r/MoralityScaling • u/Impossible_Horsemeat • 1h ago
How Good Are They? Morality of destroying Flock cameras????
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
•
u/Monstarrzero 1h ago
Flock cameras existing is immoral therefore destroying them is moral.
•
u/Fragrant-Mulberry963 52m ago
fr though, privatized mass surveillance popping up on every corner with zero public input was bound to piss people off eventually.
•
→ More replies (11)•
u/Gentle_Snail 53m ago
What is a flock camera?
•
u/The_Axolotl_Guy 51m ago
Automatic license plate reader cameras. Basically, it's designed to track the movements and locations of people on a massive scale. To put it in less words: mass surveillance
•
u/Dazzaster84 48m ago
It's AI driven, correct? I've seen some stories through reddit that suggest as much at least.
•
u/panda_canyon 34m ago
They track way more than license plates. They are posted at hiking trails, religious buildings, playgrounds, etc.
•
u/Dazzaster84 33m ago
It's a frightening thing, and I worry that it'll catch on in other countries too.
•
•
•
u/empty_graph 27m ago
Not really. This sort of mass surveillance predates AI, but it just wasn't really a thing in this country until now.
•
u/The_Axolotl_Guy 40m ago
Yes
•
u/Dazzaster84 39m ago
Legitimately haunting. Rip 'em down.
•
u/saucy_as_you_like 9m ago
also the information is fed to a corporation, not a government, so there's even less oversight
→ More replies (1)•
u/YagiAntennaBear 16m ago
It's a bit of a stretch to call it AI. ALPRs were invented in the 70s. But I guess technically any image recognition is AI.
→ More replies (8)•
u/I_Piccini 46m ago
On paper yes, except last time I saw a map somewhere and all those cameras where pointed away from the roads they are supposed to watch and straight to every single house in their proximity.
•
•
u/ngengler97 51m ago
Government calls the ALPR (automated license plate readers) that are “supposed” to be only tracking license plates for illegal activity, but they’re just regular cameras storing a ton of info on whomever ends up in their path in those giant data centers a lot of people do not want put in place. They’re using them to collect a shit ton of information on the general populace. Police agencies are using them to stalk women, and some higher ups in their agencies and the flock company use them to watch children in parks and workout areas.
•
u/sacking03 47m ago
It is a company that got a contract for the government. They use AI to track everything from License Plates, faces and puts them in an algorithm to see known associates, possible crime links. Also used by anyone with access for anything. Example a cop stalked his ex girlfriend and killed her, does a public water park for kids need 8 of them aimed at the park. Also has been used to start traffic stops, when the AI has been shown to be wrong 3 out of 4 times. Example wrong state or wrong digit leads officers to arrest or kill the wrong person. This is because the company has no ethics policy and the end-users have none either.
•
•
u/Nearby_Bit_6643 50m ago
They’re cameras that are planted almost everywhere now that take photos of your license plate and car and track you and where you go. Police have access to that information and there are cases where they’ve been abusing it for nefarious purposes.
•
u/FknBadFkr 43m ago
Facial recognition, many Citizens have been detained and arrested for crimes they didn't commit and the police act like they are correct without looking at any counter evidence. They are trying to bring in Orecrime. With software like TOKA all digital evidence should be inadmissible in court. TOKA can hack any wifi camera/cloud system and modify the data. They can make it look like you are beating homeless people with kittens and ignorant people will believe it
•
u/thecountnotthesaint 1h ago
Moral. If they try to use third parties to violate our fourth amendment right, then they can deal with the consequences.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Formal_Lecture_248 59m ago
What role, then, is the cop who defends the private property of a corporation against the rights of citizens?
•
u/ginger_powers 55m ago edited 11m ago
What role, then, is the stormtrooper who defends the property of the galactic empire against the rights of citizens?
•
u/AngryCrustation 37m ago
Well stormtroopers are based because they needed to blow up an entire planet to stop a handful of terrorists.
•
•
•
u/thecountnotthesaint 52m ago
The age old "just following orders" mixed in with a dash of using the cameras to stalk ex's, hot women and the like.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Pristine_Vast766 47m ago
That’s their job. The police exist to violently enforce the rights of the rich capitalists.
•
•
•
u/TheMoves 43m ago
They're just basically Knights from days past, men of violence working for the ruling class for money and status
•
•
•
u/TopBalance438 54m ago
Immoral. The rights to property are not enshrined in the Constitution (only the restriction on the government from taking your property) whereas the fourth amendment is enshrined in the constitution. Hence when faced with the option, police should be morally compelled to service the constitution since it is the truer law of the land.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)•
u/RozeGunn 53m ago
His job. Things can be moral and illegal, while others are legal and immoral. On the one hand, flock cameras violate our fourth amendment rights, but a cop's job is to uphold the law. I wouldn't necessarily blame him for doing his job as the lone piece of evidence against him, but the cop is put in the middle of a crossfie between the people versus a company.
