9 comments

  • rglover 53 minutes ago

    IMO, when they have to hide, that's the beginning of the end. Too many people are aware of the what/why now. And above all else, once the tables turn on elected officials and they realize they're under the same surveillance, I bet their tune will change (likely due to a public egg-on-face moment involving illegal or suspicious activity). If people keep the pressure on, this will be a "remember when" rather quickly.

    • Cider9986 17 minutes ago

      Government officials should be highly transparent. Privacy for the people, transparency for the government.

      • FireBeyond 28 minutes ago

        Some of that is already happening, in DC of all places, where the DC Police Officer's Union is protesting against use of Flock by ... the DC Police (albeit Internal Affairs).

        Something about "this technology is invasive and violates the right to privacy of our members"...

      • derbOac 1 hour ago

        If Flock wants to be used by public services, it should be subject to maximum transparency. If you don't want your camera locations public, don't offer them to the public for their use.

        • AKSF_Ackermann 39 minutes ago

          I would like to point out that the website in question has a button to download the entire dataset. Probably would be a good idea to save a copy.

          • JKCalhoun 42 minutes ago

            I still want to see a driving game, perhaps using Google maps, where you try to get from point A to point B and not pass any Flock cameras.

            • pennomi 27 minutes ago

              I’m working on an OpenStreetMap-powered map generator in Godot, this would probably be quite easy to build.

              • nxobject 30 minutes ago

                That would make for a “fun” (if depressing) Glider environmental hazard.

              • heliomattress 16 minutes ago

                flock CEO's last name is "Langley" ? you can't make this stuff up.

                • ortusdux 47 minutes ago

                  Could the map's creator be held liable if Flock can demonstrate this map in particular was used to destroy cameras?

                  • collabs 44 minutes ago

                    In my uninformed opinion that would be a dangerous precedent if there is no proven collusion or conspiracy to act together. I anal though so I'll wait for people who know the law to respond.

                    • moate 37 minutes ago

                      Highly unlikely (but hey, anything's possible when you're flirting with an authoritarian regime). They would need to demonstrate that the map was made TO destroy cameras if to have real merit.

                    • forshaper 27 minutes ago

                      Axon and Motorola must be pretty satisfied with all this.

                      • paimapi 18 minutes ago

                        for what it's worth, the DeFlock maps also include Axon/Motorola cams. they pick up my city's custom implementation too so the anti-surveillance movement is really benefiting from this Flock-focused hate

                      • bookofjoe 1 hour ago
                        • adolph 27 minutes ago

                          Clickbait. The website proprietor received a 3rd party trademark infringement complaint. If people in the company would prefer the map to be offline, they are taking a very roundabout way of accomplishing it.

                            On Thursday, Michael was notified that Doppel, which describes itself as an “AI-native social engineering defense platfom,” filed a trademark infringement complaint regarding his site, claiming to be working on Flock’s behalf. Doppel says that the site is using the trademark “FLOCK SAFETY” without authorization, which “may cause customer confusion / harm.” Doppel requested the site be taken down.