- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
NYNolaguy1
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 21848 |
| Registered on: | 5/3/2011 |
| Online Status: | Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: "flock" camera outrage, is it really ngos fighting deportations?
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/22/26 at 11:11 am to Dawglovertoo
quote:
What you do in the privacy of your home is a protected Constitutional right but as soon as you step outside onto public property you no longer have the right to privacy.
Interesting. You'd think the supreme court would have ruled differently when they said you can't be tracked continuously without a warrant in public in Jones and Chatrie if that was really true.
0
re: "flock" camera outrage, is it really ngos fighting deportations?
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/22/26 at 9:16 am to Kramer26
quote:
There is no expectation of privacy in public.
Our supreme court disagrees with this.
re: "flock" camera outrage, is it really ngos fighting deportations?
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/22/26 at 9:15 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
These cameras have been around for decades,
I, for one, had no idea drones, AI, and the ability to find anyone and anything across tens of thousands of cameras has been around for decades.
re: Should law enforcement be able to track people's movements indefinitely without a warrant?
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/22/26 at 9:09 am to Boston911
quote:
Tell me what freedom has been taken from you
Maybe I am showing my age but I remember when the KGB was villified for tracking the movements, speech, and political leanings of every Soviet citizen. They were the bad guys and we lived in the free western world, because we didn't have that.
Somehow we have normalized that here.
re: Should law enforcement be able to track people's movements indefinitely without a warrant?
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/21/26 at 9:49 pm to Boston911
quote:
Until your child is kidnapped or your wife is the victim of a violent crime
Funny how your freedoms need to be stripped away to have safety.
re: Should law enforcement be able to track people's movements indefinitely without a warrant?
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/21/26 at 9:48 pm to LSUbest
quote:
But you all willingly carry GPS tracking devices that the manufacturers refuse to turn off while your driving - even though it's the number one danger to people on the road.
I wonder why.
Oh, you mean the GPS tracking device in your pocket that police need a warrant to access your location?
Curious how that needs a warrant, and not ALPR camera data.
re: Flock PR is in overdrive
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/20/26 at 9:40 am to ronricks
quote:
I don't spend my day in fear of Flock cameras.
Considering there's a non zero and growing number of completely innocent people spending time in jail, pulled over at gun point (in some cases multiple times across jurisdictions), or getting swatted over flock errors or abuse, I could see how this wouldn't concern you.
re: Flock PR is in overdrive
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/20/26 at 9:38 am to tadman
The flock CEO is on record calling anyone opposing the cameras "terrorists". The guy is a complete douche.
re: How this ethical? (medical ethics related)
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/18/26 at 9:23 pm to UptownJoeBrown
quote:
your choice on a 2nd opinion.
...for now.
re: How this ethical? (medical ethics related)
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/18/26 at 8:18 pm to Uroblast
quote:
is not ethical. Providing 2nd opinions by default establishes a physician/ patient relationship and should be subject to normal professional standards including liability for harmful advice. Providing medical advice without direct evaluation has long been a “no go” and our licensing boards should put a full stop to it. If reported to state licensing, these “physicians” would be subject to disciplinary action. But someone has to report it and follow through on it. That being said, insurance carriers do it every day in denial of care. Something has to change.
It's a twisted day in medicine when a doctor tells a (not) patient to skip some treatment or surgery (deep down knowing it will save their life) because the insurance company doesn't want to pay up...
If it's gotten to this point, why do we have insurance?
re: How this ethical? (medical ethics related)
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/18/26 at 8:03 pm to Srbtiger06
quote:
I'm not some bleeding heart lib or anything...but Jesus Christ healthcare is so fricked up in this country.
Looking into this further...
LINK
quote:
UnitedHealthcare and 2nd.MD collaborate to provide members with expert medical opinions
This service is offered to all UnitedHealthcare Commercial ASO members and to UnitedHealthcare Fully Insured members in IN, KS, KY, MD, NC, SD and TX.
Nov. 16, 2023
Since 2017, UnitedHealthcare has collaborated with 2nd.MD to provide a no-cost, member-focused expert medical opinion service to members. 2nd.MD virtually connects members who are facing a serious or expensive health care decision with a top expert in the field to review their case and provide a second opinion on their best options. UnitedHealthcare offers this service in certain health plans:
Curious how a licensed MD can legally trade his ethics to the highest bidder here....
How this ethical? (medical ethics related)
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/18/26 at 7:47 pm
I got a call today from a "medical" company that partnered with my employers health insurance carrier. Their advertisements state they provide "2nd opinions at no cost to you" once a primary care doctor gives their disposition on treatment etc.
They are also 100% bought and paid for by the health insurance carrier. I don't see how a medical doctor can give a 2nd opinion on a patient thousands of miles away with the same weight as your primary care doctor, when the only reason they exist is to convince people lower cost treatment is better- sight unseen. If you go to their website in their T&C's they say...
On the company's front page they tout the creditentials, names, board certification of their "doctors", yet it seems they solely exist to push cheaper alternatives with none of the accountability as suddenly they aren't a medical provider, because they say so.
