this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
371 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

85870 readers
4312 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I never said the cameras should exist. And if there's already been a class action lawsuit (or whatever the equivalent is for getting cameras taken down in this man's jurisdiction) please direct me to it.

The last town I heard of that got rid of their Flock cameras did so because people started putting in Freedom of Information requests for them. The authorities didn't like the idea of the public having access to that information at all, and they knew it wouldn't stand up in court because the usual excuses wouldn't work. (Namely "think of the children" and "national security".)

The only way to win is to make them take their own cameras down and rethink their ideas otherwise they'll just keep on replacing the broken ones, charging the public for the privilege and locking up the offenders.

And finally, if there truly was no other option, which I'm yet to be convinced of, he shouldn't have acted alone.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

There are a handful of easily searchable lawsuits against flock cameras. I only say it that way because linking those is a pain on mobile and there's enough examples that it's easily searchable. Not trying to be defensive or deflecting.

I'll concede that "the only option" was not good phrasing. However I still believe that it's inline with going through proper channels. Even if the law comes through and bans flock, throughout that entire process, they are still recording. My belief is that this is a positive action and this person that risk his freedom is something of a hero.

I see your point of view and understand what you mean, but I just don't agree with it. Sometimes anarchy is the answer, although I agree that it would be best done en masse rather than individually.