- 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 2:56 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:56 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
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.
Do you understand that you are just making the case that other things are also unconstitutional?
0
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:57 pm to Boom33
Your arguments about these cameras are literally nonsensical. Like sovereign citizen level stupidity.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:58 pm to Boom33
quote:
Police aren't allowed to pull you over without cause.
And? That has nothing to do with the statement you responded to
quote:
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.
It is quite literally a passive collection system. That’s what it is.
quote:
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.
Who said it was? Many of the things I listed are public and not private, and my point was to illustrate that your outrage is meaningless because the government already has access to the information from other, less convenient sources.
You’re one of those people who have no idea how anything works and think having to get a subpoena or warrant is some sort of actual hurdle
No, the judge just signs what comes through in his online portal automatically.
Like I said, you’re just ignorant of how the world functions.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 2:58 pm to Boom33
quote:
quote:
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.
Your answer is not a response to his statement.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:00 pm to Riverside
quote:
The use of flock cameras has been a key reason the post-2020 crime wave has been broken.
Why do you need to make shite up?
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:01 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Someone whining about Flock is an immediate tell that they are ignorant and don’t know anything about the issue.
You might want to look in the mirror on the ignorance issue.
There is clearly a limit to what the government can take from Flock. We know that from two relatively recent cases - U.S. v. Carpenter and Chatrie v. U.S.
A networked, searchable archive is different from individualized discrete snapshots.
This post was edited on 8/23/26 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:02 pm to Riverside
quote:
Your arguments about these cameras are literally nonsensical. Like sovereign citizen level stupidity.
You sound like a citizen of China.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:03 pm to JimEverett
quote:
There is clearly a limit to what the government can take from Flock. We know that from two relatively recent cases - U.S. v. Carpenter and Chatrie v. U.S. A networked, searchable archive are different from individualized discreet snapshots.
No shite. Idiot
But thanks for furthering my point that there isn’t any real constitutional issue here that didn’t already exist and over which reasonably restrictions have not already been placed.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:09 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Your answer is not a response to his statement.
Yes, it is.
Cops aren't allowed to pull you over because you are considered secure in your persons even while in your vehicle.
You've taken the fact that your vehicle is by its nature more open to things that can lead to probable cause for further investigation, but you otherwise have the right to be secure in your persons per the 4th amendment.
Entire criminal cases are thrown out if they violate that.
To claim the 4th amendment no longer applies because you have "zero expectation of privacy" is just straight up bullshite.
Things are more likely to be in plain view in your vehicle. You are more likely to break smaller laws that can trigger further investigation. There are plenty of things that make it more likely for police to have probable cause. But the claim you lose your 4th amendment right when you leave your house is straight up bullshite.
This post was edited on 8/23/26 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:12 pm to Boom33
quote:
But the claim you lose your 4th amendment right when you leave your house is straight up bullshite.
If you think that that is what I claim, you are halucinating.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:12 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
But thanks for furthering my point that there isn’t any real constitutional issue here that didn’t already exist and over which reasonably restrictions have not already been placed.
Proof you don't know what you are talking about. There are real constitutional issues that are working themselves through courts right now on the Flock issue. And they stem from exactly the issue I have been bringing up.
Granted, that does not mean current police usage of Flock will be invalidated, but there are real constitutional issues being hammered out on the topic.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:17 pm to JimEverett
quote:
There are real constitutional issues that are working themselves through courts right now on the Flock issue. And they stem from exactly the issue I have been bringing up.
And they are being resolved easily with regularly cited, prior jurisprudence.
quote:
Granted, that does not mean current police usage of Flock will be invalidated, but there are real constitutional issues being hammered out on the topic.
No, there’s really not.
But what there is, is people like you who think these are novel or new constitutional questions and who file lawsuits that are getting easily resolved with existing precedence in courts around the country.
The same rules apply to this as anything else that already exists and does the same thing and that has already been litigated. Big shocker there.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:17 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No it isn’t. It is quite literally a “passive” system in the most fundamental meaning of the word.
Ok then. Where can I gain access to it? I can view DOT cameras. Where is their subscription page?
quote:
No it doesn’t. It stores information. So do toll booths, ATM’s, airports, liquor stores, casinos...
Requires warrant. Requires warrant. Requires warrant. Requires warrant. Requires warrant.....
This post was edited on 8/23/26 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:17 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
I’m really low on the list of people the govt cares about.
Until your kid has a run in with a local yokal police officers kid and they start tracking your movements, lining them up with crimes you aren't even committing. Or one of them start stalking your wife/daughter. Or they don't like you speaking out on FB about property taxes.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:17 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And? That has nothing to do with the statement you responded to
It does because it demonstrates the 4th amendment is still in effect.
quote:
It is quite literally a passive collection system. That’s what it is.
No, it's called that because it ignores what the system is doing and only pretends what the cops are doing is active.
quote:
Who said it was? Many of the things I listed are public and not private, and my point was to illustrate that your outrage is meaningless because the government already has access to the information from other, less convenient sources.
No, you cited things that are for the purpose of property security and tried to equate it on the same level as population survellence.
The reason it's "less convenient" is because you need warrants to access the information.
quote:
You’re one of those people who have no idea how anything works and think having to get a subpoena or warrant is some sort of actual hurdle
It is. Your entire argument above is based on being able to ignore the step.
quote:
No, the judge just signs what comes through in his online portal automatically.
No they don't. They know better than to send the judge bullshite and most cases are clear to the point it's very easy to show the cause.
quote:
Like I said, you’re just ignorant of how the world functions.
You seem to be ignorant of history and why the 4th amendment was created to begin with.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:36 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Ok then. Where can I gain access to it? I can view DOT cameras. Where is their subscription page?
Your access level will never be determinative as to whether a collection system is passive or active.
quote:
Requires warrant. Requires warrant. Requires warrant. Requires warrant. Requires warrant.....
Because they’re private. This isn’t. You don’t need a warrant for the information being sought. You need a warrant in those instances because of where the information is from. “Needing a warrant” for Ring footage isn’t there for you or the homeowner/camera owner—it’s there for Ring because it’s their data and they have a “privacy policy” to avoid civil suits
Easy peasy.
This post was edited on 8/23/26 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:40 pm to Boom33
quote:
No they don't. They know better than to send the judge bullshite and most cases are clear to the point it's very easy to show the cause.
Then what are you so fake worried about?
quote:
No, you cited things that are for the purpose of property security and tried to equate it on the same level as population survellence.
And you saw a law school graduate who doesn’t practice say these things and you believe it’s anything other than a distinction without a difference.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:42 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Then what are you so fake worried about?
quote:
And you saw a law school graduate who doesn’t practice say these things and you believe it’s anything other than a distinction without a difference.
You just picked 2 sentences out of my reply, took them out of context and then made some weird assumption at the end.
Just say you're wrong and move on.
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:43 pm to Boom33
quote:
Just say you're wrong and move on.
I’m not. They are legal, and your fake outrage is misplaced.
There are zero novel constitutional issues at play here.
ETA: the normal, usual fourth amendment restrictions are perfectly adequate here. Just as they are for all other passive surveillance systems that already exist.
Whether or not Flock “should” be there in your community is a policy decision completely outside the purview of the courts. But they absolutely “can” be there, because no recordation of your presence in a public place or a public road can ever be a violation of your privacy.
This post was edited on 8/23/26 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 8/23/26 at 3:43 pm to Boom33
quote:
It's an intrusion on everyone and implements a policy that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
It’s neither of those.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News