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

[treelogger]

Just because Flock is a private company, it's the fact that they are putting these up under government contracts that crosses the line.

Maybe.

If all of government had unlimited access to Flock's data, you might have an argument. On the other hand, if Flock's data was only accessed in situations covered by law (like with a search warrant, or in cases of PC and RS), you probably don't have an argument.

Would it be acceptable to have to inform the government of everywhere you go?

You just changed the question from "the government can know where I go" to "I have to inform them". If a copy is standing at a street corner (with clipboard, watch and pencil), and sees my very distinctive car go buy (I like a paint scheme of bright green with orange stars), that's different from having to get pre-approval or pre-notification.

It's the same result in the end

But not in all situations does the result matter. For example: Alice dies, at age 97, in her bed, of natural causes. Compare that to Bob strangles Alice. The same result in the end. Only in one of them is Bob guilty of murder.

 

[GeeQ87]

I think they heard your concerns

 

[pancakes]

A normal asss security system would do. But hey you want to run good business out the door this is a good start.

 

[Hamburger Monster]

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

This might be closer to the heart of the issue. As of yet, we really don't know what and how much is being collected. We have been told it's collecting license plates, vehicle make, model, color, direction and speed. Maybe some other data. I've also heard facial recognition is used in many of the flock cameras. But I've also heard some are capable of retina scanning and the IR capability is good enough for detecting blood flow and heart beats. Other claim it tracts your Bluetooth and wifi from your phone or vehicle. A few mention it also tracts your cell phone pings to the towers. How true this is, is anybody's guess. But if the cameras where doing this, especially some of the latter claims, I would think this is crossing the line. If they currently aren't, I would have no doubt the government would ask for it the moment it became possible

Then there is this:

Fourth Amendment and Continuous Tracking: Civil liberties groups like the ACLU argue that continuous tracking of devices via municipal or private Wi-Fi networks creates inescapable location logs that violate constitutional privacy protections

Or this:

Investigations of Google Street View

Seeking records on the FTC's investigation into Google Streetview

epic.org

"Under federal and state laws, Google may be both civilly and criminally liable for the unauthorized capture of data from private Wi-Fi networks in the United States. Google’s conduct may constitute violations of the federal Wiretap Act and the federal Pen/Trap Act. Google may also be liable for deceiving consumers and violating individuals’ privacy."

If Google, private company, is or was under investigation for sniffing wifi data while doing it street view. Why would it be ok for another company to possibly be doing the same thing but instead for the government?

 

[pancakes]

the big question is how much were they paid for this? How would they even remotely think any one of their customers would be ok with a flock right there?

 

[mangobango]

They removed it

 

[Hamburger Monster]

Maybe.

If all of government had unlimited access to Flock's data, you might have an argument. On the other hand, if Flock's data was only accessed in situations covered by law (like with a search warrant, or in cases of PC and RS), you probably don't have an argument.

The fact we have instances and reports of police employees using it to track their ex girlfriend or other personal purposes shows that they don't need a warrant to access whatever data they want

You just changed the question from "the government can know where I go" to "I have to inform them". If a copy is standing at a street corner (with clipboard, watch and pencil), and sees my very distinctive car go buy (I like a paint scheme of bright green with orange stars), that's different from having to get pre-approval or pre-notification.

It was an extreme example to illiterate a point. It's unlikely that any of us would agree that having to inform the government of my whereabouts would be ok. Maybe to rewrite it so make it clearer. If the above was not ok, would it then be acceptable to have a government employees or someone who is reporting to the government stand on the sidewalk outside your home and log each time you arrived or left. What time, what clothes you where wearing, if you drove your vehicle. Writes down the make and model, license plate, etc? How about if we move this person just down the street and he still records the same information? What if we replace this person with a camera that collects the same data? At what point is it ok and not an infringement of our liberties?

But not in all situations does the result matter. For example: Alice dies, at age 97, in her bed, of natural causes. Compare that to Bob strangles Alice. The same result in the end. Only in one of them is Bob guilty of murder.

In your second example, Bob committed a crime. In what way would driving down the street, following the speed limit and breaking no other law, would I be subject to the same ramifications as Bob?

