[speak_plainly]

This is a good thing for travellers.

In border security there are generally two camps, one that uses data and intelligence to go after the worst, large-scale criminal operations and networks, and generally makes travelling easy for the average person, and the other is like traditional cops using traditional tactics… the kind that will miss the person smuggling a kilogram of cocaine in their suitcase but will go after the old man who didn’t declare a pair of socks he bought on a trip. They generally make travel awful.

Support the intelligence-driven side of border security and reject the traditional cop camp.

[afarah1]

The same can be said about Flock, or other surveillance state mechanisms.

It's good for security, it's more convenient than police doing police work.

Until it's not. Until it's hacked or abused as powerful mechanisms commonly are.

[arlort]

There's some level of difference to be fair

Hacking is a concern in both but the bigger issue is potential for abuse of power.

In the case of border checks the target is by necessity someone that isn't a citizen. This means that:

1. We generally afford them less safeguards than citizens so it creates less precedent (both legal and in terms of overton window)

2. The potential for abuse is ultimately less because a traveler on a short term visa is unlikely to still be in the country / unable to leave if a hostile government comes to power and intends to abuse the data

Also fingerprints and a picture are significantly less invasive than pervasive video surveillance in public spaces

[CrimsonRain]

Some amount of surveillance leads to a better society. See SG. Flock is needed for current USA. That's why idiots are up against it.

[t0mpr1c3]

Flock is run by incompetants. Their systems are comically insecure and access is easily abused. And the amount of surveillance data they routinely collect is not small. There needed to be a lot more discuss of who is doing the surveillance, how, and why before this was foisted on the public.

[CrimsonRain]

Then that should be fixed instead of vandalizing.

And let's be honest, that's not why "some" people are against them.

[t0mpr1c3]

Sure, sure. Innocent people have nothing to hide.

I have never advocated vandalism. I do advocate for oversight.

[aiisjustanif]

Please explain why Flock is needed.

[CrimsonRain]

Please visit Singapore.

[samsartor]

I want to agree with this. My fear is that governments and corporations love using technology to launder evil shit. Once security is automated, entire groups of people can be quickly and effortlessly disenfranchised by flipping a bool on a server somewhere. No appeal, no recourse, no human faces. You get to find out from some LLM that you aren't allowed in the country anymore because the "algorithm" identitifed you as a risk. uwu so sawd

It only works if the "intellence-driven security" is being developed in good faith.

[khuey]

That already happens. Witness all the random "bans" and "pauses" Trump has instituted against various nationalities and groups of people at the border.

[twothreeone]

> one that uses data and intelligence to go after the worst, large-scale criminal operations and networks

History shows that the main question with government and data collection is not "what X makes life easier for citizens" but "who collects/uses X and for what purpose". In the happy case, this may be all well and peachy. The case people rightfully worry about is not that case.

[traceroute66]

> In border security there are generally two camps

Well, there is a third camp. Israeli-style bio-social profiling of 100% of travelers.

That really makes travel awful !

[anvuong]

Tbf Israel has more concern than travelers' comfort, given everything happening around them AND maybe within them too.

[MSFT_Edging]

Those auto-turrets wont discriminate by themselves

[skrebbel]

Hey that’s not what “intelligence” means. What you’re arguing for is data-driven automation, taking the human out of the loop. You’re describing “computer says no” level border control, with Google-level human support (ie none) and somehow spinning that as better than real human cops doing what they do best.

Maybe this resonates in the American case where cops are notoriously undertrained and over-violent, but I gotta say it sounds extremely dystopian to me. All-power computerized control isn’t “intelligence”.

It’s also a false dichotomy. You can have lots of automation with humans in the loop. Humans can use automation to be faster and this is common.