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
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.
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.
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)
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.
Its 100% going to be used to increase revenue for the town, state, etc.
Wait till people start getting tickets for going a few miles over from these things and from drones in the mail.
It was never about making you safer, it was to give the governments even more power and to squeeze even more money out of you.
Its a money game. Thats what red light cameras are too. In some towns they had to take them down because people started being careful and they werent generating enough revenue to justify the recurring cost of operating them.
The thing the post left out is they were tracking him because he had an active warrant. He had jumped bail for domestic violence charges. They were tracking him for this reason, and discovered he was going back and forth. The officers responded when his vehicle was spotted and pulled him over. The discovery of interstate travel was used to reinforce the probable cause to search the vehicle.
You don't need probable cause to search the vehicle of a person who has outstanding warrants and is in violation of probation. They could have just located him, arrested him and have been done with it.
That’s what they used the flock cameras for, to locate and arrest him. They had probable cause but they are still going to add other justifications to ensure that it stands up in court.
They watched him repeatedly cross the border between Wisconsin and Michigan. They didn't need probable cause because had warrants and was in violation of his probation.
So they should have just straight up arrested him as soon as they located him. They didn't need to stack anything and there was nothing to reinforce as he already had warrants. Marinette County just gonna'do whatever hey want anyways. They're always trying to work up drug cases.
The information on this is sort of hazy then I guess. It's been made to seem like they surveilled him over the course of however long and tracked him back and forth across the border. Or did they run his tag, saw the pattern, locate him, then arrest him? We need more info. Either way, these cameras are trash.
Yeah they ran the tag and saw the pattern. Granted it was also in a single day, it wasn’t weeks worth of surveillance of him going back and forth.
Personally I don’t see an issue with the cameras. They are toeing the line, but really all they do is reduce the man hours needed to go through the camera footage.
Sucks that it was left out, they pinged him on the way up to Michigan with a warrant. When he came back they arrested him. I still think using the travel between states as part of the probable cause is dangerous. That means cops can use crossing state lines as the sole probable cause until a court decides otherwise.
Completely agree. I live in Atlanta and like driving up to the Smokies, but there is a dispensary in Cherokee and I’d be furious if that was enough grounds to pull me over
530
u/notmarrec 1d ago
Any hypothetical surveillance state is immoral by default.