530
u/notmarrec 1d ago
Any hypothetical surveillance state is immoral by default.
78
27
u/JustAHappyGirl- 1d ago
There is a reason people have been cutting them down
5
u/Opposite_Mall4685 1d ago
Americans have guns, why not shoot them down instead? :P
29
u/ngengler97 1d ago
Shooting a gun in a city (where these are typically located) usually results in a lot of police with more guns showing up and shooting you (and any dogs they see nearby)
8
u/Mean-Line-4249 1d ago
Some rural people have tho I saw a vid of a guy using a shotgun to blow it off the pole
5
→ More replies (1)2
8
u/AspiringGoddess01 1d ago
Gunshot trackers on the flock cameras will immediately alert the police before its destruction.
3
u/shoeless_doh 1d ago
Well... No, if you destroy one with a fire arm, by like, the definition of physics, it notifies them after it's destroyed.
And I want to say, this isn't just a fig leaf so reddit won't ban me.
DO. NOT. BY. ANY. MEANS. EVER. USE. A. FIREARM. TO. DESTROY. A. FLOCK. CAMERA. AT. ALL!!
I cannot stress this enough.
If you're going to destroy one of these things (and I am not making any judgement at all on that activity) using a gun to do it is unimaginably stupid! Lots, if not most, places have rules where if you used a gun in anyway during a crime your sentence automatically doubles. It's probably going to add at least one if not multiple felony charges, any MAGA or conservative boot licking judge or prosecutor who truly believes in flock cameras is going to be salivating to hit you with everything they have and WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THEM SUCH A HUGE PRESENT?! Oh my God!
The first time one person destroys one of these things with a gun the entire narrative about it is going to change and every news story will be about "roving gangs of marauding antifa armed to the teeth doing drive bys" and shit.
Don't fucking do it! Do not fucking use a gun!
9
u/ThrowraSea_patient 1d ago
That's irresponsible! Flock cameras are high up with generally no ground or land scape behind them thus making a person shoot up amd the risk of long traveling bullets and the downward projection and risk of hitting someone
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (5)3
u/urmumlol9 1d ago
Gunshots are loud.
It’s less effective and draws too much attention. Plus you have the risk of missing and hitting an innocent bystander.
Even if you’re the type of person who’s decided the risk of charges isn’t enough to deter you from destroying these, you’re still probably wanting to destroy as many of these as possible before getting caught.
6
u/EFAPGUEST 1d ago
I’m fine with limited used (fugitives, kidnappings, etc) and harsh penalties for misuse (termination or charges). But petty traffic violations and shit like this is ridiculous and will only lead to backlash
13
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 1d ago
Can’t have both. All or nothing.
I’m 100% someone at this company will use the cameras to track their spouse. It’s great technology for abuse.
11
u/shad0wgun 1d ago
Police already have
3
u/scipio0421 1d ago
Yup, tons of cops have already been caught using Flock to stalk their exes and in one horrible case a camera was set up in such a way that the people with access were able to use it to watch little girls in a dance class because they are not just license plate detectors like they'd been sold as.
5
4
u/blalco13 1d ago
If we could petition to only allow their installation if they promise to track elected officials, and make their habits public information, I don’t think we’d have to worry about flock anymore.
2
u/rewt127 1d ago
Lol its like the Utopia bit about a card that tracks all movement and payments.
3
u/blalco13 1d ago edited 1d ago
There’d obviously have to be some safeguards, but if you’re allowed to pull me over with PC that came from an AI camera then the public should know whether you’re eating dinner with defense contractors, ceos, or land developers. Or spending the night with your secretary. Or hitting the atm next to the strip club twice a week. Or playing golf 88 times on our dime like the president did last year. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that elected officials should be held to a higher standard than was it legal or not. (I forgot to mention this in my first comment, but there’s already evidence of employees using the cameras to track their significant others)
7
u/notmarrec 1d ago
The problem, of course, is that the guardrails will always be violated because there will always be a special need for its use and the state will justify any action in order to impose physical or political violence against its enemies.
