this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2025
268 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
74010 readers
3442 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It does make sense. Police are not perfect saint-like beings, and the government is not composed of perfect beings either. I'm not sure what kind of person you are, but I'm sure there are some things you enjoy and partake in which some other social group really despises. If you're religious, it may be militant atheists who despise you going to church. If you're not religious, it may be militant theists who despise you not going to church. The point is, there's probably some social cultures out there that hate you for the things that you love. Those people may not be in charge right now, but they might be one day. Those people can end up in police departments, as developers for these camera companies, as administrators for the database that collects information on where you drive and when. Those people, being imperfect as they are, may not always resist the temptation to use this system in a way to track down and identify people like you for doing whatever it is that you love and they hate. Now you end up on a list for that.
There's no denying that sophisticated surveillance technology does make it easier to catch criminals and does legitimately protect from the threats those criminals pose. But surveillance technology, by it's very nature, cannot surveil only the criminals - it has to surveil everyone to find the criminals. And the notion of what is criminal may change. If your favorite hobby becomes criminalized, or if the government criminalizes your identity itself, these beautifully effective tools are suddenly turned against you.
There is a happy medium to be found between giving your society tools to enforce the will of constituents, vs. giving your society tools that be too easily abused. Given that this tool is already being abused, it probably isn't worth the benefits.
But if they did criminalise my favourite hobby, and they had evidence that I’m continuing to do that hobby in plain sight, they see me doing it every day……I’d expect them to come get me. That makes sense. It makes no sense to have that technology there to be used to find some crimes but not others.
I see what you're saying. You're not talking about "making sense" in an ethical or social well-being sense, you mean it's literally confusing why the technology wouldn't be used for all kinds of crimes, given that it already exists - irrespective of whether the technology should be used. Is that right? I think you're getting downvoted because it kinda sounds like you're saying this is all a good idea when you say it "makes sense". Unfortunate English ambiguities. But you're saying, like, sure it's dystopian and creepy and wrong, but why wouldn't the creepy dystopia use the tech for all cases then rather than just some? That's a good question. I think because there is legitimately some understanding of the dangers of using these powerful tools willy-nilly. While people aren't perfect angels, they also aren't perfect devils either. Another factor is that there is some pressure to appear not to be overly heavy-handed with these tools - as we see in those chats, they knew it made them look bad for this to get out.
And the final most pessimistic factor is that this Flock company almost certainly charges per seat, so giving direct usernames and logins to every officer or even every department is probably absurdly expensive. Companies (in this case the police) will often try to limit their license seats to as few people as possible and then just funnel as much different people's work through that one person's license as they can.
I'm also saying it's not really any more creepy or dystopian than say ..... speed cameras. They're there to catch people that break the law. If these cameras are already used to catch people breaking some laws, the logic of "well they should only be allowed to catch people who break these specific laws, but not these other laws" doesn't make any sense.
If you know the license plate of a car of a wanted murderer, and the FLOCK camera system recognises that number plate, why on earth would anyone be against the FLOCK camera system arbitrarily not being allowed to be used to catch that murderer? Like what is the reasoning behind that train of thought?