Route 66 Shooting Park Installs FLOCK Camera facing into the range to spy on patrons! Thoughts!??

[treelogger]

Nothing prevents me from standing at a street corner, with a clipboard, pencil, and watch, and writing down license plate numbers. Oh wait, 10:36am, silver Toyota Corolla, 1ABC234. Where was I? Yes, now I remember. I can do that on my private property (that Corolla was our neighbor's college-age daughter, stopping in our driveway to pet our dog), or in town, or even on a rural highway. To do it on a freeway, I would have to convince a dozen of my best friends to help me and stand on a pedestrian overpass. Nothing prevents me from giving my friends a few crisp $20 bills as a thank-you (I just have to do the tax and employment paperwork correctly). Nothing prevents me from posting on my Facebook or Instagram account that Alice was petting our dog, what car she was driving, and a complete list of all license plates we saw from the I-987 overpass this morning.

But when it is done with computers and electronics, the luddites suddenly see the end of "civilization as we know it". Sorry, when you're driving out to Route 66 (or most other places), you're out in public. What part of "public" don't you understand? Want to remain private? Shoot in your back hard, put up tall fences, and take advantage of privacy laws that protect you against being recorded on your property. All Flock does it take the existing freedom to observe one's surroundings and make it efficient.

If Scott from Route 66 wanted, he could post a complete list of all visitors to his range on the web, with license plate numbers. Given his behavior in various discussion places, that would not be surprising, but they haven't. Everyone can decide whether they want to go frequent that range or not. I don't have an opinion myself, since it's too far away from me to go visit in practice.

To the gentlemen above talking about "freedom" and "rights": An important part of that is freedom of information. For example, there shouldn't be government by secret law: both laws and regulations are all published, and can be read in the nearest law library (and these days on the internet). Sure, there are narrow exceptions for the national security apparatus. That's also the reason that court proceedings are public: Anyone who behaves well (no shouting) can sit in the back of a courtroom, and in most cases, go to the clerk's office read the paperwork (with some exceptions, like SSNs and bank account numbers are redacted, and in family law the details of underage people are censored).

Using insults like "bootlicker" just because someone likes their freedom is uncalled for.

 

[Hit Factor]

Which freedom is that per US constitution

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” I would argue that constant, never-ending surveillance — even out in public — constitutes an unreasonable search of my person and my effects. And it doesn’t matter if it’s being done by a private company if local government is allowing it, permitting at least some of the data to be collected in publicly-owned areas, and using the data collected for governmental purposes.

 

[cobian1984]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Jeffro_510]

Its gone now.
They just posted a video of them cutting it down

 

[Gawernator]

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” I would argue that constant, never-ending surveillance — even out in public — constitutes an unreasonable search of my person and my effects. And it doesn’t matter if it’s being done by a private company if local government is allowing it, permitting at least some of the data to be collected in publicly-owned areas, and using the data collected for governmental purposes.

It’s not a search or a seizure though so that doesn’t really make sense. You’d need a new law that says we can’t have cameras

 

[Gawernator]

Its gone now.
They just posted a video of them cutting it down

lol all of that boohooing for nothing

 

[Hit Factor]

It’s not a search or a seizure though so that doesn’t really make sense. You’d need a new law that says we can’t have cameras

Of course it’s a search. Just like a wire tap.

 

[Jeffro_510]

lol all of that boohooing for nothing

#Deflocked

 

[treelogger]

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” I would argue that constant, never-ending surveillance — even out in public — constitutes an unreasonable search of my person and my effects. And it doesn’t matter if it’s being done by a private company if local government is allowing it, permitting at least some of the data to be collected in publicly-owned areas, and using the data collected for governmental purposes.

The BoR restricts government. Nothing in there prevents me from standing there with my clipboard, watch, and pencil.

The intent of the 4A is a reaction to overbearing criminal prosecution under British rule in the colonies. Applying that argument to a private company makes no sense. Applying it to a private company's camera on Route 66's private property makes even less sense. You might have an argument that government (for example law enforcement) should not use pervasively collected public information. Courts have pretty consistently disagreed with that viewpoint, otherwise LE would not be able to search the web.

 

[Gawernator]

Of course it’s a search. Just like a wire tap.