→ More replies (1)
•
•
•
•
u/Father_Prime_1989 1h ago
Moral. Fight against the surveillance state. We WANT to avoid 1984.
•
u/Superb-Ad-9169 37m ago
The amount of people who wants to live in some 1984 parody is terrifying.
Randomly r/sanfrancisco popped up in my feed with post about flock and almost everyone were praising them because "mUcH SeCuRiTy"
→ More replies (5)
•
u/Internal-Item-1525 1h ago
moral, but dont cause a fire, thats like bad and stuff
•
u/Intelligent-Area-421 52m ago
No charge whoever installed the damned thing with arson.
If they hadn't installed it in the first place, fire would not have been necessary.
•
u/fake_Character_arc 1h ago
Unnecessary question, they didn't destroy the cameras they were saving my cat from a tree. I can personally vouch for every single one of them.
•
u/KaleidoscopeSalt3972 1h ago
I can vouch for them, they were playing games with me at that time
•
u/Particular-Jury-3251 43m ago
They were also volunteering at an orphanage after they finished feeding the homeless at a soup kitchen
•
•
•
u/Friendly_Gazelle7843 1h ago
Nobody is destroying them. Never seen or heard about that and if you heard somebody was doing it deadwas bullshit, all of them were with me in museum of very important old stuff when it happened
•
•
•
u/SortovaGoldfish 59m ago
Moral. Flock has lied about their use and has proven that it was a lie. Flock is for profit which means they'll do what money asks. Flock has so little oversight people only get in trouble after using it for their nefarious means. Flock doesn't even do the job it's supposed to do when it's being used as intended to catch criminals so it, along with incompetent police work that is learning to rely solely on ai, it contributes to wasted resources, lost time in active situations, and the worsening of infrastructure.
→ More replies (1)
•
•
•
u/scratchfan321 1h ago
Illegal but 100% moral, based, supremely ethical, and I would immediately marry any adult who does this :3
•
u/Anxious-Ad-5331 1h ago
Don't know if moral
Know that it's totally based, though.
•
u/Skeletons-In-Space 58m ago
It's extremely moral and very cool to commit civil disobedience against private corporations (or anyone, really) who think they can violate our rights and basic human decency for a profit.
→ More replies (21)•
u/P0cketP1nup 1h ago
Not sure about the morality either, but I can definitely understand why people are cheering it on.
→ More replies (1)•
u/blutosings 48m ago edited 44m ago
Based on what? Why is it commendable/based?
Why would it be immoral? Is the destruction of all property immoral? Was the destruction of Hitler's bunker immoral? Was the destruction of English tea at the Boston Tea Party immoral? Is the destruction of an opposing army's tanks and plane's immoral? How about the destruction of an the surveillance tools of an occupying force?
•
u/Anxious-Ad-5331 42m ago
Because I am on the side of the little man, and I'm not simping for the people in charge.
•
u/blutosings 35m ago
So what are the interests of the little man? I agree, I just think calling something based without getting down to the why isn't clear or convincing.
→ More replies (3)
•
•
•
u/boredbytheabyss 59m ago
Man these things are dangerous exploding and falling down on their own, totally immoral to build something this shoddy
•
•
u/1dirtbiker 1h ago
As a conservative, I can confidently say it's absolutely moral to destroy flock cameras. I also confidently know liberals will agree with me on this.
•
•
u/DaggerInMySmile 1h ago
Absolutely moral. Their existence is an affront to the fundamental values of our society. They should not be.
•
•
•
•
u/Someoneoverthere42 38m ago
What do you mean? All I see is what appear to be poorly constructed electronics spontaneously failing.
•
u/Ok_Community_383 36m ago
Illegal but overall moral. We know they are being used inappropriately and legal channels to get them removed have not worked. They're leaving people no choice.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
u/ISuckAtJavaScript12 1h ago
These are all AI generated videos. No one is actually destroying flock cameras. Wink Wink Nudge Nudge
•
u/that_dutch_dude 1h ago
someone told me you should defenetly not shoot a BB or 22 about 1.5" below the camera lens. doing that would hit the lithium battery and burnt the whole thing down. please think of the lithium battery, lithium lives matter.
•
•
•
u/TheIronMonkey53 1h ago
Moral. It’s the governments job to represent the people, not to monitor them without their consent. The disapproval of flock cameras is widespread and bipartisan. To ignore that and continue to operate and maintain them is immoral
•
u/Lucid-Machine 59m ago
They're called "flock cameras" like they're shepherds and we are flocks to fleece. Ef em.
•
•
•
•
u/Ill-Cartographer-767 58m ago
My lawyer has advised me not to state my opinion on flock camera vandalism
•
•
u/Totally_Cubular 57m ago
The most moral thing to do is to find the most creative way to destroy them. It sends a message that people do not like being mass surveiled.
