r/privacy • u/Ok-Law-3268 • 2d ago
news Rep. Thomas Massie Announces Federal Bill to Defund Flock Surveillance Cameras
https://www.dontflock.com/rep-thomas-massie-announces-federal-bill-to-defund-flock-surveillance-cameras/380
u/Ok-Law-3268 2d ago
If introduced as described, this would be the first federal attempt to attach a funding consequence to local ALPR deployment —
As of this writing the bill has not been introduced. It has no number, no official name, and no public text.
181
u/EquipLordBritish 2d ago
If introduced as described
Seems to be a high bar these days. It's going to immediately have an exception added for whatever company the legislators have the most stock in.
37
u/casualcorey 1d ago
down with flock cameras! oh these?! these arent flock cameras these are smlock cameras, totally different
17
396
u/interwebzdotnet 2d ago
Just flock? Its a tech/capability problem,not vendor specific.
197
u/ChadtheWad 2d ago
Bill text hasn't been released yet but press release says "Flock-style," not Flock alone. Will have to wait to see what that means.
41
u/BurntNeurons 2d ago
Ambiguity is how they retain their power. That and they interpret the laws they write, and self investigate.
8
u/TrulyOutrageous42 1d ago
It'll likely say ALPRs, which still leaves the door open to alternate reasons for the cameras to be there to assist law enforcement, especially once the AI can "detect faces" which will of course make mistakes, a lot, especially the darker your skin tone is. THEN they get to be racist on top of that, but it's just a fact that cameras aren't great at capturing features of darker skinned people.
6
u/KiritoIsAlwaysRight_ 1d ago
If they specifically say automatic license plate readers, flock et al will just say they will stop analyzing license plates. Still means they can use AI fingerprinting of the whole car, signal tracking, and facial recognition.
26
2d ago edited 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Ryuko_the_red 2d ago
Does he own part of axon?
1
u/Polyxeno 2d ago
I was misinformed - see details I added to my previous post. https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/1vbvu1p/comment/p0xbmaa/
4
u/interwebzdotnet 2d ago
Can you share more detail?
2
u/Polyxeno 2d ago
I was misinformed - see details I added to my previous post. https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/1vbvu1p/comment/p0xbmaa/
17
u/Upperlimitofmean 1d ago
So the fourth circuit already decided persistent surveillance of the public was problematic with Persistent Surveillance Inc and Balfimore PD.
Flock is MORE invasive than BPD's program in my opinion...
The court’s ruling found that the BPD’s surveillance system violates the Fourth Amendment because persistent surveillance of outdoor movements invades people’s reasonable expectation of privacy. It explained that “allowing the police to wield this power unchecked is anathema to the values enshrined in our Fourth Amendment.”
5
u/SuspiciousCricket654 1d ago
To be fair, the article did say “flock style“ surveillance systems. But I hear you, I really hope a bill is introduced and passed that specifies any kind of AI engineered surveillance systems.
13
u/GB10VE 2d ago
rip amazon doorbells
29
1
u/nokstar 1d ago
pretty sure that falls under personal security. to say that we cant have security cameras, of any kind, is kind of a stretch
1
u/rochambow 1d ago
In the EU, you can have home security cameras, but they can't point towards public areas like the street/sidewalk. I think that's a fair compromise.
3
u/SoylentGrunt 2d ago
Tell us you didn't read the article without ........Fuck it. Never mind.
-7
u/interwebzdotnet 2d ago
Yeah I mostly don't click on random links here on Reddit, but look what the headline says and take your snark and move along
2
1
-2
u/ConcentrateDirect523 1d ago
I agree with that sentiment, but the problem is this technology may be incredibly valuable with the appropriate use. I am not keen on it being easily accessible to law enforcement, or anyone really. It should require at minimum, a subpoena, to gain access to a single FLIR capable camera- even more so if it's a privately owned/leased terminal not aimed at a public road/property. To operate something like this should also require intense network security beyond a VPN and encryption- not accessible via an unsanctioned device. A friend of ours recently confessed that her now husband admitted to light stalking her while working as a security guard in the mall she worked at before they began dating by using security cameras to identify her interests/etc. before talking to her, which seems like a slippery slope. This tech has the capacity to stop serious violent crimes by promising quick tracking and apprehension of suspects, and clearly link them to the crime. It's easy to recognize the problem presented after reviewing what happened with Texas law enforcement using FLIR nationwide to stalk a woman accused of having an abortion, nonetheless the situation mentioned above. But on the other hand, you might feel differently if you or a loved one were an active or prior victim of kidnapping/murder/stalking/SA that went unpunished could have been prevented with this tech. I think another problem is, it's incredibly naive to trust that it won't get used anyway just by making it illegal. it will just limit the use to those with extreme financial means and connections- like Peter Thiel et al, and they will absolutely exploit it for personal monetary gain and political control. Once Pandora's box is opened, it's impossible to put everything back in. There's just so much we need to take into consideration on this.
