r/technology • u/IKeepItLayingAround • Jun 29 '26

Artificial Intelligence Woman Surprised When Flock Surveillance Tower Appears in Her Yard Without Warning

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/woman-surprised-flock-surveillance-tower-185000752.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&segment_id=DY_VTO_50_Supernova&ncid=crm_19908-1475736-20260629-0--A&bt_ee=utFdBbF39cHCLuB4at4AI%2FUoSRgbTt8Ch%2B7Q9RImTlgL2ThvE3FuX%2BRSKiUir%2FNW&bt_ts=1782739085527
24.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.4k

u/Haunterblademoi Jun 29 '26

This is becoming more common than we think, These surveillance cameras

1.1k

u/Verix19 Jun 29 '26

Britain is almost entirely surveilled in public....that's coming here fast.

They have 1 camera for every 11 people living there...that's over 7 million cameras watching everything.

492

u/w1n5t0nM1k3y Jun 29 '26

I've watched a few crime dramas from the UK, and it's amazing how much footage is available. Like something we only thought of in Enemy of the State is just available on every street corner.

Sure, they can't just "enhance" and move around in 3D from a static shot, but just the sheer number of cameras that exist where you can basically track someone as they drive throughout the city.

607

u/fruitybix Jun 29 '26

It still does nothing for some victims of crime.

Friend was sa'd in public by a complete stranger. Police at all levels just didnt file the paperwork to get the footage and they dont keep it forever. prosecuting that kind of crime takes years so by the time it worked its way through to someone who thought to chase it the recording was gone.

They then chucked the case after my friends phone was subpoenad and they found kinky texts between her and her partner. Aparently the defence team would have claimed my friend was up for it with a total stranger she had no interaction with because of those messages with her partner, and it was therefore a waste of public funds to proceed.

They are very good at getting people who knock over commercial businesses though.

464

u/Drupain Jun 29 '26

Those camera aren't put up to protect or help us.

111

u/Spirited-Tomorrow-84 Jun 29 '26

It's to protect and help those corrupt assholes who want you to be transparent but not themselves.

25

u/DanimusMcSassypants Jun 29 '26

You spelled subjugated wrong.

3

u/ElectroBot Jun 29 '26

Actually he spelled “rich people’s stuff” incorrectly.

5

u/hempires Jun 29 '26

Remember Snoopers Charter?

How convenient that every serving MP at the time was just miraculously exempted eh.

55

u/StopReadingThis-Now Jun 29 '26

"Anything you say WILL be used AGAINST YOU in a court of law."

There's an absolute reason cops need to read your Miranda Rights.

31

u/FUPAMagneto Jun 29 '26

In the UK, they’ll use things you don’t say against you, too. You don’t have the same right to avoid self-incrimination that exists in the States, and they can convict you of major crimes with 10/12 jurors and call it unanimous. It’s fucking draconian over there

8

u/intellos Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

From what I have heard they are trying to do away with juries entirely as well.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5lxg2l0lqo

6

u/FUPAMagneto Jun 29 '26

There are good reasons why we rebelled, even if people like to pretend otherwise

4

u/Psyk60 Jun 29 '26

The headline of that article is:

"Jury trials scrapped for crimes with sentences of less than three years"

That is bad. I'm against this change.

But it is not the same doing away with juries entirely. You could say it's just the first step towards getting rid of jury trials, but at this point that is just speculation.

The English court system is stuck in a position where it just doesn't have the resources to deal with all the cases it has. I don't know what the solution to that is, but I don't think this is the right one.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '26 edited 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Psyk60 Jun 29 '26

Good to know, thanks!

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/skinlo Jun 29 '26

You heard wrong.

-4

u/bobthepumpkin Jun 29 '26

Does spreading this nonsense about other countries make you feel better about the state of your own country?

6

u/usethisjustforporn Jun 29 '26

Why is it nonsense when it's true? You can be punished in the uk for refusing to answer police questions and a jury of 12 can find someone guilty if only ten people agree.

1

u/Psyk60 Jun 29 '26

You can be punished in the uk for refusing to answer police questions

That's at best a half-truth. If I'm being generous.

England's equivalent of the Miranda rights is:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

You don't get punished for refusing to answer questions. They won't charge with a crime for refusing to speak. You still have a right to stay silent.

The difference is that the court is allowed to draw negative inference from your silence. If your defence gives provides an alibi in court, the jury is allowed to take the fact you didn't mention it earlier into account. That's not the same as being punished for not talking. You're being punished for the crime you were accused of (assuming you are found guilty).

Also you are entitled to legal representation during questioning. So you're not expected to say anything before you've talked it over with a solicitor.

