- 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: Why are you against flock?
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:30 pm to Boom33
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:30 pm to Boom33
quote:
So then flock provides no use and is a waste of tax money.
Neither. It’s just that it’s no more an intrusion on the average person than the tracking device they are scrolling on while driving or the literal tracking device they drive around.
Battle is over. Banning Flock accomplishes nothing but taking away a resource for LEO’s
1
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:32 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Neither. It’s just that it’s no more an intrusion on the average person than the tracking device they are scrolling on while driving or the literal tracking device they drive around.
Battle is over. Banning Flock accomplishes nothing but taking away a resource for LEO’s
It's an intrusion on everyone and implements a policy that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
I bet you'd say that about every 4th amendment case.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:33 pm to Boom33
quote:
So then flock provides no use and is a waste of tax money.
This is the better frame to move against it.
The privacy right argument in public spaces is weak.
But as a budget item it could be eliminated if the public will votes in the right people to do it.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:35 pm to theballguy
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:36 pm to Boom33
quote:
It's an intrusion on everyone and implements a policy that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
How is it either? Your license plate is literally a public document. You have zero expectation of privacy on a public road. None at all.
How does that equate to guilt at any level?
Your viewpoints also show me how ignorant you are on what’s already in place for LEO’s to use. You actually think this is new stuff
It’s been used for years. And it works. Abuse will always occur, it has to be dealt with harshly, no denying that. But you have NO privacy in driving your vehicle (that’s registered with the State because legally driving is NOT a right, it’s a privilege) on public roads.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:36 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
This is the better frame to move against it.
The privacy right argument in public spaces is weak.
But as a budget item it could be eliminated if the public will votes in the right people to do it.
Funny enough law enforcement in Florida is coming out against it constantly.
And that's not the reason.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:36 pm to meansonny
quote:
You are behind the times.
Those systems are now linked to the police and AI.
The police dont need to go door to door. And AI saves the time searching the hours of footage.
Are you saying individuals' Ring cameras are linked to police departments? That a gas station's CCTV camera (or whatever it is called) is linked to local police departments?
When did that happen?
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:37 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
But as a budget item it could be eliminated if the public will votes in the right people to do it.
They cost practically nothing, and are way cheaper than the alternate/red light based surveillance that LEO’s WILL use alternatively.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:37 pm to meansonny
quote:
But you dont have a problem with license plates?
Vin numbers on dashboards?
Cameras at intersections and school zones?
Parking lots?
Cell phone videos in public?
I note there's no response
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:38 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Are you saying individuals' Ring cameras are linked to police departments? That a gas station's CCTV camera (or whatever it is called) is linked to local police departments? When did that happen?
Have you ever heard of the internet?
Flock isn’t “linked” to PDs systems. They have access to Flock’s system. Just as they have and routinely use access to other systems.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:40 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Are you saying individuals' Ring cameras are linked to police departments?
I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me.
When you click 'agree' to the Terms of Service of the Ring camera, you just may have given the vendor the right to share the information with the government.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:42 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
When you click 'agree' to the Terms of Service of the Ring camera, you just may have given the vendor the right to share the information with the government.
You absolutely do, and even if you didn’t, they’d just easily get a subpoena/warrant for the footage anyway.
Any privacy clause in any contract you ever sign for anything goes away with a subpoena/warrant.
This post was edited on 8/23/26 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
How is it either? Your license plate is literally a public document. You have zero expectation of privacy on a public road. None at all.
How does that equate to guilt at any level?
Your viewpoints also show me how ignorant you are on what’s already in place for LEO’s to use. You actually think this is new stuff It’s been used for years. And it works.
Abuse will always occur, it has to be dealt with harshly, no denying that. But you have NO privacy in driving your vehicle (that’s registered with the State because legally driving is NOT a right, it’s a privilege) on public roads.
You and others are telling lies. Claiming it just looks up plate numbers is false.
Flock is an active investigation into everyone. It doesn't just look at your tag, it logs the data and allows tracking the movement of people.
As such it treats people as if they are guilty. Things that should require a warrant.
It's going to be banned in Florida and has the support of law enforcement to be banned due to it being a 4th amendment violation and that they take an oath to the constitution.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:47 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Have you ever heard of the internet?