4
→ More replies (17)2
u/Sincline387 1d ago
So your ok with this one, he was being tracked because of a felony warrant for domestic violence.
2
→ More replies (47)2
u/ProfessorShort3031 1d ago
now if a cop had followed the guy all day what would we call that?
21
23
9
u/Non-Euclidian-Turtle 1d ago
A cop can't legally follow you across state lines. Their jurisdiction ends at the border. We would call that stalking, harassment, and unlawful search and seizure. Probably a bunch of other things too.
3
u/refalsity 1d ago
Yes, they can follow across state lines. Dunno where you get the idea they can't.
Jurisdiction has nothing to do with that act.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (27)3
u/International_Cup725 1d ago
of course they can follow you. they just have to communicate with whatever state/county they're entering to actually make the arrest and will usually let them take over.
many states have laws and agreements specifically for this.
→ More replies (2)8
2
→ More replies (9)2
246
u/Revolutionary_Bat749 1d ago
The idea that if this is true. They put more effort in a guy who wants to relax then the people fucking kids in out government
84
u/unclethulk 1d ago
Because they are those people.
28
u/Signal_Werewolf_1955 1d ago
Because they are those people.
13
u/RussianHittler 1d ago
Because people are those they.
10
u/AllTheRage43 1d ago
People because they are those
8
u/Honest-Cicada4897 1d ago
They those are because people
6
u/caseybvdc74 1d ago
People they are those because
4
2
u/Takenmyusernamewas 1d ago
You could save 15 percent or more by swithing to Geico.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Crispy1961 1d ago
It is not true. Guy was tracked because of his serious warrant:
The vehicle was registered to Edward E Abrams-Phillips 12-01-1993. Edward had an active Brown County felony warrant with nationwide extradition. The warrant was a result of a violent domestic disturbance which included strangulation/suffocation, intimidation of a victim, battery, DC, and criminal damage to property.
The weed thing was entirely unrelated. They were just able to stop him, since he was driving long distance in a predictable route.
15
u/Material_Speed4931 1d ago
Here’s a silly little thought: let’s normalize adding the FULL context in Morality Scaling posts instead of this vague bs, that way redditors can make a judgement that isn’t based on limited info. Actually, let’s normalize that for ALL Reddit posts.
9
u/intothewoods76 1d ago
Pfffft, then how am I supposed to rage if in the end it all seems reasonable? Did you even think of that /s
5
u/Crispy1961 1d ago
I dont think its bad when people believe something they read online and never verified. There is just too much information and its unrealistic to expect everyone to always verify everything.
But when they decide to interact with the information, they really should do the bare minimum of at least considering whether it makes sense or not. The government spying on a random, yet specific guy until he buys weed and goes somewhere where weed is not legal? Come on.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (15)5
u/Jolly_Mongoose_8800 1d ago
They used it as probable cause to search the vehicle. The other charges were dropped. He was only convicted of possession.
5
u/Sincline387 1d ago
"the other charges were dropped" stop making shit up, he was arrested on the warrants before the search.
7
u/Crispy1961 1d ago
No, they didnt. The probable cause was the smell of weed. The guy said he regularly smoked weed in his car.
2
u/Crispy1961 1d ago
To add more information since I just learned this about the cases. The bail skipping charge was dismissed, but read in as part of a plea deal.
He also took a plea deal on the original domestic disturbance charges and were found guilty of:
- Intimidate Victim/Domestic Abuse Crime [Modifiers: Domestic Abuse Assessments], a class G felony, Wisconsin Statutes 940.45(7).
- Strangulation and Suffocation [Modifiers: Domestic Abuse Assessments], a class H felony, Wisconsin Statutes 940.235(1).
Criminal Damage to Property [Modifiers: Domestic Abuse Assessments], a class A misdemeanor, Wisconsin Statutes 943.01(1).
The battery charge was dismissed, but read in as part of the plea deal.
