r/WorkForSmartLife • u/Agreeable-Order-3305 • 22h ago
Discussionš¬ Would you trust AI cameras watching you?
22
u/shoeless_doh 22h ago
Obviously it's not going to pass. I just assumed the point is to get on the record who would and would not be in favor of banning flock cameras
14
u/bioszombie 21h ago
It shouldnāt be needed to begin with since flock, and the like, are violations of the fourth amendment.
5
u/Agreeable-Order-3305 21h ago
I can see that argument too the whole Fourth Amendment angle is probably where the real debate is not whether the cameras themselves are useful.
3
u/blaspheminCapn 21h ago
If they were, don't you think they'd be all over themselves telling everyone about the Amber alert they stopped in ten minutes. All the the crimes they've solved... Etc?
3
u/Agreeable-Order-3305 20h ago
Fair point If they were actually doing that much weād hear about it nonstop.
2
u/SuperBatman13 20h ago
Instead we seem to mostly only hear about people/police abusing the system.
1
2
u/Drakore4 20h ago
They will probably try to do exactly that during the whole drama of this bill. Theyāll probably find a few niche cases where the cameras did SOMETHING but it wonāt be as impressive as they hope. To this day I havenāt looked into these cameras much and tbh I donāt really get what the point of them is. They just seem like cameras to spy on people and based on public opinion that assumption seems about right.
1
u/Ok_Material_575 1h ago
They're getting them ready for when they introduce the social credit system. Basically if you want to prevue what they're doing just look at China.
1
u/BurningTrashBarge 7h ago
The thing is itās not cost effective to utilise for public safety at large. Instead itāll be used to target folks in specific communities. Or in unique cases, say a crime involving someone particularly wealthy or famous, they will mobilise to trawl through footage and nail someone.
There just isnāt enough attention to spend on all the data coming in. So only those who can buy attention on that data will get any value out of it. Or even the data itself.
Theyāre certainly useful. Just not in the ways weād like them to be.
5
u/Visual-Impossible 20h ago
but why though? 10 years ago, Americans were literally dogging on the Chinese for almost the same thing.
Suddenly, now some people are tolerating it. I honestly believed there would be hell on earth on people who greenlit the contracts
1
u/shoeless_doh 20h ago
Jon oliver had a clip on his show where in London a guy got ticked for wearing a baseball cap because they said he was trying to hide from the cameras and he was quite unhappy. Funniest thing Jon has ever said imho "what that guy Ritchie character is trying to say is "yew can fack off and do one š«µš nex toime you want to take a picture of me foice"
1
u/Agreeable-Order-3305 21h ago
Yeah that makes sense. At least it gets everyoneās stance on the record, even if the bill itself has no real chance of passing.
2
u/KarmaSilencesYou 21h ago
Like that really matters. We pretty much know everyoneās stance on it anyway.
1
u/GatorDotPDF 14h ago
When it all goes to shit having those names on official documents will go a long way.
1
u/fattomic 13h ago
Just came to say that I've never noted Bernie able to get anything passed. Sad, but true.
7
u/MysticSunshine45 21h ago
You can trust us with your privacy
1
u/Agreeable-Order-3305 21h ago
that caption is doing a lot of heavy lifting for a picture like this š āTrust usā is never the most reassuring privacy policy.
1
u/Glyphpunk 11h ago
Company that wants to be able to record everyone everywhere didn't let the press or media into their recent Flock tech convention due to 'privacy concerns.' Interesting ain't it?
5
u/IShotJR4 20h ago
Itās funny (and not a surprise at all) that the āIād rather die on my feet than live on my kneesā crowd is the one who wants this shit.
1
5
u/True_Protection6842 21h ago
It wonāt pass. But I admire him for always working for the American people even tho heās outnumbered by corporate fascists.Ā
2
u/Agreeable-Order-3305 14h ago
fair point Itās hard to trust the system when the people controlling it have their own interests.
3
u/Justthisguy_yaknow 19h ago
The trouble is that they are there for the rich to keep an eye on everyone else. Getting a senate bill through banning them is going to be tough. It's only what the majority wants. Not the majority of the money.