Unless I have completely missed something, a police department cannot legally "link to" (using the other poster's words) an individual homeowner's Ring camera system without permission.
That is a practical constraint on the State's ability to surveil my daily activity. They could do it. it is possible, but the resources required make it prohibitive.
The Flock system gets rid of this constraint. And for that reason, it qualitatively changes the nature of the state activity. What used to require days and weeks of police activity to go talk to/ask camera owners for footage - looking through the footage, etc. now (or soon) can be done in a matter of a couple of hours.
So constant surveillance of an individual (with or without a warrant) is possible with almost no cost. that is troublesome, and very different from a network of hundreds/thousands of privately owned cameras documenting public areas.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:47 pm to Boom33
quote:
Claiming it just looks up plate numbers is false.
Where did I say that is all it does?
Guess what? The external, publicly apparently appearance of you and your vehicle are also entirely public and you have zero expectation of privacy for them on a public thoroughfare.
quote:
Flock is an active investigation into everyone. It doesn't just look at your tag, it logs the data and allows tracking the movement of people.
No it isn’t. It is quite literally a “passive” system in the most fundamental meaning of the word.
quote:
As such it treats people as if they are guilty. Things that should require a warrant.
No it doesn’t. It stores information. So do toll booths, ATM’s, airports, liquor stores, casinos, high schools, government offices, and private venues of all types.
quote:
It's going to be banned in Florida and has the support of law enforcement to be banned due to it being a 4th amendment violation and that they take an oath to the constitution.
Congratulations on a feel good victory, assuming you’re Floridian and support that. You accomplished nothing by doing so. Your own state’s highways track you in the exact same manner.
TL;DR: you have no idea how the actual world functions.
This post was edited on 8/23/26 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:49 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Unless I have completely missed something, a police department cannot legally "link to" (using the other poster's words) an individual homeowner's Ring camera system without permission. That is a practical constraint on the State's ability to surveil my daily activity. They could do it. it is possible, but the resources required make it prohibitive. The Flock system gets rid of this constraint. And for that reason, it qualitatively changes the nature of the state activity. What used to require days and weeks of police activity to go talk to/ask camera owners for footage - looking through the footage, etc. now (or soon) can be done in a matter of a couple of hours. So constant surveillance of an individual (with or without a warrant) is possible with almost no cost. that is troublesome, and very different from a network of hundreds/thousands of privately owned cameras documenting public areas.
And through all of those pointless words you actually admit the point—they already have access to this type of information in every area of your life.
Just admit that this is an issue for you because social media told you so.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:50 pm to Boom33
The use of flock cameras has been a key reason the post-2020 crime wave has been broken.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:51 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And through all of those pointless words you actually admit the point—they already have access to this type of information in every area of your life.
Just admit that this is an issue for you because social media told you so.
Oh, so you are either not really interested in discussing or are too stupid to understand the nuance required to actually discuss the topic. Got it
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:53 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Oh, so you are either not really interested in discussing or are too stupid to understand the nuance required to actually discuss the topic. Got it
I just enjoy laughing at people who think some new cameras (WAY cheaper btw than the ones that are already at your intersections on surface streets and all across your highway network) are a new infringement people should care about.
Your movements on public roads have already been tracked and stored for years now.
Someone whining about Flock is an immediate tell that they are ignorant and don’t know anything about the issue.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:55 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Where did I say that is all it does?
Guess what? The external, publicly apparently appearance of you and your vehicle are also entirely public and you have zero expectation of privacy for them on a public thoroughfare.
False. Police aren't allowed to pull you over without cause.
quote:
No bit isn’t. It is quite literally a “passive” system in the most fundamental meaning of the word.
It's not passive. It's actively collecting data, it's actively logging that data, it's actively investigating things about that plate/data, and it will actively notify someone if it thinks it finds something.
quote:
No it doesn’t. It stores information. So do toll booths, ATM’s, airports, liquor stores, casinos, high schools, government offices, and private venues of all types.
The constitution applies to government, not private businesses. Using a camera for security of facility isn't the same thing as surveillance on the population. Stop trying to pretend they are.
quote:
Congratulations on a feel good victory, assuming you’re Floridian and support that. You accomplished nothing by doing so. Your own state’s highways track you in the exact same manner.
TL;DR: you have no idea how the actual world functions.
You mean the toll roads I consent to?
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News