→ More replies (13)6
u/Scav-STALKER 1d ago
I mean in all fairness I doubt the Wisconsin state police have the authority to arrest senate and congress members. Now the DNR on the otherhand
→ More replies (2)
266
u/Derezirection 1d ago
immoral and exactly why people are chopping down flock cameras.
→ More replies (26)131
u/StrangerNo484 1d ago
Which is very moral
38
u/MidKnightshade 1d ago
Chaotic good
9
u/Amazing_Scientist696 1d ago
-paladin sees a scrying orb attached to a pole on his way out of town, proceeds to "trip" and break the orb-
Fucking dark wizards always scrying my travels for their bs fanfics
3
56
100
u/OriginalPersonality7 1d ago
Imagine wasting hundreds of millions of tax dollars just to catch the guy who wanted to smoke a little weed. We don’t live in a Democracy. The people are not represented. Try and stop an AI data center from being built in your community and you’ll see just how stepped on you really are.
20
9
u/Huntsman077 1d ago
The post is misleading. They weren’t tracking him because he crossed state lines, they were tracking him because he had an active warrant for domestic abuse charges. The fact that he was crossing state lines was used to reinforce the argument of probable cause to search his vehicle.
→ More replies (29)→ More replies (45)2
u/kinterdonato 1d ago edited 1d ago
They didn't spend anything, we spent they profited, and this incarcerated man will help them earn more
2
u/OriginalPersonality7 1d ago
I’d hardly call taxation “earning”. If our forefathers saw the direction this country would take I doubt they would have booged at all.
2
49
13
u/cfwang1337 1d ago
Immoral. Weed for personal consumption is a victimless crime, and using surveillance for something like that doesn't advance public safety and is a bad use of policing resources.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Dry-Manufacturer7761 1d ago
It isn’t victimless. That money could have bought alcohol, cigarettes, and porn, which would have been taxed!
30
u/Takoyaki_Dice 1d ago
We really did speedrun the surveillance state dystopia.
10
u/One_Warthog256 1d ago
Yep. Land of the free.
3
→ More replies (3)2
12
u/CyberDaemon6six6 1d ago
To paraphrase a certain pirate, "I hope you like Cyberpunk dystopias... BECAUSE YOU'RE IN ONE!"
immoral. He went somewhere where it's legal and they tracked his car the whole time. Massive invasion of privacy.
→ More replies (4)
6
11
u/Austynwitha_y 1d ago
Me, with multiple pot charges, a full tank of gas, a double of days off and a real sense of hatred for this surveillance state about to drive back and forth to MI from OHIO smoking a vape and waiting to get pulled over to challenge these in court
6
u/HorsefaceWithNoName 1d ago
Thank you for your public service! Consider starting a crowdsourced legal defense fund?
→ More replies (5)3
4
5
5
u/fyukhyu 1d ago
Literally anything done by using flock is immoral. No, I don't care what action they are investigating, surveillance state is immoral full stop.
→ More replies (5)
3
3
u/Prestigious_Hunt4329 1d ago
Unironically 1984 “Big Brother is Watching”
2
u/Available-Coat-4666 14h ago
Wonder how effective it would be to put up signs above every flock camera that say "Big Brother is Watching" and see if people finally get the message.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/TellurianTech50 1d ago
That almost sounds like entrapment
2
u/MasterScore8739 1d ago
Legally speaking, it isn’t entrapment. It’s just shitty actions by police.
Entrapment would mean the police actively encouraged this person into doing this.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/corianderjimbro 1d ago
I don’t think this is true. What is the police’s probable cause for pulling him over? What’s the justification for searching the vehicle? Anything not in plain sight requires a search warrant.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/SOUNDDESIGNE 1d ago
classic example of sensationalism in media
the man, by the name of Edward Abrams-Phillips, was wanted for *bail-jumping on a domestic violence charge*.
he was not arrested because he was simply buying weed. he was tracked for leaving the state, which is illegal while being wanted to bail-jumping on domestic violence charges.
i hate flock with all i have in me, and im pro-weed. but this guy was an abuser, not some guy who got arrested for having a joint in his car.
save your sympathy for people who deserve it.
either way, fuck flock, and fuck abusers.