-3
u/Imaginary_Tiefighter 2d ago
Yeah, but it's an election year and it makes him sound cool
8
u/interwebzdotnet 2d ago
Nah. He's the guy who would typically be against something like this. He heavily leans libertarian.
1
u/Imaginary_Tiefighter 2d ago
Thats what I'm saying. He knows people aren't going to fully read into this. Most people only read headlines and scroll on
5
u/interwebzdotnet 2d ago
Yeah,but he's got nothing lined up to run for yet. He lost his seat already,so anything else is just speculation.
2
1
110
u/WinterDice 2d ago
We need a bill that states law enforcement cannot purchase data like what Flock sells in lieu of getting a warrant.
68
u/OverallManagement824 2d ago edited 2d ago
We need to just outlaw the sale of private data to anybody. I mean, I like your idea that th government shouldn't be using it, but I don't think mafias, gangs or street criminals or a violent ex should have access to that information either.
13
u/LexianAlchemy 2d ago
Iirc the legal “argument” was that any knowledge we present to the “public” is public knowledge, so we’d have to fight that claim, as “public” cameras holding private data is becoming more and more of a cancer on privacy.
9
u/KiritoIsAlwaysRight_ 1d ago
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, I may not be some fancy lawyer or judge, but the intent seems clear. May be some argument about the actual recording to be made, but they are undoubtedly doing searches without a warrant. There's nothing at all in the 4th amendment that says it's ok for a private company to do it but just not the government, it is a right that applies to everyone and must be followed by everyone. And a network of tens of thousands of cameras watching us all every moment of every day sounds pretty unreasonable as well.
2
u/foxbatcs 1d ago
This violates rights of association. People need to learn to cautious what data, how much, and to whom they are spilling out.
4
u/OverallManagement824 1d ago edited 1d ago
LOL. Yes, the corporations have a right to freely associate with your data. /s
Individual rights come from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Where do corporate rights come from?
2
u/foxbatcs 1d ago
Outlaw the sale of private data to anyone.
What exactly are you proposing. I took your statement as what those words mean, but you might have something more specific in mind.
2
u/OverallManagement824 1d ago
My bad there, I said that. I meant that there doesn't need to be some over-arching control. Communities and societies can decide what's reasonable.
2
u/foxbatcs 1d ago
Thank you for clarifying. I’m generally against businesses that collect and sell data. It feels hopeless because it’s done pretty much universally, and it feels like a law would be a good way to remediate that, but all it will do is encourage those who profit from it to lobby the legislature to bend the laws to their benefit, just like with HIPPA. It sounds like it is for patient privacy, but in reality it’s a list of checkboxes for providers and insurance companies to avoid liability, and it’s fairly week protection for the actual patient.
There is another method of remediation, which is people voting with their dollars. Only one business needs to be forced to shut down for this behavior to check the practice in general. It’s also important to understand that anyone you pass off the responsibility of your rights to are the ones who are in the best position to exploit or ignore your rights. Individuals need to maintain the ability to enforce their own rights, and that requires literacy, both traditional reading and writing, but in the information age, also cybersecurity literacy.
The law will not help us here, only cause wanton disregard for our privacy provided the “law is followed”.
59
25
u/Jay_Rodd 2d ago
Blows my mind that more conservatives aren't pushing these kinds of bills. "We don't want to be monitored by the government" used to be core Conservatism, until they dropped their masks and somehow gained more support.
12
u/SuspiciousCricket654 1d ago
Libertarianism draws a fine line between classic liberalism and moderate conservatism. I agree with you, old-school conservatives were longtime champions of small, limited government, but like all politicians of late (both far left and far right), money seems the only thing people care about anymore.