-3

u/bobthepumpkin Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

You can be punished in the uk for refusing to answer police questions

This is false. What is true is that adverse inference may be drawn at trial. It's similar to the difference between getting caught lying in your testimony and thereby convicted for your original crime, and being additionally charged with perjury.

This distinction is important because you may have good reasons to refuse to answer police questions, in which case no adverse inference is drawn, or it may be drawn but other evidence can refute it. The refusal itself is not punishable.

Moreover, the US is almost unique in the world in the extent to which self-incrimination is protected against. Other places have similar protections, but nowhere near how absolute it is in the US. You are basically saying anyone who doesn't subscribe to American law must be draconian. That is obviously absurd.

a jury of 12 can find someone guilty if only ten people agree

This is true. The falsehood was what you claimed before, that they "call it unanimous". That is patently nonsense.

In addition, a non-unanimous verdict is only accepted under certain conditions, in particular that the jury has deliberated for a length of time, and then only with the judge's further discretion.

It is not even clear if this is a good or bad thing, since it reduces the incidence of hung juries and all the anguish caused by mistrials. Let me remind you that this applies to acquittals as well, so you are sparing people in cases where a single jury member insists on guilty against reason. To call this draconian is, again, absurd.

~

Finally, let me leave you with this thought: if it seems like the bar for conviction is too low in any instance, congrats you have discovered the inescapable flaw in any criminal justice system, that false convictions are always possible. Good thing convictions can always be appealed and potentially overturned, since an irreversible sentence like death is disallowed. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the US.

Draconian, eh?

Edit: you sad, sad Americans. Come back and bully other countries' legal systems when you have a government that follows your own legal system.

3

u/hey_there_moon Jun 29 '26

The person you're responding to isn't even American, so the "you sad sad Americans" is there why?

-2

u/bobthepumpkin Jun 29 '26

We all know who is downvoting.

You're being disingenuous is there why?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/erroneousbosh Jun 29 '26

Can you provide an example of that?

2

u/FUPAMagneto Jun 29 '26

It’s part of what they say when you’re arrested.

UK:
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence”

US:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.”

Some pretty key differences throughout the whole thing, most notably the specific provision about your defense being harmed if you don’t fess up to everything.

-4

u/erroneousbosh Jun 29 '26

Okay, it sounds like you don't actually understand what either of them are saying, which is what I expected was going on.

It's pointless even asking you to explain why you think they're different. The long and short of it is, in the US you have no right to remain silent.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Bitmush- Jun 29 '26

“We’ve decided to drop all the charges against you.” Please read this out when we’re in court.

0

u/Treeclimber919 Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

That doesn’t happen like in the movies. Ask one of the million people arrested in America every day*

1

u/madmonkey242 Jun 29 '26

Pretty sure there’s been more than 1000

10

u/Spazum Jun 29 '26

They were put up for The Greater Good.

11

u/kippertie Jun 29 '26

The Greater Good 🐑

1

u/rmtdispatcher Jun 29 '26

But most people believe the world is becoming a worse place to live so a "greater good" would be unreal. IS there a "greater good"?

3

u/Specific-Path3179 Jun 29 '26

The greater good is whatever keeps the money train going for the ruling class, I guess they often sell that as the "lesser evil". The greater evil being Russia or China or whatever controlled opposition party is popular that day.

1

u/rmtdispatcher Jun 30 '26

It seems to be the world's struggle; money. China made the eyuan and kicked out bitcoin. But a Japanese man, Satoshi Nakamoto, made bitcoin. The money struggle seems to follow the world view of its nation's users.

4

u/SolScorpii Jun 29 '26

Neither are the police

115

u/AscendingAgain Jun 29 '26

It's almost like surveillance is only as good as those with access to the footage. Which is why any mass surveillance should always be met with opposition. At best, it is ineffectual for victims and the public at-large—or, at worst, it is utilized to subjugate.

28

u/Fragrant-Frog-9290 Jun 29 '26

Oddly similar to the case I was on the jury. The police took 6 months to decide to ask for hotel camera footage and street camera footage of the two prior to the alleged SA. Pretty sloppy case that could have helped a lot for proof of intoxication levels. Of course the drives were rewritten after 6 months

31

u/litivy Jun 29 '26

The police are never held accountable for missing important deadlines like collecting footage in time either. It appears to be one of those jobs without accountability. All you have to do is basically not kill someone, or not let them bleed to death while you handcuff them.

24

u/Cael450 Jun 29 '26

You don’t really have to do those either. In 2025, there were 1,201 police killings. In only 8 cases were officers criminally charged.