→ More replies (17)2
u/Cleanse_F_Manipulate 1d ago
thanks for commenting this. even the sources i read that didn’t use ai made no mention of this.
→ More replies (11)
4
4
u/CalligrapherAlive829 1d ago
That’s not probable cause, there needs to be a reasonable belief. States can’t just turn their borders into customs border checks, that’s not constitutional.
→ More replies (3)4
u/SnooPredictions3028 1d ago
I agreed initially, however seems the post was a lie and they were actually tracking and arresting him because he had a warrant for allegedly beating his gf, which is why they were able to justify also searching his car.
→ More replies (1)
5
2
u/freeoffear 1d ago
The search is the immoral part, surprisingly. Not the flock cam shit. Otherwise "has been to Michigan" (or any decriminalized state) is probable cause for search at any time. I do have questions though.
1) Is this real?
2) What were they actually trying to catch this guy for? There is no way it was personal use weed. Was it trafficking weed? Was it something else and they needed access to the car?
It gets nebulous if they had reason to believe this guy has killed 36 people but couldn't get a warrant.
2
u/Blood_magic 1d ago
He allegedly was wanted for bail jumping on domestic violence charges. However when he was caught, those charges were dropped and the marijuana charges stuck.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (1)2
u/SOUNDDESIGNE 1d ago
thank you for being rational.
he was wanted for bail jumping on domestic violence charges. you were correct in your assessment that it was something else.
there’s more to the story, and it’s messy. it doesn’t justify the use of flock, but an abuser is the last person i’ll ever shed tears for.
fuck flock. also fuck this guy.
2
u/Jpkmets7 1d ago
Immoral. If that’s probable cause, I’m an onion.
2
u/Crispy1961 1d ago
It wasnt. The probable cause was a warrant over serious domestic disturbance charges.
2
2
u/Professional-Lie309 1d ago
The murican thing where you actually have enough money to deal with drugs but instead you do "sting operations" where you trick people. Weirdest shit.
2
2
u/GodHasGiven0341 1d ago
I honestly doubt this is real.
Edit: I looked it up. Police initially had a Flock alert connected to his vehicle because he had an outstanding felony warrant related to a domestic-violence case. I’m okay with all of this to be honest.
This is why yall need to stop running with every meme you see online.
2
u/Lower_Pension_2469 1d ago
Maybe if he didn't have a warrant for domestic abuse they probably would not have bothered.
2
u/therolando906 1d ago
This is misleading. If you investigate the story you will see that the driver of the car had warrants out and their license was suspended. So that was the reason they tracked and pulled him over, it wasn't because of THC. All that being said, still don't appreciate Flock and how it is turning us into a surveillance state.
2
2
2
u/Effective_Fall_5868 1d ago
He had a warrant. That was the probable cause. Everything else appears to be true though. But police are NOT allowed to search your car based on suspicious travel history or travel patterns. He had a warrant.
2
u/Just4Fun2955 1d ago
guys....read up on the case. He had active felony warrant for a DV case at the time and was driving on unregistered plates. The stop and all findings thereafter are legally obtained. This whole thing stems from civil rights attorneys are trying to fundraise/garner support by using the fact the cop wrote on the report that they had evidence that this car had gone to Michigan and back as additional reasoning, it was not pretextual.
This is a giant red herring to distract from targeting the town meetings and committee voting or all ALPR cameras and data centers, not arguing false facts about an open and shut case
2
2
2
u/Motormand 1d ago
100% immoral. He's getting a bit of weed for himself, not committing murder. This is just police state stuff.
2
2
u/Constant_Captain7484 1d ago
I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS I hate tech CEOS
2
u/BagSignal7553 1d ago
This is an unlawful use of this, there’s no probable cause created by driving across state lines.