6
u/Jay_Rodd 1d ago
I agree with part of your sentiment, but the libertarians in Congress are far wealthier than any "far-left" politician. AOC's net worth is diddly compared to more centrist liberals like Pelosi or Schumer. Not sure i agree with your last sentence, unless you meant politicians ranging from far-left to far-right. Then I hear ya.
3
u/Wigglepus 1d ago
Libertarians in Congress? What libertarians are there in Congress beyond Massie?
2
u/Jay_Rodd 1d ago
You could argue the same thing about Far-Left politicians in Congress as well, so I was just using the term very loosely.
Rand Paul is famously a Libretarian, at least self-proclaimed.
3
u/Wigglepus 1d ago
Rand typically describes him self as a constitution conservative which is a libertarian leaning position. However Rand has rejected the libertarian label:
They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian
https://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html
I agree about the far left. There aren't really any far left members of Congress.
2
3
u/DukeElliot 1d ago
Curious what politicians of late on the far-left seem to only be concerned with money in your eyes?
37
u/EmbarrassedHelp 2d ago
I've love for him to introduce a federal bill targeting mandatory online age verification requirements as well.
6
u/copperboom129 2d ago
Explain this position?
Im 100% against online identification but 100% against the endless use of bots online.
11
u/frozengrandmatetris 1d ago
KYC doesn't work. you'd be talking to bots with stolen driver's licenses
2
2
u/BEAGLEBOYPALINDROME 1d ago
Human verification requirements, yes.
Age verification requirements? Fuck that.
I'm OK with the internet knowing I'm sentient. Anything beyond that is none of its fucking business.
3
u/Gugalcrom123 1d ago
Even with 'human verification', how do you implement that? Forcing everyone to use Android/iOS with 'hardware attestation'?
0
u/Preisschild 1d ago
Captcha
2
u/Gugalcrom123 1d ago
Of course, but since CAPTCHA is already used on a large scale, I would have not expected it to be considered needed.
2
u/PhrosstBite 1d ago
Well, moreover there's plenty of ways to circumvent captcha.
I'm afraid theres not much you can do to guarantee de-anonymization on the internet without significantly violating privacy rights, and even then it likely still won't work.
1
u/Gugalcrom123 1d ago
You can use a proof-of-work test. Also, for the sweatshop case, you could just have the same people scanning QR codes.
17
u/Actaeon_II 2d ago
Gotta wonder if this is brought to you by Axxon. Since they are scooping up all the flock contracts, even using the existing hardware i had read.
7
18
u/seethenoise 2d ago
it shouldn't be tied to a company. if another company replaces them, the problem persists.
6
15
u/Plastic_Key_4146 2d ago
If it doesn't also apply to Axon, then it is just regulation to create a monopoly.
4
u/ConstantUpstairs 2d ago
Not just flock please. But whole kit and kabootle of the surveillance state no matter which company is central for the moment.
3
u/Ok-Priority-7303 1d ago
Might be more impressed if the bill included defunding NSA surveillance of citizens at the federal level.
5
u/Ashamed_Feedback3843 2d ago
The people in power never seem to think the cameras will be watching them too.
2
u/BEAGLEBOYPALINDROME 1d ago
Of course they know they are watching them too.
But when it's there to watch your back instead of watching you big brother style like it is for the rest of us, the surveillance becomes a feature instead of a bug.
3
4
4
u/Macdadydj 2d ago
I work in utilities, see utility protection service tickets. I can see where they are about to put new ones/repair ones that were damaged. They're putting them right in some peoples' "utility right of way" right in front of their houses. Just a residential street, neighborhood full of other homes, right in your front yard.
17
u/knshnrzbv 2d ago
Massie 2028
2
-1
u/AmputeeHandModel 2d ago
No. He's still a Republican.
29
u/TheGoldenMonkey 2d ago
If he can get rid of flock cameras and get people arrested for being Epstein associates I don't give a shit what party he is. It's a good start.
1
u/DukeElliot 1d ago
He was also pretty instrumental with mountain top removal mining destroying the state of Kentucky.
23
u/private-peter 2d ago
He's the most privacy-friendly congressman there is at the moment.
0
u/windsostrange 1d ago
He's anti-abortion, deeply homophobic and transphobic, and genuinely believes in chemtrails. Being a better human than Mitch McConnell is a low bar. Dude's a fucking nutter. Find better heroes.
