Route 66 Shooting Park Installs FLOCK Camera facing into the range to spy on patrons! Thoughts!??
- Thread starter TF_cam
- Start date
They removed the camera once they noticed its going to hit them in the pocket and also from the public outrage. We all know where they stand now and that they are +1 in favor of mass government surveillance. So no, i will not be updating the title of this post.
never mind, the check cleared
- Messages
- 5,946
- Classified ads
- 1
HAHAHA
socalgunowner909
Well-known member
- Messages
- 442
- Classified ads
- 1
@Route66ShootingSportsPark
I think they need to address this head-on. They’ve been pretty active on here in the past, so the silence lately is noticeable. I think it would be better to acknowledge what’s going on directly rather than leave everyone speculating.
I think they need to address this head-on. They’ve been pretty active on here in the past, so the silence lately is noticeable. I think it would be better to acknowledge what’s going on directly rather than leave everyone speculating.
I can't help but wonder....how many people that are so outraged about this also support what ICE has been doing over the past few years. Since it's pretty well known that ICE uses Flock data, it would be ironic for those people to take the position of taking away a tool that ICE has been using.
Hamburger Monster
Well-known member
- Messages
- 270
- Classified ads
- 1
Your reply is unrelated. It's the fact that you don't need a warrant to access the data that makes it worrying.
I'm sure I missed your point here because I don't see how it's relevant or fits with what we are arguing here. We are trying to argue whether the government's use of flock cameras is in violation of civil liberties or not and you are talking about Bob killing Alice. Not following your train of thought here
Hit Factor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 973
socalgunowner909
Well-known member
- Messages
- 442
- Classified ads
- 1
@Route66ShootingSportsPark
selfgawd
Member
- Messages
- 46
- Classified ads
- 1
What bothers me is that they haven't come forward to address the situation or provide any clarification. Even acknowledging the issue and taking responsibility by saying, "We made a mistake," would go a long way (some will say posting a video of them taking it down is enough?). There are still a lot of unanswered questions.
If the camera was installed strictly for surveillance purposes, why was Flock chosen specifically?
Was this entirely their decision, or was there some type of financial incentive or offer involved?
And if they agreed to the Flock camera, what other terms, agreements, or conditions did or have they agreed to?
Its's the combination of the decision to install the camera and the lack of communication or clarification afterward that bugs me. At this point, without clarification it has me thinking of taking my business elsewhere.
Glad they did do the right thing and take it down.
If the camera was installed strictly for surveillance purposes, why was Flock chosen specifically?
Was this entirely their decision, or was there some type of financial incentive or offer involved?
And if they agreed to the Flock camera, what other terms, agreements, or conditions did or have they agreed to?
Its's the combination of the decision to install the camera and the lack of communication or clarification afterward that bugs me. At this point, without clarification it has me thinking of taking my business elsewhere.
Glad they did do the right thing and take it down.
- Messages
- 5,946
- Classified ads
- 1
They will have LPR data either way, cameras everywhere
- Messages
- 882
I wasn’t necessarily defending them but more so advocating for keeping the thread updated and reducing duplicate posts. Many folks read the title and post immediately without reading at least the few most recent posts.
With that said my default is to give folks the benefit of the doubt. I’ve yet to visit @Route66ShootingSportsPark but people seem to like the place and I expect there’s additional layers of difficulty operating an FFL and/or range in California so we should give folks who do this work a bit more grace.
Furthermore, we can see how folks want to jump to a witch hunt immediately. They took the cameras down so have patience in giving them time to respond. They’re a business and it’s important they craft these messages carefully. And I highly doubt that R66 is going to say they installed them for purposes of harming responsible gun owners rather than just using what they thought were better tools for protecting their business. If anything, direct that anger at the Flock company and agencies abusing the technology, first.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 818
No. Chatrie says: LE using a warrant (!) to obtain cell phone location constitutes a search. It explicitly did not say that a 3rd-party (non-governmental) cell phone provider retaining cell phone location data is already an illegal search. It did not say that LE using a warrant to obtain that data was an unreasonable search. It only said that using a warrant to obtain that data held by that 3rd party is indeed a search.
The lower court had held that the specific search in Chatrie was unconstitutional, because the warrant was too broad. The Supreme Court overthrew that, ruled that the warrant did create a search, and remanded the case.
- Messages
- 1,428
does the government need a warrant to purchase the information this 3rd party non government entity collects on citizens 
Hamburger Monster
Well-known member
- Messages
- 270
- Classified ads
- 1
It's supposed to get a warrant for things like cell phone data. I see no reason why it wouldn't apply here too. Except for the fact these are installed on government contracts most of the time. Still shouldn't be allowed.does the government need a warrant to purchase the information this 3rd party non government entity collects on citizens
I've said it before. But the government is not allowed to do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly