Being against mass-surveillance should be a bipartisan struggle. Given our political polarization, each side is highly distrustful about what "the other side" will do with mass amounts of data about their side. This should be a cause that unites everyone.
We do have some bipartisan initiatives, it’s just that they are not news worthy. Take for example the initial push for banning TikTok. It had unprecedented bipartisan support.
All the evil shit (war, funding genocide, mass surveillance, privacy invasions or curtailing free speech in the name of protecting children) nearly always has bipartisan support.
Having binged on a bunch of modern British detective fiction in the last year or so - Rhys Dylan as an example. The reliance on cameras in society, yes it is fiction, but there is also truth is an interesting thing in terms of what a society accepts.
Why does it matter his political party? Many otherwise good people have fallen for a con of some sort at least once at some point it their life.
The man has some time and uses it in a non destructive manner to do what he thinks will help his community rather than just posting nonsense online, that in itself is commendable . I find the article trying to forment division by naming him a Republican...who cares, human privacy and the imbalance of power is something every American and even non Americans should care about.
A persons political persuasion can tell you something about their values, and the policies they would prefer enacted for a given topic.
Republicans AFAIK have not been on the crusade to end mass surveillance or promote privacy laws to regulate big tech, so seeing a republican man stand up for this right might help you understand that the sentiment of the party is not unanimous.
Because the modern GOP is itself a con.
Its great that he is protesting flock cameras but he should also be protesting his own party, which is engaged in unprecedented corruption, murders american civilians, attacks democracy, and seeks to disenfranchise our daughters and wives.
I cannot stand it that disingenous and ignorant people pretend this isn't the case, you can all go to hell.
Curious if hoisting an Ipad on the end of his pool skimmer that just showed a video of random cars and their license plates, causing the camera to register a bunch of false positives?
Last month I said to my wife that we should start paying homeless people to hold their signs while standing in front of the radar speed cameras the city has been putting up around our town.
i've said this before on Hn but I called the sheriff to discuss these in our neighborhood and asked if they could search for our whereabouts and he said "only if there's an active crime for your plate", so I said "what if the governor imposes a 'bird flu curfew'?" and after some kerfuffling said in theory yes they could then use it to track offendors.
The other issue is that the company obviously has access to the streams nationwide, and they likely don't have the same oversight that a local police might have to document when/how they are used, if they have any oversight at all.
If done obliquely enough... e.g., just making a tracker and having the ability for people to report broken cameras, you're probably fine in theory. In practice, this is a litigious society, so you'd want to build this anonymously.
In a country where not attending a protest gets you 30 years in prison, and attending a protest where you set off a firework gets you 70, and where a government thug can pin you down and execute you on the sidewalk, and get recognized for his heroism and bravery... you tell me.
Hey if anything we should keep protesting. You should read about what the British did to Indians protesting for independence. Protest in spite of consequences is a singular act of bravery. The cops want people to give in.
The United States, the first two in Texas and the latter in Minnesota.
In that bit, an unarmed man was murdered, the killers scatter like roaches, the federal police is covering for them, while actively preventing the state from giving the guilty a fair trial and a swift sentencing and imprisonment.
(What they did is a state crime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and also a federal crime that carries the death penalty.)
Anyone with eyes can see that those killers are guilty. You don't need to split hairs on that, you can look at the video yourself.
As anyone else, though, they constitutionally deserve a fair trial where the onus is on the state to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, before they can be sentenced. My assessment of their guilt has little bearing on the state's ability to do that.
Proving that guilt would be trivial if the federal government weren't actively complicit, by preventing such a trial from taking place. There's no need to cover for it, it's behavior is unconscionable and treasonous.
Why “republican” man?
Editorials like this piss me off. Just say “Man from Florida”. Why bring party politics into an article that isn’t about party lines?
Most of the people very against Flock are more left wing and I feel like another left wing protest about it isn't particularly engaging. I'm sure putting Republican there gets way more interest as Republicans turning against them is necessary to have anything actually happen.
The developments of political parties’ positions are themselves newsworthy, as well as the ways in which writers attempt to frame them. You’re right to notice it.
Being against mass-surveillance should be a bipartisan struggle. Given our political polarization, each side is highly distrustful about what "the other side" will do with mass amounts of data about their side. This should be a cause that unites everyone.
We do have some bipartisan initiatives, it’s just that they are not news worthy. Take for example the initial push for banning TikTok. It had unprecedented bipartisan support.
All the evil shit (war, funding genocide, mass surveillance, privacy invasions or curtailing free speech in the name of protecting children) nearly always has bipartisan support.
Having binged on a bunch of modern British detective fiction in the last year or so - Rhys Dylan as an example. The reliance on cameras in society, yes it is fiction, but there is also truth is an interesting thing in terms of what a society accepts.
I've seen Trump 2024 voters go to No Kings in 2026 because they fear being the victim of federal overreach as in ICE.
Why does it matter his political party? Many otherwise good people have fallen for a con of some sort at least once at some point it their life. The man has some time and uses it in a non destructive manner to do what he thinks will help his community rather than just posting nonsense online, that in itself is commendable . I find the article trying to forment division by naming him a Republican...who cares, human privacy and the imbalance of power is something every American and even non Americans should care about.
It is at least somewhat relevant.
A persons political persuasion can tell you something about their values, and the policies they would prefer enacted for a given topic.
Republicans AFAIK have not been on the crusade to end mass surveillance or promote privacy laws to regulate big tech, so seeing a republican man stand up for this right might help you understand that the sentiment of the party is not unanimous.
Man Bites Dog!
Nothing pro-/anti-human or dog in that headline, just increasing intrigue without resorting to clickbait. Assuming a man really did bite a dog (bad!).
