10 days
You must log in or register to comment.
- 10 days
Stop pussyfooting around and charge their asses with CRIMES. All the way to the CEO who is responsible for the conduct of their employees disregarding their instructions.
- 9 days
The only reason they are pulling this shit is that they know the cops are addicted to the power they’re giving them. Won’t investigate, won’t arrest.
- 10 days
Sounds like the city should confiscate them, sell them, and use the profits for something good like buying some books for the library, food for soup kitchens, etc.
Start arresting Flock workers that put up the cameras when they don’t have permission. It will only take a couple arrests before the techs refuse to do it anymore.
- 9 days
Can they charge you with destruction of property if they don’t know whose property it is? Seems like the way forward is to just keep breaking these things. More of us than them. They want the data. Don’t give it to them.
- 9 days
In any sane state that values freedom the whole business model would be illegal.
- 9 days
The fact that Flock is regularly doing this as, apparently, standard operating procedure makes me wonder if they have some orders from/agreement with the federal government to do so.
I can’t imagine what agreement would allow for a private company to place equipment on city-owned property just because the federal government say’s its okay.
- flilare@piefed.zipEnglish9 days
Agreement to pardon anything that might stick in exchange for a full surveillance network.
- TipRing@lemmy.worldEnglish9 days
The feds have no power to absolve the company of state crimes. Though I think it’s just littering in this case. The city is within its rights to just take the cameras down.
- 9 days
While that’s partially true, the DOJ has a LOT of leverage, especially with how closely this version is tied to the executive branch. It wouldn’t take much to simply lean on a state legislature or even a local one and say “hey you either cut our guy loose or bad things might happen.”
Welcome to the Mafia oligarchy.
- halcyoncmdr@piefed.socialEnglish9 days
I’m sure you could make an argument for destruction of government property for disturbing the ground they install them on. Almost surely won’t stick, but might until thing start getting charged and in the system, nothing will happen.
- 9 days
If they’re making enough money stealing data to reinstall for free then cities have no justification to pay them a dime
- 9 days
The data collection is useful for tracking people across areas that are not paying for the service for others. The camera costs are tribal compared to the profit benefits of having a more complete data net to surveillance state your ass.
This is the way around the state being allowed to only actively surveil you under a warrant. They just buy the data from a private company.
- 9 days
This is my running theory. The value is in the network of cameras to track movement, no? The more data points they can potentially offer someone makes that data more useful/valuable.
- novibe@lemmy.mlEnglish9 days
So your theory is they are being paid by private companies to put up cameras in public spaces? That are not owned by those private companies?
- 9 days
No my proven fact is this private company has contracts with agencies all over the nation and as well as federal agencies and so the more cameras they have around the nation the more complete the tracking data they offer becomes.
Once the camera is paid for and installed, it is almost free to operate. The only cost is data processing, and they want that data. They’d prefer someone else pay for it but they don’t need it.
- novibe@lemmy.mlEnglish9 days
The story is the city contracted them, they put up cameras. The city cancelled the contract, they took the cameras down. Then they up cameras again. Without any contracts. Who is paying them?
No company ever does anything for free. Without a city contract, why would they ever work/provide services?
Like it’s not about operating costs. Why would a for-profit corporation ever work without being paid to do it…?
- 9 days
The City isn’t their real customer, and public safety isn’t their real product.
The like the public safety angle, because then they get cities to pay the costs of deployment, but it’s profitable without them.
I workforna city that just fired Flock, and what’s making them move the cameras is that we’re revoking their right-of-way permits and paving the shoulders where the cameras are located. Our ROW encroachment agreement boilerplate language allows us to destroy anything that is in the way of a public works project if it isn’t removed within 10 business days of notice of revocation.
No I’m saying that they want the data. They can sell the data to others. They don’t need this specific city’s money for this specific camera. They need the data. It doesn’t mean that someone is paying for this specific camera. And doesn’t mean that the city even had access to this data anymore. Anyone can buy this data that has access to the system.
- halcyoncmdr@piefed.socialEnglish9 days
No company ever does anything for free. Without a city contract, why would they ever work/provide services?
Why does a cell phone company put a tower up in a mountain pass where no one lives? No one is paying for installing that tower for coverage directly, but it’s in their interest to have better coverage overall for all of their customers.
Same exact thing here. Flock gets the data regardless, and having a more complete network is useful to every client.
- Pratai@piefed.caEnglish9 days
It wouldn’t be effective at all. Did Luigi change health insurance? Hell no. He just sent a message that fell on deaf ears.
Kill these assholes and there’s 40 more waiting to climb the ladder.
We need a replacement before going anywhere near a route like that, and honestly we straight up shouldn’t go that route at all.
Another user said it much better than I ever could, but we need a viable and organized replacement before violence, and way before that we need to attempt it without violence otherwise we are no better than them and they have an easier time conning others to see any movement other than capitalism as the enemy.
We haven’t even attempted a general strike without it having a set end date for fucks sake. We have tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.
- Pratai@piefed.caEnglish9 days
So… we’ve been attempting it without violence for decades. This is no different than anything else. Non-violence, violence, organized chaos, anarchy….
It doesn’t fucking matter. There’s FAR more greed than generosity. There’s far more hate than love. There’s far more compliance than defiance.
There IS no fighting this shit in any conceivable way where the outcome is a net positive. They won a LONG time ago. We’re only just waking up to notice it now.
The real question is, what happens when you create a power vacuum and nothing in place to equalize the pressure?
I get it. Honestly I’m there most of the time. Sick of greedy fuckers