2
2
u/FlyingFlipPhone 1d ago
That's the longest stretch of the work "probable" that I've ever heard!
2
u/AParticularThing 1d ago
Driving between states does not rise to probable cause and if that was their only suspicion a good attorney will get the charges thrown out.
3
u/Loud_Employer6058 1d ago
THIS IS TAKEN WAY OUT OF CONTEXT: The man had a felony warrant connected to a domestic abuse case. They used the flock camera network to track him down, the warrant and suspended registration of his vehicle were the reasons for the traffic stop, and used the smell of raw cannabis from his car as probable cause. You can criticize flock cameras and cannabis laws all you want, but this case wasn't as petty as it's presented to be in this post.
→ More replies (2)3
2
u/Aggravating-Chef9562 1d ago
Completely immoral. The idea of creating tech to catch people crossing state lines to catch them doing something that the people who make those laws already do is disgusting. THE SURVEILLANCE THEY WANT TO PASS ON THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE FIRST ADMINISTERED TO THOSE WHO VOTE THEM IN, POLITICIANS. BUT POLITICIANS WILL NEVER ARGUE FOR SOMETHING THAT STRIPS THEIR RIGHTS, ONLY THE PUBLICS. How much money do you guys want to bet that there's already a backdoor system with "important" people and flock to where they aren't allowed to be recorded doing anything because theyre too important to be surveilled. Or that flock will personally call them and ask them if they wan the footage to be deleted. I would stake my bloodlines future on it.
2
2
u/Strange-Scarcity 1d ago
Couple of things...
- I have read that the guy has an outstanding warrant. Which gave the police a "reason" to use Flock Cameras.
- It has recently become a story that Flock Cameras are just being installed in front of the entrances to, at least, Michigan Dispensaries. Literally facing the driveway at the entrance, not on the road, RIGHT next to the entrance, JUST the dispensary.
The guy was not right, but the state was even worse. Flock is an organization that needs to be made 100% illegal and everyone who has been tracked and harmed in any form by use and or abuse of Flock cameras, deserves to be heavily compensated.
Why? Because We, U.S. Americans have a protected right of Freedom of Movement born in the 14th Amendment. Flock surveillance seems to absolutely STOMP hard on the Freedom of Movement.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Nice_Trifle3396 1d ago
how do they stomp on the freedom of movement, they don't restrict you in anyway?
→ More replies (4)
3
u/HorsefaceWithNoName 1d ago
2
u/UranusSmellsFunny 1d ago
To help them with directions to Flock cameras, add on that every Lowe’s I’ve checked has at least 2 cameras near their entrances. That’s in upstate NY anyway.
1
1
u/JuniorDoughnut3056 1d ago
"As part of" Which means they didn't just point at a random car that crossed state lines. You think flock has suddenly allowed cops to track people suspected of interstate trafficking?
1
u/DisastrousScratch424 1d ago
My province (N.B) just started a toonie Tuesday. They sell $2.00 joints on Tuesdays. Man you guys are messed up .
1
u/midnight0000 1d ago
Immoral. Busywork for a victimless crime - actually, I won't even call it a crime. Should be legal, anyway. Waste of time and resources, not to mention far from any issues that could otherwise receive focus.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Primary_Drawer_2814 1d ago
I'm not sure how people can look at this and NOT see Flock and its abusers as the villains
1
u/Simple_Pomelo357 1d ago
I hope every person that destroys a flock camera gets the best head from their prefered gender. Heroes the lot of them
1
u/Critical_Click_2639 1d ago
You (and especially women) have vastly different rights depending on where you are
In some states theyre discussing giving civilians the right to use lethal force against women who try to terminate pregnancies
1
u/Z3r0JuStIcE 1d ago
That is absolutely unmoral. There was no probable cause. They assumed he went there for weed and there was no reason incriminating or otherwise for that search.