•
•
•
u/Plane-Education4750 54m ago
Moral. We are constitutionally protected against unreasonable search and seizure, and we also have the constitutional right to protect ourselves from illegal actions
•
•
•
u/Primary-Tiger-5825 58m ago
Super moral. In fact, people who pass by them without taking them down are going to hell. Fact
•
•
u/blackfox24 57m ago
Moral according to American morality, which prioritizes privacy, freedom from surveillance and intrusive searching, and more importantly, moral according to the fact that these cameras are generally doing as much harm as help, and are outing a massive corruption issue in small police forces.
If you can't catch criminals without 24/7 spy cameras, you aren't fit to be a cop.
•
u/Vast-Breakfast-1201 54m ago
Not moral
The issue is with government doing these things, hold your governments accountable, destroying property is illegal...
People are willing to risk jail time and fines rather then just being politically active and donating to your candidate that wants to actually ban it.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Huh_well_we_are_dead 54m ago
Something like 25% of all access of data comes from legitimate police investigations.
I would still have serious complaints if it was 100%, but that our data is treated so carelessly is disgraceful. Whoever’s destroying them is honestly probably saving someone a lot of pain and suffering, and they should be contracted to remove them formally once they’ve been made illegal.
•
u/ThinkSpielberg 52m ago
I don't think I've ever heard a positive story about Flock cameras. Maybe the government should find a better way to spend tax payer dollars.
•
u/FknBadFkr 48m ago
Absolutely moral to tear them down. They are taking our taxesto take away our freedom without representing us. The reason you her about Flock the most is because Epsteins company Axon is sliding in to feel the gap. Guess who is bought into Axon?
•
u/Dangremaus 48m ago
I believe in keeping people honest, but those cameras are just agents for spying. Who allowed them to be installed all over the place?
→ More replies (1)
•
•
u/FineAndDandadan 44m ago
Surveillance states are immoral, so fighting back against them with property destruction is moral. It gets a bit grey when you get into human harm, and I'd probably be looking into how the technology is being used to decide what degree of human harm is acceptable.
Also, tangent: I've seen some people online saying these don't have protections against high-power lasers. Anyone know anything about that?
•
u/Zapdos90HP 39m ago
Moral
If the Flock program was placed on a ballot it would have failed miserably. Government chose to circumvent the will of the people, and now we see the will of the people in action.
•
•
•
u/Cloud_Strife369 36m ago
This is how you end up in jail crying to family about getting a lawyer and bail money lol
Don’t be like this people this is a prime example of ruining your life in 2 secs
•
•
•
u/Decent-Net-1575 15m ago
It’s immoral not to destroy them, it is your moral obligation to destroy them
•
u/Guilty-Cap5605 1h ago
pretty sure this counts as a rule 2.
anyway moral
•
u/Plus-Visit-764 1h ago
How is flock cameras “politics”, exactly? If that’s politics then everything on here is technically political too.
I’ve yet to see any political side look at flock cameras as a positive.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/SemVikingr 1h ago
CN, CG, NG, and even LG depending on how you define 'lawful'. If you mean an unshakable moral code, than yeah, it's plenty lawful.
•
•
•
•
u/External-Test4279 54m ago
It would probably be better to stop the installations, because whoever sells this shit will profit by installing new ones paid by taxes.
Still, if nobody listens to you, you gotta do what you gotta do.
I really hope USA fights this hard, because whatever bullshit comes to pass in the USA long enough, will eventually be adopted in the rest of the world.
•
•
•
•
•
u/SubjectRound6597 53m ago edited 44m ago
Immoral. Can just repurpose all parts into new stuff. Sustainability is the way. Wastage is stupid.
I mean ..fr.. what is the quality of that camera?,, they are solar charging, they have infrared capability.. perfect for wildlife tracking..
•
•
•
u/TemporaryAmbassador1 53m ago
The cameras and the data centers where they will process the mass amounts of surveillance information they gather, both need to go.
•
•
u/TurbidWolf_Redux 52m ago
Hey guys cool taking down the cameras but how about we don't start bush fires while doing it?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
u/JRHThreeFour 49m ago
Moral. I despise intrusions on privacy of individuals by corporations. I hate these stupid things and I literally see them on my drive to and back from work.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
u/hoggersbridge 43m ago
I dunno about the destruction of property, but the soundtrack of this video is a crime against humanity in itself. Absolute garbage.
•
•
•
•
•
u/Legiyon54 The Illusive Man 42m ago
I believe this is one of those issues that both sides in American politics can agree on, except the extremists.
Oh Lord, this earth was made for us
Oh Lord, this sinful life just ain't enough
So we'll take a stand
'Cause we must protect our land
Keep your rifle by your side
•
u/--Spaci-- 42m ago
News flash americans don't want to be mass surveilled. The US will make propaganda about china surveillance then do shit like this
→ More replies (3)
•
•
•
u/AxiosXiphos 40m ago
Moral.... but I worry some kids are gonna get a criminal record for life for the sake of a $1000 camera.
•
•
•
•
u/Carolina-W00Dsman 1h ago
Moral. Folks dont wanna be tread upon it turns out.