- 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 11:55 am to TigernMS12
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:55 am to TigernMS12
Man, you sound like maybe you aren’t fully backing the blue. You back the blue don’t you??
/s
/s
2
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:58 am to weagle1999
Or maybe I just happen to know what is and is not constitutionally protected.
If people want to debate whether it’s a good policy to use them then fine, but I take issue with people who want to frame it as a constitutional issue when it isn’t.
If people want to debate whether it’s a good policy to use them then fine, but I take issue with people who want to frame it as a constitutional issue when it isn’t.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 11:58 am to fwtex
You want to be stuck with one party rule or a crooked sheriff. Last I checked that covers 100% of the population
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:03 pm to Swazla
quote:
not subject to abuse.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:11 pm to TutHillTiger
I’m against them. I’m against red light cameras. Pretty much any government surveillance. I don’t really care if it means we don’t solve as much crime.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:16 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
I’ll share your outrage when they put these cameras in private areas.
Have you called your local police force and requested that they install cameras in the public streets facing your house or property? If not, what’s stopping you?
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 12:18 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:20 pm to fwtex
quote:
So the issue of privacy is mute
I was wondering why I couldn't hear it.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:26 pm to weagle1999
My neighborhood already has cameras throughout it on the roads. Secondly, I’m not advocating for placing cameras to directly view into people homes as that would present constitutional issues at least in some cases. You can keep moving the goalposts if you wish but my original statement remains true: there is not constitutional issue with placing government cameras to monitor public roadways .
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:31 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
Or maybe I just happen to know what is and is not constitutionally protected.
If people want to debate whether it’s a good policy to use them then fine, but I take issue with people who want to frame it as a constitutional issue when it isn’t.
This is where i stand.
I want flock cameras in my city.
If you dont want flock cameras in your city, I hope your municipality bans them.
I am a firm believer that the best science is economics.
If I am a criminal, I am going to live and do business in the easiest community that I can do business.
You get what you vote for.
Flock seems to be doing a good job (finally) holding agencies accountable for their usage of the flock system.
They also seem to be doing a good job getting companies and communities to volunteer cameras to their database.
Which is how it should be. A free exchange between 2 willing parties.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:32 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
here is not constitutional issue with placing government cameras to monitor public roadways .
How about the ones placed outside gun ranges facing the gun range and not the road
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:34 pm to B747Tiger
quote:
I’m against them. I’m against red light cameras. Pretty much any government surveillance. I don’t really care if it means we don’t solve as much crime.
Which is great.
But you do not have a constitutional argument to make.
Your constitutional argument is limited to your voice and your vote.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:35 pm to Captain Rumbeard
quote:
Warrentless non stop surveillance of people who've done nothing wrong.
So basically what they have been doing foe years now?
Is this some different type of tech or sometbing?
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:37 pm to meansonny
quote:
But you do not have a constitutional argument to make. Your constitutional argument is limited to your voice and your vote.
I wasn’t making a constitutional argument
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:40 pm to dafif
The only appropriate response is that there are many factors beyond the simple hypothetical you gave that would determine if it is constitutional based on current case law.
The general rule is that nobody has a privacy interest in things readily viewable from a public area.
Again, you can debate whether it’s appropriate from a public policy standpoint but these issues have been litigated over and over again and the short of is anything viewable from a public area is fair game. The constitutional limits are using enhanced tech like thermal to view areas otherwise not visible from public areas.
The general rule is that nobody has a privacy interest in things readily viewable from a public area.
Again, you can debate whether it’s appropriate from a public policy standpoint but these issues have been litigated over and over again and the short of is anything viewable from a public area is fair game. The constitutional limits are using enhanced tech like thermal to view areas otherwise not visible from public areas.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:58 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
The general rule is that nobody has a privacy interest in things readily viewable from a public area.
You ever try to sit outside a police station and film the comings and goings from the ROW? That will disabuse you of that notion with a quickness.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:59 pm to RollingwiththeTide
quote:
I seem to remember a pretty famous case where the FBI mislead the FISA court to get a warrant approved so they could spy on a certain Presidential campaign.
Good point. We should give these people even more power and control.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:17 pm to meansonny
quote:
This is where i stand.
I want flock cameras in my city.
If you dont want flock cameras in your city, I hope your municipality bans them.
Exactly. This is very similar to those who put the no firearms signs up letting the criminals know they are easy prey.
My city has Flock and I see a difference. Porch thieves are pretty much gone, the fake door to door solicitors are gone. Once a few stories got out about our police making arrest after the cameras sent out the notification, the criminal.element learned to not come through town.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:30 pm to TutHillTiger
They are being removed from where I live.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:31 pm to meansonny
quote:
This is where i stand.
I want flock cameras in my city.
If you dont want flock cameras in your city, I hope your municipality bans them.
I am a firm believer that the best science is economics.
If I am a criminal, I am going to live and do business in the easiest community that I can do business.
You get what you vote for.
Flock seems to be doing a good job (finally) holding agencies accountable for their usage of the flock system.
They also seem to be doing a good job getting companies and communities to volunteer cameras to their database.
Which is how it should be. A free exchange between 2 willing parties.
They are being banned here in Florida left and right.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:58 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
there is not constitutional issue with placing government cameras to monitor public roadways .
Flock cameras aren’t owned by the government, and the data is available to non-government people.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News