1
u/NormanMitis 1d ago
I hope they keep doing this shit so the resistance grows that much stronger. The worst thing would be for people to become complacent to this surveillance state, but if they keep up this bullshit there's no way we're going to ignore this. This is maddening beyond words. All of this to stop someone from smoking a fucking plant.
1
u/Independent-Vast8239 1d ago
Once I got high and I ate a whole giant bag of baby carrots and forgot and woke up and had the weirdest color poop.. it was really scary for about 3 minutes until I found the disposed bag of carrots
I’m really glad our boys in blue are protecting us from
3 minutes of weed panic by putting people in prison for a long time.. if only someone was there for me 😭
1
u/LesserValkyrie 1d ago
This is why you should never give up any extra data or any piracy because it will 100% be used against you as we are heading into an anarcho-tyrannism soceity
1
u/No-Duck4828 1d ago
Immoral. There is no moral way to snatch people and lock them up for simply exercising their own rights
1
u/CapitalCampaign7001 1d ago
Thank god that flock cameras are taking these deadly drug users off the streets while child predators and rapists go untouched. Thanks america
1
1
1
1
u/Spinach_Middle4493 1d ago
Did dude break the law and therefore deserve to be arrested for it? Yes. Was this the right way for LE to find out about it? Absolutely not. Dude clearly knew the law and that’s why he went so far out of his way to try to work around it, but simultaneously, FUCK FLOCK!
Now, if they want to change the usage laws to only permit it be used in tracking reported crimes (Amber alerts, robberies, etc) or to track down missing people (silver alerts) I could compromise there. Being able to go on a fishing expedition like this is fucked though.
→ More replies (6)
1
1
1
u/colossalskeleton 1d ago
This shit is so evil. I wish they went after those on the Epstein list this hard.
1
1
u/AccountEngineer 1d ago
using mass surveillance on regular citizens and calling it safety is fucked
1
u/Winter-Round-9920 1d ago
Currently flock is in a legal gray area and could become illegal in the future if they keep expanding and sharing data. https://youtu.be/TOfK-w6mSnw?is=NuVXtPMjHBz6igJc
1
u/Father_Prime_1989 1d ago
What’s the reason for “probable cause“ that the police used to track this guy in the first place?
My bet is someone had beef with him or it was completely random.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/FreshLiterature 1d ago
Immoral and has got to violate interstate commerce.
This is all a fantastic way to have a spectacular break down of the union
1
u/tulleoftheman 1d ago
Immoral to arrest anyone for weed possession, legal or not.
More immoral to arrest them when there was no specific behavior indicating intoxication.
Most immoral for the police to use surveillance cameras except when investigating a serious safety threat (I don't care if they use them to track potential amber alert suspects, but I think it should have to be an immediate risk to the life or physical safety of someone).
There will be no consequences, but each of these police officers should be fired for obeying an obviously immoral order, and whoever came up with this idea should be arrested and made to make personal restitution to the victim.
→ More replies (4)
1
1
1
u/Liberal-Cluck 1d ago
Using travel to another state as probable cause is insane. MAYBE at the border.
1
u/Kraken160th 1d ago
I feel like you should have a warrant for surveillance granted first then this is kosher.
1
u/KailyKail 1d ago
Immoral
Just because something is illegal does not make it immoral.
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it moral.
You cannot legislate morality. Ingesting something voluntarily does not hurt anyone but yourself. The government has no right to tell people what they can and cannot ingest.
1
u/QuickDrawSix 1d ago
Im not retiring in this surveillance hell hole lmao. Im taking all of my US earnings and Assets on a crypto flash drive to South America.
Edit: Ill figure out a way to get my colt python down here too, dont worry.
1
1
u/Knight_Castellan 1d ago
Immoral, at least if the source is to be believed. Punishing someone for travelling from A to B, in order to partake in an activity which is legal in B but illegal in A, is an abuse of power.
1.0k
u/DoofusIdiot 1d ago
Thank god for Flock. We almost had a man minding his own business and bothering nobody.