as they don't run the system.
They do store all of the info and tie it together then package and sell your data.
It isn't privacy, it is you being sold. You are the product.
This post was edited on 8/11/26 at 11:02 am
Posted on 8/11/26 at 11:06 am to geauxturbo
We just had 6 officers suspended due to abuse of the flock cameras.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 11:08 am to Salmon
quote:I wasn't being like that. I don't know how u have time to look into all these things, but it helps me the info you shared. Thanks
Your disingenuousness is noted.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 11:09 am to Puffoluffagus
quote:Were they trying to track their spouses or was it part of a criminal
We just had 6 officers suspended due to abuse of the flock cameras.
investigation?
Posted on 8/11/26 at 11:13 am to Salmon
quote:
their business model is data collection for governments
Productive data. Every single database doesn’t simply attempt to collect every piece of data. You prioritize by benefit because you don’t want useless clutter or data collection points you cannot monetize.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 11:25 am to Willie Stroker
quote:
Productive data.
Sure.
People are just understandably suspicious what our government believes to be "productive data".
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:13 pm to Salmon
quote:
People are just understandably suspicious what our government believes to be "productive data".
Of course. That’s understandable.
But this isn’t a government product. It’s a private company attempting to market their product to both government jurisdictions and private business owners. The founders who created it to protect their own communities are still CEO and Chief Technology Officer.
Multiple jurisdictions did not collaborate to create an aggregated requirements document for the purpose of government lording over the masses.
It’s definitely a unique business model that fills a void in law enforcement as well as private security initiatives.
It also appears as though the company specifically intended and followed through on making information about a police department’s Flock deployment publicly accessible to include camera locations, policies, sharing arrangements, and so on. This is mostly the reason the public is able to participate in conversations about the balance of utilization and privacy. They valued privacy and public discussion of the boundaries.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:24 pm to chryso
quote:
I don't really understand why you're all so upset
This being uttered by younger people constantly as we step up the pace in the direction of lost freedoms. Meanwhile, the same phrase applies as communists and Muslims don’t just have their foot in the sociopolitical door, they’ve knocked it down.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:25 pm to LemmyLives
quote:
He doesn't know what bluetooth beacons are, and that Flock is gathering data from your phone, your Airpods, your smart watch, your dog's collar, the air tags and all your Life360 sensors, etc.
Do you have a link to an article showing that Flock is already tracking with Bluetooth sensors?
I have read that a company, Leonardo, that makes automatic license plate readers is going to start pushing to include the sensors with its plate reading cameras to push SignalTrace and already offers devices including stand alone devices that do this, but I have not read (at least yet) that Flock systems are doing this right now.
https://www.leonardocompany-us.com/lpr/products
https://www.military.com/dont-like-car-license-plate-readers-invading-your-privacy-its-about-to-get-a-lot-worse
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:28 pm to sta4ever
quote:
If you’re not breaking the law, then you have nothing to worry about. Bunch of anti-police and anti-law enforcement people on this board.
Ahem...
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:29 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
They do store all of the info and tie it together then package and sell your data.
It isn't privacy, it is you being sold. You are the product.
2 things....1) so what? Your data is sold all the time. 2) If that is indeed what Flock is doing, then it should be fairly easy to fix by legislation.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:44 pm to BrodyDad
quote:
so what? Your data is sold all the time
Not personalized data for commercial profit without your agreement/approval
quote:
then it should be fairly easy to fix by legislation.
Already is illegal. Lots of political donations make it legal. That and citizens who have no idea what is legal and therefore support them.
This post was edited on 8/11/26 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:46 pm to geauxturbo
I always laugh when people are like muh privacy but use smartphones and spill their lives on social media without blinking.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:56 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Already is illegal. Lots of political donations make it legal. That and citizens who have no idea what is legal and therefore support them.
Can you point me to documentation that would show Flock data is being sold? Flock says it does not and all data belongs to the local departments.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:56 pm to ruzil
quote:
Obama administration comes to mind.
Biden Administration more so, not that Sleepy Joe directed any such operations.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:00 pm to BrodyDad
quote:
Flock says it does not and all data belongs to the local departments.
Yes. That is their stance.
Flock sells the cameras, maintains the records, maintains access, sells the service.
Then claims they own nothing.
This post was edited on 8/11/26 at 1:25 pm

Popular
Back to top


0









