[superkuh]

This is good. But unfortunately it doesn't mean the Flock cameras will be removed because the city doesn't own them. Flock does. And Flock will likely want to keep them there. In other cities when the contract is canceled or let expire Flock prevented those cities from removing the cameras. Some had to resort to covering them with trash bags because they could not legally remove them. This happened in Dayton, Ohio and many other cities. https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/cities-covering-flock-surv...

> "Some locals have taken matters into their own hands by dismantling Flock cameras and covering them with trash bags"

This techcrunch article incorrectly characterizes this need and required behavior as something done by random citizens. But it is actually the cities themselves having to resort to it, totally officially and legally, because of Flock behaving badly.

[buzer]

Aren't the cameras on city's land or did city lease the land to Flock? If they are on city's land couldn't city require that Flock removes their stuff from city's property or city will do it on Flock's expense?

[MengerSponge]

I've seen videos of flock cameras installed improperly (missing a breakaway device) right next to roads. The city must be able to remove unsafe devices!

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/local-rural/maintenance-sign...

[bdavbdav]

Presumably the license to surveil the city is extended to flock by the city? Presumably they should be able to compel them to disable them, and provide proof of this (whether they’re trusted or not…)

[kortilla]

I think the problem is that people are allowed to set up cameras of public spaces without requiring any “license to surveil”.

[nemomarx]

are they on land flock owns though? I don't think I could go put up a camera on city infrastructure like traffic lights without their permission. does flock buy a lot of little permissions to install and power their cameras or something?

[cucumber3732842]

I assure you that if I slapped a camera on city infrastructure they would absolutely find some license or permission that I don't have and threaten me with a million+ dollar fine over it.

[logancbrown]

Making recording in public require a license is a very easy way to cut free speech and document wrong-doing of a system.

[srameshc]

Thanks !! It is so easy to assume that ending contract means turning off the cameras. Hopefully ciities can fight back harder for them to remove them, specially when people don't want that surveillance.

[bombcar]

It could also mean "we get the cameras for free now ..."

[bko]

I don't know, I'd prefer cops have access to technology that helps them apprehend criminals and enforce the law. Better audits and accountability are the solution, not removing technology.

[hightrix]

I do know.

I do not want to live in a society that is under 24/7 surveillance. Of course, if the cops can watch everything you do all the time, there will be less crime. But that is not a sacrifice I’m willing to make.

[annoyingnoob]

> if the cops can watch everything you do all the time, there will be less crime

I disagree there. If cops watch us at all times then more crimes will be prosecuted, think they'll just sit bored with nothing happening? They will find things, real or not.

The reality is that crime is way down, we do not need more enforcement. Leave us alone already. https://www.opencrime.us/years

[bko]

What planet do you live on? Go to a low crime neighborhood. Cops are super friendly and basically spend their day happily helping old ladies cross the street or getting cats down from trees.

If you think cops like cracking heads and dealing with petty crime that they'll just invent otherwise and use to harass people, you're out of your mind. You really need to get out more.

[ethagnawl]

You're right and wrong. The first paragraph is absolutely accurate -- I live near some of these areas (SW Connecticut) and the contrast is stark.

The second is not. There are absolutely people who take pleasure in the bullying behavior cops are often associated with. They're the ones who want the cushy jobs in Greenwich but don't get them (probably for the aforementioned reasons in many cases) and wind up being doubly punitive and cruel to people in Bridgeport.

[bko]

Violent crime / property crime per 100k people:

Bridgeport ~393 ~1,700

Greenwich ~9.4 ~867

More cops, more crime! In other news, wet sidewalks cause rain.

[mrguyorama]

>Go to a low crime neighborhood. Cops are super friendly and basically spend their day happily helping old ladies cross the street or getting cats down from trees.

>If you think cops like cracking heads

They adore getting to crack heads. That's the entire reason they became cops. They love being able to use their power, rightfully or not, they don't really care.

Cops themselves say this!

[MiloLeo]

I could show you 10,000 yt videos that show there are plenty of cops that abuse power and harass.

[bko]

Police body cameras have completely dispelled this notion and are a god-send to the vast majority of police officers that want to do good work. So much so the left has turned against them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP4_2soVZe0

[bko]

Cool, I choose to live in a highly policed neighborhood with well funded police. Essentially a gated community.

You can enjoy your "freedom", but based on the real estate prices, I think more people have my preference.

[tremon]

Yeah, right. That's why the rich were the first to have the city install Flock cameras on their lawns and driveways, right?

[bko]

Thats not necessary. They have the loving embrace of Nest cameras connected directly to Google. Gladly share footage when there's a string of property crimes. Whats your point?

[etdznots]

Why not live in China? It’s even safer!

[annoyingnoob]

What is a dragnet? Why are dragnets illegal?

Flock is essentially a private loophole that creates a nationwide dragnet.

[goobatrooba]

Cameras don't prevent crime, they just increase the cost of doing so (or the cost of preparing for it).

Most crime is spontaneous. Plenty of examples from across the world that installing cameras or other checks at best shifts crime to other areas.

[bko]

I'll take shifting crime as long as it's away from me.

Camera's 100% prevent crime because you catch the bad guy, and in a sane society lock the person up so he can no longer commit crime. See how that works?

[krupan]

C'mon, you aren't going far enough. Catching someone after the crime was committed is not preventing the crime. You need AI to watch the cameras non stop and alert you before someone commits a crime ;-)

[whatjustin]

> I'm cool with zero privacy if it means cops can arrest people more easily since they have perfect judgement

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin

[bko]

Grant me the liberty to camp out on a public sidewalk and use hard drugs in a children's playground or give me death!

[undersuit]

I think you should have the liberty to do both but there should be no reason for anyone to do so. Your two instances are happening because that's what available for them.

[bko]

Lets make it not available to them, deal?

[undersuit]

No.

[orthecreedence]

I don't know, I'd prefer the cops do their jobs and solve crime without the state having intimate knowledge of my whereabouts and activities any time I enter the public sphere.

[8note]

while cops are impossible to hold accountable, id prefer to give them fewer capabilities rather than more

[vablings]

I don't think this is true. With the advent of body cameras, cellphones with cameras and FOIA requests you can build a good case if someone violates your rights. The bigger issues are that there is little to no consequence of a flagrant violation of rights because the police union is VERY protective over its members.

[richwater]

The ability to make a case is directly related to how much free time you have and how much money you are able to spend.

We cannot just wave this away when the vast majority of people cannot take off time from work or afford to hire attorneys when their rights are violated.

[glaslong]

Time you have also directly bounded by how alive you are after the event