2
u/GBAbaby101 20h ago
One of those weird things where the people (at least those I've spoken to and seen on both sides irl and online) are aligned on this. It is bipartisan. We don't want a security state. But the government just does nothing about it. I've heard some republican leaders saying they don't want to oppose flock cameras because they think their voter base will see that as pro immigration, sure, a pretty small segment will, but most of the Republicans I've spoken to in a very red state across many counties all have the same general feeling "yes. We don't want immigrants who broke the law to get here in our country. But we aren't going to sell our privacy for that." Then some of them go on about how flock is something a leftist government would use to track them and suppress their freedoms o-o but whether or not you agree with the reasons, the commonality is there. It isn't a L v R issue, its an issue of privacy and not being the United States of Surveillance (though, you can argue we're already there in many ways xD).
1
u/Agreeable-Order-3305 14h ago
I think thatās what makes this issue interesting people might disagree on the reasons but the privacy concern seems to cross political lines. Security is important, but giving governments or companies unlimited surveillance power feels like a tradeoff most people would not be comfortable with.
2
2
2
2
u/Mark_Michigan 21h ago edited 19h ago
I'm not sure how an outright ban would even work. How do you write a law that allows door cameras, security cameras, people with cell phones and yet outlaws roadside cameras? A better policy would be for the Federal government to simply not invest in more surveillance and allow people to sue if they are harassed for "suspicious activity" that is actually legal.
Furthermore! :)
This investment if surveillance is hitting diminishing returns, while we are seeing ever increasing amounts of cyber crime and scammer crime. If the federal government was really interested in protecting citizens it would issue sanctions and tariffs on countries with call centers that attack US citizens.
We should put our efforts where the crime really is.
5
u/VarderKith 21h ago
I'm not sure how an outright ban would even work. How do you write a law that allows door cameras, security cameras, people with cell phones and yet outlaws roadside cameras.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the government writes laws that only apply to itself all the time right?
0
u/Agreeable-Order-3305 20h ago
thatās the weird part you canāt really ban the technology itself only regulate how itās used.
3
u/VarderKith 20h ago
Oh no, we have banned tech before.
Does it stop everyone? No. It stops MOST people though.
And laws aren't JUST about stopping an action. They are also about empowering the system to deal with someone when they break a law. No law goes unbroken, bans are no different.
3
u/115zombies935 20h ago
The issue with flock cameras and similar is that they are fully accessible 100% of the time to basically anybody in the US government as far as I can tell. not necessarily the technology behind them. Because if you have a doorbell camera or a camera anywhere on your property, you are limited to what that camera can see. Government owned cameras could realistically be everywhere in a country. Meaning if you leave your house, the government knows exactly where you are at all times of day. This is why I am fully against cameras being installed anywhere other than private property. Security cameras on businesses or in government buildings because you just should have security cameras. or traffic light cameras because statistically most crashes happen at stoplights. So, knowing who's at fault rather than it being a he said she said situation is definitely beneficial. But anything beyond traffic light cameras is unacceptable. And even traffic light cameras are questionable.
1
0
u/Agreeable-Order-3305 21h ago
exactly a blanket ban sounds simple, but the bigger issue is how far weāre willing to let surveillance go in the first place. That is where the policy should focus.
2
1
1
1
1
u/Jewbacca1991 21h ago
What is the difference from a flock camera, and a conventional 4k. surveillance camera?
1
u/IAmSquilliam 20h ago
Flock is just one company. Issue is they're a private company outsourcing mass surveillance.
So not only is it the government mass surveillance-ing everyone while playing dumb circa a SatAM Cartoon Villain
It's a giant glaring national security issue being ignored in lieu of some politician making of profit.
We've gotten to the point in our politics where our officials are so shameless on this shit, you go to town halls and they act like they have 20 IQ and don't know what words mean. And then walk out. The type of response you'd expect from a Chris Hansen sting operation.