Am I wrong in thinking this is a massive conflict of interest and wildly unethical? How can a licensed doctor, whose sole objective in their profession is to benefit the health and safety of the patient... suddenly claim they don't practice medicine when pushing the company line that the patient doesn't need some service because it will cost the insurance money?
They are also 100% bought and paid for by the health insurance carrier. I don't see how a medical doctor can give a 2nd opinion on a patient thousands of miles away with the same weight as your primary care doctor, when the only reason they exist is to convince people lower cost treatment is better- sight unseen. If you go to their website in their T&C's they say...
quote:
Important Notice: Health Services & Information
_______ does not engage in the practice of medicine. It is important to note that “Service” as defined above and used throughout this document does not include any of the clinical or medical health and care services...
On the company's front page they tout the creditentials, names, board certification of their "doctors", yet it seems they solely exist to push cheaper alternatives with none of the accountability as suddenly they aren't a medical provider, because they say so.
Am I wrong in thinking this is a massive conflict of interest and wildly unethical? How can a licensed doctor, whose sole objective in their profession is to benefit the health and safety of the patient... suddenly claim they don't practice medicine when pushing the company line that the patient doesn't need some service because it will cost the insurance money?
re: Its just a License Plate Reader
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/13/26 at 10:39 am to BrodyDad
quote:
How in the world does a flock camera prevent you from moving or thinking unmonitored?
If there's a flock camera at every street corner, park, drones in the sky with thermal vision, there's literally no movement that isn't logged, tracked, detailed, vast majority of whom are literally innocent law abiding citizens.
You keep selling this vision of these things being independent non collected license plate readers as if they do nothing else... Really?
ETA: I suppose it's easier to ignore the hard question and downvote :lol:
re: Its just a License Plate Reader
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/13/26 at 10:32 am to BrodyDad
quote:
Do you feel you are entitled to all the VIN and plate info?
Curiously, the Flock CEO has said repeatedly no one has an expectation of privacy in public. If that's true, then the answer is that everyone is entitled to that info, and the movement of the public at large.
How can a jurisdiction withhold information collected legally without a warrant on the basis that no movement in public is protected or private, and then when said info is requested, claim said data is private and the public could be injured?
re: Its just a License Plate Reader
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/13/26 at 10:21 am to BrodyDad
quote:
The technology is a tool in the same way a gun is. It can be used to protect or harm. The tool itself is amoral.
Sorry this is a beyond retarded take.
You're basically saying if a tool exists to theoretically make society safer- even if it strips them of all privacy and freedom to move or think unmonitored, we should trust the tool because safety needs to come first? :lol: Yeah, ok.
I am guessing you haven't read much up on why the 4th amendment was included in our Bill of Rights, or a fan or history.
re: Why are there flock cameras all over NYC, but not the UWS?
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/13/26 at 10:08 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
Why are there flock cameras all over NYC, but not the UWS?
1)Couple of things to note- vast majority of folks living in Manhattan don't have cars. Which begs, what's the point?
2)I am curious as to the proportion of condor cameras (which record video, and describe optically what they see) vs their falcon cameras which record license plates
3)How can anyone look at that map of Manhattan and say it's only recording one piece of data in one location at a time and not tracking the movements of millions of people entirely warrantless, and with zero legal guard rails?
re: Its just a License Plate Reader
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/13/26 at 9:02 am to BrodyDad
quote:
Technology, tools.
So to be clear you think I should trust warrantless mass serveillance... because it's a tool?
You'll have to pardon me if I think this is not well thought out.
re: Its just a License Plate Reader
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/13/26 at 6:39 am to BrodyDad
quote:
In fact, you seem to be the one with a trust problem.
You think I should trusting... who, exactly?
re: Its just a License Plate Reader
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/12/26 at 8:36 pm to BrodyDad
quote:
You just made the best argument for gun control there is....i.e. people cannot be trusted to behave in a non criminal way with this tool, therefore the tool should be banned.
It kind of sounds like you think people can't be trusted with freedom, so they need to be tracked in case crime happens.
These sorts of threads remind me of a time when people said they live in the free world, as if to contrast something Soviet Russia would do (warrantless tracking, presumption of guilt, no expectation of privacy). Instead they are willing to trade freedom as currency for security in the naive hope it pays off.
re: Its just a License Plate Reader
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/12/26 at 8:30 pm to Roy Curado
quote:
Chief of BR Police linked Flock to multiple solved crimes over the past 2 years including finding a 1 year old kidnapped victim and over $2,000,000 in recovered stolen vehicles.
Almost like more surveillance=more crime solved. They should definitely get drones overhead with thermal vision (following everyone) and start recording conversations and tracking Bluetooth and cell signals. Just think of a world without crime.
re: Its just a License Plate Reader
Posted by NYNolaguy1 on 8/11/26 at 8:23 pm to Roy Curado
quote:
And why are yall complaining about the system working???
Is it? Most jurisdictions are having trouble showing it actually stops crime.
Popular
15