 

[pancakes]

They removed it

Let me guess they moved it into a bush

 

[Gawernator]

The fact we have instances and reports of police employees using it to track their ex girlfriend or other personal purposes shows that they don't need a warrant to access whatever data they want

It was an extreme example to illiterate a point. It's unlikely that any of us would agree that having to inform the government of my whereabouts would be ok. Maybe to rewrite it so make it clearer. If the above was not ok, would it then be acceptable to have a government employees or someone who is reporting to the government stand on the sidewalk outside your home and log each time you arrived or left. What time, what clothes you where wearing, if you drove your vehicle. Writes down the make and model, license plate, etc? How about if we move this person just down the street and he still records the same information? What if we replace this person with a camera that collects the same data? At what point is it ok and not an infringement of our liberties?

In your second example, Bob committed a crime. In what way would driving down the street, following the speed limit and breaking no other law, would I be subject to the same ramifications as Bob?

No you don’t need a warrant to access LPR reader data because it’s in plain view in public. I could lookup the license plate hits for anyone on this forum theoretically. I don’t break the rules though

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

No you don’t need a warrant to access LPR reader data because it’s in plain view in public. I could lookup the license plate hits for anyone on this forum theoretically. I don’t break the rules though

You saying that you could is the problem. Do you not see that? You acted and sounded like you could do it for fun.

Sound like someone who has some sort of investment or interest into this Flock system.

 

[GeeQ87]

No license plate reader hits for my ride… supposedly lol according to the map, there are a few nearby

 

[jp1999]

Theres a white camera post to the left side, and that flock cam was to the right… id assume they wouldnt wanna add the flock cam when the white camera is already right there facing the entrance

 

[Darqhelmet]

No license plate reader hits for my ride… supposedly lol according to the map, there are a few nearby

unless I go to Home Depot I don’t drive past any in my daily life. Any that are reported…

 

[Gawernator]

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.

Public vs private is a big distinction.

With this new technology the courts will have to catch up and there will be lawsuits probably

 

[Gawernator]

No license plate reader hits for my ride… supposedly lol according to the map, there are a few nearby

I’ll pm you

 

[Gawernator]

You saying that you could is the problem. Do you not see that? You acted and sounded like you could do it for fun.

Sound like someone who has some sort of investment or interest into this Flock system.

lol you know I do have vanguard S&P 500 funds in my ROTH IRA so am I invested into Flock?

I don’t have an account with flock personally. I do use LPR though.

Yes I could “for fun” however all of these databases are strictly monitored and logged so that’s why you are seeing cops get in trouble so fast. I don’t run searches unless I’m complying with the privacy laws.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Since they removed the camera, I think it courteous to update the thread title and initial post to “Route 66 Removes Flock Cameras” or something like that.

We’re going see a million more replies from people who haven’t seen the update and/or coming here to update.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

I think Flock (and the likes of) see how we just largely give Palantir a pass and felt emboldened to go down this path.

““When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News.”

Flock CEO calls for ‘compromise’ as surveillance company faces growing backlash | TechCrunch

Flock Safety faces a growing public outcry over concerns that its surveillance technology could be misused.

techcrunch.com

 

[Sirrom_911]

You heard right! Route 66 Shooting Park gives the OK to have FLOCK camera installed facing INSIDE the range directly aimed at its patrons. What are your thoughts on this!? Please chime in! Here is a direct link to the instagram post that just dropped!

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

It's been remove

 

[treelogger]

The fact we have instances and reports of police employees using it to track their ex girlfriend or other personal purposes shows that they don't need a warrant to access whatever data they want

The fact that the process gets abused, occasionally, doesn't mean that we need throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, sometimes people use knives to murder others, just like sometimes crooked cops harass their ex girlfriend. Does that mean we need to make knives illegal?

In your second example, Bob committed a crime. In what way would driving down the street, following the speed limit and breaking no other law, would I be subject to the same ramifications as Bob?

You missed the point: Just because two actions have the same result (Alice dead) doesn't mean they are the same in the eye of the law.