Nope. Wiretapping is illegal and records private conversations. Not even close to similar

You can disagree with mass surveillance which is good but changing definitions in bad faith isn’t a good argument.

 

[cobian1984]

lol all of that boohooing for nothing

I think more than anything it was just tone deaf on the part of range ownership and management, considering the general sentiment surrounding Flock cameras. As others have pointed out, there are other effective measures one can take to strengthen security of their property without involving a system that’s built to interface with government databases, and which has been shown to be prone to abuse of the data it gathers. That all being said, we’re all being watched, everywhere, all the time, so does removing this single camera really change much? Absolutely not.

 

[Hit Factor]

#Deflocked

DeFlock

Find license plate readers (LPRs) near you.

deflock.org

 

[Gravel]

lol all of that boohooing for nothing

Seems like the complaints were heard and resolved the issue..

Looks like a win to me

 

[Hit Factor]

Nope. Wiretapping is illegal and records private conversations. Not even close to similar

You can disagree with mass surveillance which is good but changing definitions in bad faith isn’t a good argument.

It’s definitely not bad faith. I have some experience with constitutional law, and began studying it decades ago. Granted, this is just my opinion, but it’s not made in bad faith. Just wait. We’ll get a ruling on it soon enough.

 

[treelogger]

Of course it’s a search. Just like a wire tap.

The common meaning of the word "wire tap" is when the state intercepts communication that is legally protected (such as postal mail and phone calls), and where the parties have therefore a strong expectation of privacy.

If you stand on a soap box in the park, and are giving an oration on your political principles, and a cope or a spook listens to you and takes notes, is that a wire tap? No.

In our society we have reasonably clear distinctions between a public sphere and a private sphere. Alice and Bob are on the phone, discussing in which position they will make love this evening when they meet: private. Alice and Bob are standing in the park, holding up posters that say "the lotus flower position is the best": not private. Alice and Bob are on the phone, discussing how to murder the president/governor/dog catcher, and are known to engage in such criminal activity: that's an interestingly complex question, but any judge would sign the search warrant.

 

[Gawernator]

DeFlock

Find license plate readers (LPRs) near you.

deflock.org

Lmao that’s crazy, looking at the map of Sacramento.

Just shows it wasn’t an issue until it hit the media. I love these LPR for my work. Helps me find people

 

[Gawernator]

Seems like the complaints were heard and resolved the issue..

Looks like a win to me

Yeah, now they’re only tracked by their cell phones and 1 million other cameras in their area. You really got them!!!! Fking lmao

 

[shroom]

I feel like some of you don't understand that flock isn't just an LPR. It isn't just a surveillance camera.

 

[Hamburger Monster]

The BoR restricts government. Nothing in there prevents me from standing there with my clipboard, watch, and pencil.

The intent of the 4A is a reaction to overbearing criminal prosecution under British rule in the colonies. Applying that argument to a private company makes no sense. Applying it to a private company's camera on Route 66's private property makes even less sense. You might have an argument that government (for example law enforcement) should not use pervasively collected public information. Courts have pretty consistently disagreed with that viewpoint, otherwise LE would not be able to search the web.

The supreme court has already stated that the government can't do indirectly what it is restricted from doing directly. Just because Flock is a private company, it's the fact that they are putting these up under government contracts that crosses the line. The government has full access to the data being collected. This is in effect, a government camera and data collection system.

Would it be acceptable to have to inform the government of everywhere you go? Each time you visit a store or perhaps a gun range? I think not. Most would say this is an abuse of our civil liberties. Somehow you and some others think that instead of us having to tell the government, we'll just have someone else tell the government and that is somehow better or less of an infringement? It's the same result in the end

 

[Gawernator]

The supreme court has already stated that the government can't do indirectly what it is restricted from doing directly. Just because Flock is a private company, it's the fact that they are putting these up under government contracts that crosses the line. The government has full access to the data being collected. This is in effect, a government camera and data collection system.

Would it be acceptable to have to inform the government of everywhere you go? Each time you visit a store or perhaps a gun range? I think not. Most would say this is an abuse of our civil liberties. Somehow you and some others think that instead of us having to tell the government, we'll just have someone else tell the government and that is somehow better or less of an infringement? It's the same result in the end

The question is, is the data being collected legal or illegal then