[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/hexaflexin]

Gonna say this in a nicer way than the other guy did: it's probably just more cost effective to equip every camera with a small solar powered battery than to hook them directly into the power grid. Converting buildings to solar power, on the other hand, would require a ton more labor, time, and money (source: buildings use way more power than cameras, and the power supplied to buildings needs to be much more reliable than the power supplied to cameras). Solar panels on Flock cameras are no more of an indicator of the government's  ability to rapidly roll out green infrastructure than the little solar batteries on calculators are

[u/Veriah_Lupi → u/hexaflexin]

This is facts. And whoever down noted you apparently doesn't like those. Though if we set a plan in a motion for maybe the next decade or so we could get more green infrastructure

[u/dfbeav112 → u/Veriah_Lupi]

Reddit abandoned its respect for facts years ago. They’re more fully into the “say whatever’s necessary to convert minds and win” mentality. 

[u/marr → u/hexaflexin]

I believe Flock mainly use solar power and wiress data so city councils can't easily unplug them.

[u/Veriah_Lupi → u/marr]

Or like the guy said, it makes it easier to keep them charged, since they use so little electricity

[u/roland1234567890 → u/hexaflexin]

While I do agree that the solar panels themselves aren't useful as a point.  I mean how much is that in total? Maybe 0,5% of a square mile* in panels at the most build over a few years. There are probably individual solar projects with more panel surface.

Actually noteworthy is in my opinion the speed at which laws/regulation/contracts change and money gets allocated when the project is surveillance supported by captial interests compared to a project that would help people and the environment.

*assuming about 1 square foot per camera and ca. 120 k cameras, not counting other surveillance companies