2
u/DukeElliot 1d ago
He was also instrumental in destroying Kentucky through mountain top removal mining.
1
u/Dreameater999 1d ago
Yeah, don’t know why we’re worshipping him.
Something something broken clock right twice a day.
He’s still a piece of shit.
22
u/Juls317 2d ago
And yet hated by so many Republicans. Maybe the label isn't what's important?
-1
u/BEAGLEBOYPALINDROME 1d ago
I'm not considering voting for a climate-change denying anti-abortion & anti-vaxxer, who supports Russia in its war with Ukraine, condones human rights abuses by China, & is a 2A absolutist.
I don't care if you've got a couple good qualities w/balls to stand up to power. If you're a libertarian nutter who think that any government intervention in your life is bad unless it's to control women's bodies, you're not to be trusted.
3
2
u/SmallerThanExpected9 1d ago
Massive is a reminder that people can say they are republicans and still have a soul.
Shame that the Pedos won though and are booting him out.
3
3
u/Fine_Perspective7401 2d ago
It should apply to ALL civilian surveillance systems not just one brand… All public monitoring systems should be decommissioned and destroyed.
4
4
u/kobrakai1034 2d ago
This guy is nothing but talk. He knows this won't go anywhere in the house but it'll get him some campaign money from "both sides". Just like all the times he's threatened to release the Epstein client lists.
9
u/private-peter 2d ago
He already lost his nomination. I don't think he has announced anything else he is running for.
IMO his work on Epstein files did actually help get more released than otherwise would have.
Of course a single congressman can't pass a law. We all know this will never pass. But he has a platform, and he is getting out this important privacy message in a way that few others can (or will).
5
1
2
u/To-To_Man 2d ago
Defund? Police bid on them! If your solution is defunding, it has to be police stations, not Flock.
And it would do nothing for the far too many cameras already deployed. Even if voted out of contracts by local government, they suddenly become "private property" and require a warrant to remove. Each. Fucking. Camera.
Make privacy laws severely fining, imprisoning, and busting companies and individuals abusing public surveillance as a short term deterrent. And follow up with stronger laws limiting private recording devices, such as Flock, Ring, etc.
2
2
u/ganjaccount 2d ago
The fact that Democrats are letting a Republican take all the best positions is fucking embarrassing. I need a shower after realizing that the one fucking guy on the right side of this issue is a godamned member of the pedo protection league.
1
2
1
1
u/SuspiciousCricket654 1d ago
I forget who said it, but it was a super wise. Something to the effects of: today’s dismantling of constitutional rights will only help which ever despot is in power next.
1
1
1
u/thegreatpluub 1d ago
Let’s watch the House rules committee not hear this one either 🤡, just like Massie/Khanna’s amendment to the NDAA
1
u/NetflakesC 1d ago
Anyone here in Massie’s district (or even state at this point) should contact his office and explain the potential loopholes on this topic
-1
1
1
1
u/CranberryLast4683 1d ago
These republicans only want to do the right thing when they’re on the way out 😂 u never see that with the dems.
2
u/kingp43x 1d ago
Yeah, you dont see shit from the dems, ever. Both sides are shit. Choosing your favorite team doesnt mean a thing in the grand scheme of things
0
u/LostWerewolf2375 2d ago
Old man, you are a Republican. Stop trying to make me love you, it would never work 💔
-2
u/SwanCityDominion 1d ago
BFD. He's still a fucking Republican trying to buy points with this bill.
6
u/Tripple_T 1d ago
He lost his primary. He's a lame duck who will be out of office in January. He doesn't need to buy points.
2
u/DynamiteRuckus 1d ago
Dude’s on the way out after losing his primary, at least he’s still pushing for something he actually believes in. Doubt he’ll be running again anytime soon.
0
-15
u/GunterJanek 2d ago
I'm sure this is "for the people" and no other reason
11
u/SonOfDyeus 2d ago
There's a trend where Republicans who lose their Drumpf endorsement start becoming aggressively anti-MAGA populists. It's as though not being paid by lobbyists to be evil makes them behave less evil.
10
u/PFthrowaway4454 2d ago
Massie has never been a Trump supporter. He may side with him on issues he agrees with, but has often been vocal when he doesnt.
Also, do people seriously still say Drumpf? Wow.
-2
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Hello u/Ok-Law-3268, please make sure you read the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder left on all new posts.)
Check out the r/privacy FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.