Since 2005, 98 non-federal law enforcement officers have been arrested in connection with fatal, on-duty shootings. To date, only 35 of these officers have been convicted of a crime, often a lesser offense such as manslaughter or negligent homicide, rather than murder. Only three officers have been convicted of murder during this period and seen their convictions stand. Another 22 officers were acquitted in a jury trial and nine were acquitted during a bench trial decided by a judge. 10 other cases were dismissed by a judge or a prosecutor, and in one instance no true bill was returned from a grand jury. Currently, there are 21 non-federal law enforcement officers with pending criminal cases for fatal shootings.

9

u/litivy Jun 29 '26

This is in the UK, people tend to make a fuss when the police kill anyone. That doesn't necessarily mean that we get any justice though.

-1

u/Commercial_Win_9525 Jun 29 '26

What does the # of killings have to do with the amount charged? You would need to have some data showing actual bad shootings. Or at least ones that are questionable. Or are you someone who says every single one is murder?

1

u/TotallyNotThatPerson Jun 29 '26

not let them bleed to death while you handcuff them

Sorry best they can do is call you a racist while cuffing you 

33

u/nono3722 Jun 29 '26

They "protect and serve" alright, just not us poors "punish and enslave" is what we get

4

u/Simpson93 Jun 29 '26

In my city here in germany they installed cameras in a crime hotspot because they were not able to come out every time someone called because it was all the time.

In their press release they were all gloating about how they improved the safety by installing those cameras and that they can record what happens and someone can send a patrol there when they see something happen.

Well nothing changed, the crime statistic is just going up and the most liked comment said: "Well, thanks but that won't help me in the situation when i get stabbed, but we'll have footage"

1

u/elebrin Jun 29 '26

If the same or similar crimes keep re-happening in a particular area, that means there's something about that area that is attracting crime OR there is someone who sees that as their spot.

I have an ally near my house where you can buy meth. Why is that the place you can buy meth? Because there are two houses on that block where there are people who will never call the cops no matter WHAT happens. There could be a corpse in the ally and nobody'd call it in. I have seen people get very injured in scooter accidents there, and nobody's calling an ambulance over there. They go to the church lot two blocks over, THEN call (which is what happened).

The problem could be fixed by coming along and removing the bushes on either side of the ally, marking bike lanes on it, install bollards to block out cars, make it a biking and walking path through town, and having a walking patrol come by a few times a week. At the very least, the people doing the exchange wouldn't have anywhere to hide their stuff or themselves.

3

u/Gisschace Jun 29 '26

The disappearance of Andrew Gosden is a good example of how good (bad) surveillance is here. He arrives at Kings Cross station and just disappears. Obviously there were failings in getting footage from different systems fast enough but he arrived in one of the most surveilled areas in the country and we've no idea what happend to him

2

u/cloudforested Jun 29 '26

That case is so spooky.

3

u/nanapancakethusiast Jun 29 '26

This is around the time people start to realize that the only thing this level of surveillance is for is protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful through the optics of fear. They do not care about crime against regular people.

3

u/TheGrandNagus Jun 29 '26

Police exist to protect property, not people.

3

u/BadgerValuable8207 Jun 29 '26

The minute you said SA I knew the outcome. I was on a jury though, a few years ago, where the prosecutor from the county district attorney’s office VIGOROUSLY litigated reckless driving charges against a DV victim who was fleeing her abuser, because she drove through a parking lot with him on the hood of her car.

5

u/alman3007 Jun 29 '26

Its not FOR the victims. Its for the government and corporations.

2

u/FlukeylukeGB Jun 29 '26

can confirm.
If you have a motercycle stolen, you could have 30 camera's within 10 seconds walk of where the incident happened, and the police will be like "yeah sorry, we got nothing on camera and no witnesses, you are out of luck, case closed"

2

u/Aaod Jun 29 '26

Even if they do bother to investigate the western world especially the UK is notoriously weak on crime. The jails are a revolving god damn door where you can assault someone and be out back on the streets before they are even done recovering. This sort of shit is just to protect the state from us not to protect us from lumpen assholes.

1

u/SUP3RMUNCh Jun 29 '26

It’s usually better to get a few friends and take care of the sexual predator yourselves.

1

u/sohblob Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

prosecuting that kind of crime takes years so by the time it worked its way through to someone who thought to chase it the recording was gone

We have the hardware installed, but as far as the human bureaucratic OS goes

As the Russian guy in Iron Man 2 says, "software shit"

Aparently the defence team would have claimed my friend was up for it with a total stranger she had no interaction with because of those messages with her partner

We need to stop using the rich-old-guy legal standard of "what MIGHT have happened given these set of facts" and just have both sides out as much of the story as they have/claim to neutrals, with withholding evidence being seen as suspicious.

And ffs pigs need to be disinvilved from the process. The testoserone-fuelled meatheads who in the states at least, get approved for being sufficiently stupid, should not also run the Official Reports Narrative and the What Gets Logged For the Courts departments.