- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- 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: Is anyone here in favor of, or support Flock cameras?
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:50 am to Slingscode
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:50 am to Slingscode
I also don't expect a cop on every corner logging my every move. That's where this is headed.
1
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:57 am to TutHillTiger
Before government at any level asks the American people to give up more rights and privacy in the name of fighting crime. Then maybe they should start using the tools they already have to enforce the law. There are plenty of places with cashless bail policies. Criminals that have been arrested on multiple occasions are put in jail for a short period of time or offered sweet plea bargain deals until finally they reoffend one day by killing somebody. There are countless examples of that. Luckily we have stopped importing every person from the 3rd world that can make it to the US. Maybe these local and state jurisdictions that have sanctuary policies could work with the feds to get these people that came here illegally out of the country because many were criminals in the first place. If governments at every level just did basic simple common sense things then maybe crime wouldn’t be so bad as to need flock cameras in the first place.
The state of Minnesota is currently in a legal fight with the state of Texas over the extradition of an ICE agent that killed somebody while on duty. Now the state of Minnesota has no problem letting criminals run wild. Walz even pardoned a child predator to try to keep him from being deported. Yet this ICE agent has to have the book thrown at him. That’s the type criminal Minnesota doesn’t want roaming the streets. It’s obviously a political prosecution. With governments at every level trying to prosecute people because of politics and then failing to prosecute obvious criminals based on politics. I just do not see how giving any government agency state, local, or federal another powerful surveillance tool that would just be used for bad reasons just as much as good reasons. Some governments had hotlines set up during the pandemic to report people violating the lockdown. Governments shouldn’t be given anymore tools like this until they prove over a long period of time that they could use them in a proper fashion.
The state of Minnesota is currently in a legal fight with the state of Texas over the extradition of an ICE agent that killed somebody while on duty. Now the state of Minnesota has no problem letting criminals run wild. Walz even pardoned a child predator to try to keep him from being deported. Yet this ICE agent has to have the book thrown at him. That’s the type criminal Minnesota doesn’t want roaming the streets. It’s obviously a political prosecution. With governments at every level trying to prosecute people because of politics and then failing to prosecute obvious criminals based on politics. I just do not see how giving any government agency state, local, or federal another powerful surveillance tool that would just be used for bad reasons just as much as good reasons. Some governments had hotlines set up during the pandemic to report people violating the lockdown. Governments shouldn’t be given anymore tools like this until they prove over a long period of time that they could use them in a proper fashion.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 10:14 am to BCvol
quote:
I also don't expect a cop on every corner logging my every move. That's where this is headed.
Exactly, people are pretending that heavy-handed surveillance is the same thing as a cop patrolling. And that thousands of standalone, private surveillance systems (requiring warrants to access) are the same as a massive, interconnected, warrant free surveillance system.
This is just another step away from individual freedom toward big, consolidated government
Posted on 8/27/26 at 10:15 am to TutHillTiger
I dont see how any functioning adult that lived through 2020 could support them. Could you imagine the shite show that would have started if they had this many flock cameras then? It was bad enough with people getting kicked off playgrounds and other outdoor spaces without them.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 10:22 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Whar do they do thats ppl melt so hard about them
Warrentless non stop surveillance of people who've done nothing wrong.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 10:28 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Wasn't geofencing ruled illegal?
No, they put limitations on some law enforcement such as requiring a search warrant.b but did you know that commercial application of Geofencing has no limitations??
Posted on 8/27/26 at 10:32 am to Swazla
No warrant is required assuming they are in areas open to the public. Cops don’t need a warrant to run your plate if you are driving on a public road, or even if they can view it from an area open to the public.
There is nothing unconstitutional about a camera being setup on a public roadway to run plates as they pass on said public road.
There is nothing unconstitutional about a camera being setup on a public roadway to run plates as they pass on said public road.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:09 am to TigernMS12
quote:
There is nothing unconstitutional about a camera being setup on a public roadway to run plates as they pass on said public road.
What about keeping a database from said cameras that effectively can’t be viewed by the public?
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:11 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
Are Humans good for the Earth
No.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:14 am to Lptigerfan
quote:
When I think about the 20,000 kids and seniors they have helped find
I’m not willing to be tracked by government to help with this.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:22 am to weagle1999
Imagine a crooked Sheriff with this tool or a county government. The abuse at the local level is endless.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:38 am to TutHillTiger
I don’t visit strip joints or sex shops, so I have no concerns. We all carry a GPS locater in our pockets that monitors your conversations to target pop up ads and AI news articles to appear on your phone already if you have any app’s loaded. Can we get flock cameras to automatically fine people throwing McDonald’s bags out their car windows?
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:43 am to TigernMS12
quote:
There is nothing unconstitutional about a camera being setup on a public roadway to run plates as they pass on said public road.
Also nothing unconstitutional for a government vehicle to have dash cams, or to set up security cameras at shopping malls, or to have cameras monitoring highway traffic, or cameras to monitor intersections.
So the issue of privacy is mute. The issue is the same as those wanting to defund the police and do as much as possible to prevent law enforcement from being efficient and effective in their community service directive.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:46 am to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
We all carry a GPS locater in our pockets that monitors your conversations
Do you have a choice to do this?
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:47 am to fwtex
quote:
Also nothing unconstitutional for a government vehicle to have dash cams
Apples and bowling balls.
quote:
The issue is the same as those wanting to defund the police and do as much as possible to prevent law enforcement from being efficient and effective in their community service directive.
It isn’t my responsibility to be tracked in order to make things easier for law enforcement.
quote:
So the issue of privacy is mute.
‘moot’
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 11:50 am
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:48 am to BCvol
quote:
Imagine a crooked Sheriff with this tool or a county government. The abuse at the local level is endless.
please tell me what that abuse is for 99.999% of the population. Yes there is risk for abuse, but that same risk exist for every tool law enforcement has as well as private businesses have at their disposal. There is no absolute anything with no risk.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:48 am to fwtex
quote:no, not really
abuse, but that same risk exist for every tool law enforcement has as well as private businesses have at their disposal
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:49 am to TutHillTiger
Yes, if used as intended.
Abuse? People are allowed to own guns. There are those who abuse them.
Do you support the ownership of guns?
Punish the abuser. Not the product.
Abuse? People are allowed to own guns. There are those who abuse them.
Do you support the ownership of guns?
Punish the abuser. Not the product.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:51 am to Enadious
quote:
Punish the abuser. Not the product.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:53 am to weagle1999
There are already exceptions to FOIA requests that shield law enforcement information in nearly every jurisdiction in the country.
There are also logs of every single plate ran by a cop in the offices CAD system. This is no different.
I’ll share your outrage when they put these cameras in private areas.
There are also logs of every single plate ran by a cop in the offices CAD system. This is no different.
I’ll share your outrage when they put these cameras in private areas.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 11:56 am
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News