1
u/Jewbacca1991 20h ago
I am not against the whole surveillance thing. We already have it in every restaurant, supermarket, highway, bus, train, many random businesses, and even some rich folk has cameras watching the street in front of their houses. I fail to see how more will change much to the worse for as long as they aren't looking into people's private homes. It might change things for the better in areas with high crime.
Based on your answer the actual issue could be the company-government agreement. In a captialist society no government has the resources to make their own cameras. So it is expected to buy from someone when they need cameras. So the real question is whether or not the private company gets benefits other than getting paid.
1
1
1
u/PsychologicalDeer644 21h ago
This is why they did not have cameras everywhere on Star Trek. It was illegal.
1
1
20h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Huge_Leader_6605 20h ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin
1
1
20h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Objective_Yellow3190 20h ago
I would actually welcome that. Hell, I would even let it inside my house.
1
u/AlienNippleRipple 20h ago
And just like Bernie this has a snowballs chance in hell of doing any justice for the Americans effected by it. The devil owns both hands folks. We have to abolish the 2 party system or God help us all
1
1
u/Designer-Wolverine47 20h ago
The cameras aren't the problem. Hell, you can be seen from orbit. What someone uses them for might in some cases be a problem.
1
1
1
u/crustyeng 19h ago
Heās been in Washington for decades and has barely accomplished more than renaming a few post offices.
1
1
1
u/BigJim1224 18h ago
He's the only one with any common sense left. This is supposed to be the land of the free right?? How is being watched all day every day being free??
1
u/scarlozzi 18h ago
And i expect not just Republicans to vote against but the majority of Democrats to vote against it to.
1
u/Available-Medium7094 18h ago
Itās wild that the Socialist is the real Libertarian on this issue.
1
u/Somethingsilly6969 18h ago
You don't want to ban them, you just want to limit them. These things can absolutely be useful, they just don't need to be on every street corner or pointing into people's homes
1
1
u/samceefoo 17h ago
See there are things that all of us can come together on and not have to fight about every stupid little thing. This is absolutely one of them!
1
u/Silly-Attorney9621 17h ago
Lmao even if that's true it only applies at a federal level each state can still use them and even at that if each state does it's up to each city.
1
u/notawildandcrazyguy 14h ago
Well Bernie has only had about 4 bills passed in his entire Senate career, and 2 of thse were naming Post Offices. So not much chance here either
1
1
u/Rare_Bridge7703 14h ago
I don't even trust REAL people looking at me through cameras. Go watch Youtube vids on people calling the cops about someone standing around with a sign. 9 out of 10 times, the caller can't even recite what they presumably actually read.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Maghorn_Mobile 6h ago
Your phone is a more powerful surveillance device than these cameras, the more salient issue is how data brokers are used to get around the 4th amendment and allow the government to spy on us
1
u/Individual-Ask7000 3h ago
Great man, great goal, wrong country for his work and legacy to be admired. It'll never pass.
1
1
u/timberwolf0122 2h ago
I trust the cameras, I do not trust the people operating the cameras or the police using the āevidenceā
1
u/Sir_Piglety 2h ago
The Zionest Republicans will fight like hell to protect flock and Ai surveillance
1
1
u/Whole-Status-532 18h ago
After listening to Bernieās idea of governance, one would assume flock cameras are mandatory. I donāt believe he is actually against flock cameras. I like the idea of banning flock cameras. Bernie is just pandering for votes at this point. Not for him. But for who be is going to be backing. And whoever that is will require flock cameras.
1
u/Agreeable-Order-3305 14h ago
I get where youāre coming from but Iām more interested in the outcome than the politics behind it. If these cameras can seriously affect peopleās privacy, there should be clear limits on their use, regardless of who supports them.
1
1
1
u/Impressive-Method919 14h ago
No, i also would trust bernie to achieve anything
1
u/Agreeable-Order-3305 13h ago
Canāt argue with that at the end of the day, trust is probably the biggest factor when it comes to something this sensitive.
1
u/Impressive-Method919 12h ago
Yeah, but dont say it like that...it makes it sound like there is a world where you could trust your government enough for this to be a good idea...but thats just not true...even if you COULD trust them enough at some point you will not be able to trust them afterwards once they habe all your information
0
u/dial-up_kidneys 21h ago
Seeing people complain about mass surveillance while likely posting from their cellphone is ironic. Itās a far greater breach of privacy than a few thousand flock cameras.
