Jimmy Balls is a hero.

https://www.facebook.com/madison.taylor.167/posts/-im-jimmy-ballsin-the-name-of-freedom-at-no-point-during-this-video-was-i-expect/10241687365777627/

Oof. This is a tough one for me.

It is prudent to assume if you are in a public place you are probably on camera. And most (?) private homes have exterior cameras now too.

Lots of drama around Flock. I am ok with Flock in theory - the challenge is that people absolutely will misuse them for inappropriate reasons. So I struggle with the practical realities of their misuse.

How's that for a nonanswer. 😆 But it is my current thinking...

Oh gosh - just read an article about a cop who stalked and harassed a woman he'd met at a public event, and had an alert when her license plate showed up on the cameras, and he sped through traffic to pull her over just to try and get with her. Unsurprisingly, he was unsuccessful.This is something that is happening more than I'm sure anyone would like.

I also understand that Flock cameras are on record misidentifying legally owned vehicles as stolen - way too many, it seems.

I think, unless and until it's impossible to abuse, the technology should be strictly limited.

I don’t see how Flock is not a violation of our 4A rights. I’m sure I could find knowledgable disxussion on it, but that’s just my gut.

Yes, we’re often recorded just walking down the street, be it someone’s Ring or Neat camera, or a building’s surveillance. I’m ok with that because I have to be. My cell phone tracks my movement, that’s a service I signed up for and that’s the way cell towers and the technology works I guess. We leave trails on the internet, another service we choose to use.

Flock, it’s tracking our movements for no purpose other than to put eyes on citizens regardless of any justification. We are being stalked for the crime of leaving our houses.

Neither side of the aisle trusts the other, so I find it a perfect opportunity to stand together against this invasion of privacy and sll the ways it can be - and already has been - abused.

It doesn't bother me at all. Have at it. If you let me know, I'm happy to look at a camera and smile.

I know that many other countries have more extensive systems in public places than we have here. The UK, as an example, has widespread public monitoring zones (they may call it CCTV) that have proven to be very helpful in tamping down undesired public conduct AND in apprehending criminals. Do I remember correctly that CCTV records helped identify one or more of the bombers (or others involved) responsible for attacks in public on several occasions?

Even the license plate ID equipment used to enforce speed limits (by automatically issuing citations) on roads is just fine with me.

I have mixed feelings on surveillance and flock cameras.

I used to frequently travel to China when I was working. Major cities in China - Beijing, Shanghai, Xiamen, etc, all have cameras - everywhere. Boeing International Security always reminded us of this. Not that any of us would do anything we shouldn't, but just for awareness that there are cameras everywhere.

A quick search found this info:

"China has one of the world's largest and most advanced mass surveillance networks. Estimates show the country has over 700 million CCTV cameras, which works out to roughly one camera for every two citizens."

They have crime but not at the levels the US has. I never felt unsafe when I was out and about on my own.

I can see the benefits for flock cameras in the US, but also see the possible misuse of the technology.

Edited to add - looks like Elmer and I were typing at the same time about international cameras. I visited London a few years ago, maybe 2017. There was a tube bombing, and I recall the suspects were identified on CCTV..

sephia, of course you know that China isn't a free country. In such places, long before the advent of modern monitoring equipment, governmental scrutiny of the general public and intelligence gathering by various means (including extensive networks of secret informants) was long practiced. Surveillance cameras happen to be a more advanced tool for them to do what has been done all along in countries where individual freedoms are limited. In places where freedom prevails, I hope that more democratic and civil society protection goals are pursued.

Not to pick on Germany, but remember that the Frank family were betrayed by an informant to an intelligence service tasked with finding people in hiding. After the war, in the totalitarian land of East Germany, the secret police were even more brutal than their overlords in Moscow in spying on and going after obvious dissidents or anyone suspected of what it thought of as anti-state or "anti-social" behavior. No cameras needed.

Elmer, of course I know China is a Communist country. I was just speaking to my work experience when I was frequently traveling there. Prior to my personal experience, I paid little attention to China. I'm aware of their government scrutiny. When walking around, like in Beijing or Shandong, their military walk around fully armed.

Heck, the first time I went to China, I knew I would set off their airport security scanner because I've had a knee replacement. In the U.S, I can let TSA know, so I get the screening that you stand in and raise your arms. In European countries, they understand enough English that I can convey that I need a special screening because I'll set off the alarm.

The first time in China in the airport, I tried to tell them and was waved forward. The alarm went off and I was swarmed by three armed Chinese military guys. I couldn't communicate with them and when I tried to pull up my pant leg to show them the scar, they grabbed my hands. Finally I just stood still. When they scanned my knee and the alarm went off, one of them pulled up my pant leg and saw the scar for himself.

Going forward, I made a small sign saying I'm going to set off the alarm because I have a titanium implant, and one of my interpreters translated it into Mandarin. I never had any problems after that.

Here's a funny police presence story.

When I lived and worked in continental Western Europe, my firm's office was in an office building in the business district/central area of a major city. At sidewalk level, there were storefront businesses (like boutiques and airlines), informal cafes and restaurants, etc.

The first day I went to the office (which I had directions to and got to on my own), I was somewhat startled to find a pair of guys in commando-style uniforms, with real compact machine guns slung over their shoulders but in a ready position, walking up and down the street in front of the building. Across the street (not a real wide one) was something that looked like a small military armored car.

I entered the building and went to our office, was announced to the person waiting to greet me, and followed them to their office. Not too long into the conversation, I asked about the heavily armed presence just outside the door. With a laugh, I was told that next time I went out, to turn in a particular direction and take note of the storefront tenants. What I found just a few access down the street was the presence of two government owned airlines from countries who were as much as at war with each other. These aren't the two but imagine if the Pakistan state airline was next door to the Indian one. I learned later, that while security had been strengthened at both and on the street, both remained targets for terrorist and maybe even government sponsored actions which occasionally involved more than big rocks - things like Molotov cocktails. The military presence was 24x7, to try to reduce incidents.

I don't live in NY city or Washington DC and perhaps such military presence events are more common, or especially so now. I don't know. At the time, a few decades ago, it was and remained a bit startling.

Oh my, that would be a bit unsettling to have that kind of target right across the street from where you worked 😬 Those guys with the machine guns in China were a bit alarming at first. They weren't marching or anything, but they were really attentive to everyone walking by. There is also an "Embassy Row" type street in Beijing. That street was swarming with armed military personnel. Not being used to seeing that where I live, you couldn't help but look at them. I saw someone try to take their picture, and they held up their hand and shook their head "no."

A poor explanation on my part, they were what I think are called "storefront" business premises, accessed from the sidewalk. Ground level tenants of the same building.

Maybe I didn't explain it clearly. Sorry.

Out the building's front door and a turn to the other direction up a few doors was the office of Aeroflot, also a ground level tenant of the same building. While gun ownership was tightly controlled in this country, its office was often attacked at night with Molotov cocktails and sometimes with bullets from passing cars.

Too little too late on this one. Given the rise of the smart phone passive surveillance permission has been given freely. To quibble about flock cameras or facial recognition etc. seems cherry picking. If you carry a cell phone, if you engage in social media, if you post your life on platforms you are being surveilled. After you disengage in these then you have a leg to stand on.

Frankly, it depends on who's doing the surveilling - it's going to happen anyway, but how I feel about it depends on how I feel about the entity with the data and what is being done with it.

And what I get in exchange for being surveilled.

I don't mind if my cellphone listens to me if I know they're using that information for commercial purposes and I get the benefits of my smartphone. I don't want my TV watching or listening to me because it offers me nothing I want in exchange for that data that they will use commercially to increase their value.