I'd wager it has something to do with this: https://www.cltampa.com/news/creative-loafing-tampa-bay-has-....
nice. i just asked chatgpt for the lean and it said progressive so there ya go.
ya. classic tactic to label someone so there's pattern matching for readers. happens everywhere unfortunately.
Because the modern GOP is itself a con. Its great that he is protesting flock cameras but he should also be protesting his own party, which is engaged in unprecedented corruption, murders american civilians, attacks democracy, and seeks to disenfranchise our daughters and wives.
I cannot stand it that disingenous and ignorant people pretend this isn't the case, you can all go to hell.
These cameras aren't just invasive, they are expensive. Cities are paying a pretty penny to access a few web cams.
Last I looked it up, $2500 per year per camera in the surveillance area.
They are also installed improperly https://www.wate.com/news/tennessee/flock-cameras-tennessee-...
That doesn't sound expensive to me. Not compared to, say, a $1.7M public toilet[0].
To be clear, I do not support Flock cameras.
[0]: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/san-fran...
Curious if hoisting an Ipad on the end of his pool skimmer that just showed a video of random cars and their license plates, causing the camera to register a bunch of false positives?
That's a fun idea! I wonder if it'd work if you just used something like an e-Ink screen and had it generate random license plates?
I suppose "blocking the view of surveillance cameras" is probably illegal though.
Waiting for the “obstruction of justice” suit. Probably won’t stick, but it’ll be a tremendous pain in the ass of the protester.
Equally informative title: A 77-year-old lactose-intolerant man is staging a solo protest against St. Pete’s Flock cameras
Last month I said to my wife that we should start paying homeless people to hold their signs while standing in front of the radar speed cameras the city has been putting up around our town.
Thanks for acting out my daydream, Carl.
This post has just dropped from the top three to #72 on the third page (heavy downvotes/flagging?).
It's not flagged, more likely @dang or @tomhow got a call from Flock.
i've said this before on Hn but I called the sheriff to discuss these in our neighborhood and asked if they could search for our whereabouts and he said "only if there's an active crime for your plate", so I said "what if the governor imposes a 'bird flu curfew'?" and after some kerfuffling said in theory yes they could then use it to track offendors.
Other possible searches (in some areas):
https://www.404media.co/how-cops-use-flock-to-track-people-n...The other issue is that the company obviously has access to the streams nationwide, and they likely don't have the same oversight that a local police might have to document when/how they are used, if they have any oversight at all.
If I made an app that showed their locations and gamified knocking them out (subtly), would that get me in legal trouble?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement#United_States
If done obliquely enough... e.g., just making a tracker and having the ability for people to report broken cameras, you're probably fine in theory. In practice, this is a litigious society, so you'd want to build this anonymously.
The article already links to a website that shows their locations: https://deflock.org/
It does not gamify or otherwise encourage damaging them, which would be legally risky.
I hope a (civil rights) lawyer will reply. I’m curious too.
No need to damage the cameras, just place some balloons in front of them.
In a country where not attending a protest gets you 30 years in prison, and attending a protest where you set off a firework gets you 70, and where a government thug can pin you down and execute you on the sidewalk, and get recognized for his heroism and bravery... you tell me.
Hey if anything we should keep protesting. You should read about what the British did to Indians protesting for independence. Protest in spite of consequences is a singular act of bravery. The cops want people to give in.
In what country did those things happen?
In the United States
The United States, the first two in Texas and the latter in Minnesota.
In that bit, an unarmed man was murdered, the killers scatter like roaches, the federal police is covering for them, while actively preventing the state from giving the guilty a fair trial and a swift sentencing and imprisonment.
(What they did is a state crime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and also a federal crime that carries the death penalty.)
> ... while actively preventing the state from giving the guilty a fair trial
Interesting.
Anyone with eyes can see that those killers are guilty. You don't need to split hairs on that, you can look at the video yourself.
As anyone else, though, they constitutionally deserve a fair trial where the onus is on the state to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, before they can be sentenced. My assessment of their guilt has little bearing on the state's ability to do that.
Proving that guilt would be trivial if the federal government weren't actively complicit, by preventing such a trial from taking place. There's no need to cover for it, it's behavior is unconscionable and treasonous.
Make it a web app and host it in a different country? Probably also depends on the mechanics of the game though as well..
A different country... without an extradition treaty.
Oh like Snowden then… he or she just has to be okay living under those conditions…
Why “republican” man? Editorials like this piss me off. Just say “Man from Florida”. Why bring party politics into an article that isn’t about party lines?
Right, and also, a 77-year-old man in Florida means that adding "Republican" is just redundant.
Ikr, "Florida man" already has a distinguished pedigree
Most of the people very against Flock are more left wing and I feel like another left wing protest about it isn't particularly engaging. I'm sure putting Republican there gets way more interest as Republicans turning against them is necessary to have anything actually happen.
The developments of political parties’ positions are themselves newsworthy, as well as the ways in which writers attempt to frame them. You’re right to notice it.
Republicans are not on the side of liberty and privacy. So emphasizing that he's a republican makes the case even more strongly.
You can argue that this shouldn't be about politics, but how many years of living under an authoritarian government do you need?
Everything is about politics now.
I grew up under an authoritarian government. The US is not an authoritarian government.
"Republicans are not on the side of liberty and privacy."
Moronic generalisation.
Why "man"? Why bring gender into it?
Do you prefer collection of cells?
"ugly bags of mostly water" is the preferred nomenclature.
Florida Man is an overloaded term
A sledgehammer would be a better solution.
For the company Flock, yes.
For the community, the vandal, and progress, no.
He's a 77-year-old patriot o7
Flock enjoyers didn't like this one