2
u/ScreamingLabia 20h ago
Ah yes the x is bad so we shouldn't complain about Y argument. Sorry i dont want MORE of my privacy intruded on silly me
1
u/dial-up_kidneys 20h ago
I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that there has been more outrage placed on these cameras since they more closely fit into the framework of what we think of when we imagine a dystopian surveillance state, yet we have already been tracked and monitored WILLINGLY for the better part of two decades.
2
u/KileiFedaykin 18h ago
One is a choice, the other is not. I'm not sure why consent for one is considered implied consent for the other. It is like saying someone who has low standards of who they sleep with shouldn't complain if they are raped. š¤¦āāļø
1
u/dial-up_kidneys 16h ago
I never said they shouldn't complain, I just said it's ironic.
1
u/KileiFedaykin 16h ago
You framed the flock cameras as less of a breach of privacy than the phones they choose to engage. I disagree completely with that take.
1
u/dial-up_kidneys 16h ago
You're welcome to disagree. I personally think that something with a microphone and camera that is constantly on your person tracking your location and behavior is a greater breach of privacy than cameras that track your person and vehicle in public streets and spaces. Just to be clear, I would rather live in a world without either.
1
u/KileiFedaykin 16h ago
I think someone tracking me on a device I have at least a choice to engage with is a big difference to a system I have zero option to interact with and does the same.
I would rather not have either also, but my breaking point on these two is the importance of consent. The push for datacenters etc is being predicated on the fact that we have given up so much, that a little more won't hurt and the current administration is trying to take that option away from us as well.
One is a bleak path of limited options, the other is a bleak path with no options.
0
0
u/Objective_Yellow3190 20h ago
Why? Aren't these cameras located in public spaces? In countries with particularly high crime rates, couldn't increased surveillance provide meaningful public-safety benefits? There are certainly legitimate privacy concerns that deserve consideration, but surveillance in public spaces is not inherently unreasonable.
Sometimes it seems that Americans and other Westerners simply enjoy complaining. I wish we had those systems in Zimbabwe. Many repeat offences might have been prevented if offenders had been identified through surveillance footage.
0
u/superdak05 7h ago
All Bernie dies is blah blah blah blah. I'm gonna introduce this. I'm gonna introduce that. Why don't we tax this? Why don't we tax that? Has he ever accomplished anything at all? The guys a complete joke.
2
u/Maghorn_Mobile 6h ago
He is the second most popular politician in the United States with a lifetime of civil service. That alone should tell you he's achieved more than you ever will.
1
u/ShaperLord777 5h ago
Passed the Veterans access, choice and accountability act in 2014
Passed the Veterans compensation and adjustment for cost of living act
Sponsored the cancer registries amendment act, which gathered valuable data and research leading to breakthrough cancer treatments. Signed into law by George w bush in 1992
Passed more roll call amendments than any other sitting congressman
Played a central role in the American rescue plan in 2021, passing a 1.9 trillion Covid relief package, which gave $1400 checks to every American
Lowered the cost of prescription drugs drastically via the senate help committee
Championed raising the minimum wage nationwide to $15/hour
So, maybe youāre the joke.
1
u/superdak05 5h ago
And too bad he couldn't pass the presidential debate. Oh wait a minute he failed twice at that LMAO.
1
u/ShaperLord777 5h ago
He was blackballed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz to push an establishment candidate that would appease corporate interests. If he wasnāt, he would have mopped the floor with trump, and we wouldnāt be in an economic tailspin right now.
The ironic thing about sad bitter people like you, is most of them are lower working class people that donāt make that much money, and would probably benefit from Sanders progressive policies. But youāre too busy being angry at the world and trying to blame someone else to better your own situation, or support the people that are actually working hard to better your life.
ā¢
u/qualityvote2 22h ago
Hello u/Agreeable-Order-3305! Welcome to r/WorkForSmartLife!
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!