I am tangentially aware of the big hoopla regarding Flock cameras. Surveillance cameras that capture vehicle data to track down crime-doers are either being used nefariously, or outputting false positives leading to false arrests. As with any technology or specific tool, there’s opportunities for downsides and negative consequences. Is it the guns, or the shooters firing at innocent people?
(It’s the guns.)
As with anything, there are no solutions, only trade offs. These days, what are the first thing people ask for when something bad happens to them? Where are the cameras, and did they capture the bad thing? Should you get into a car accident, no doubt your insurance will seek and subpoena camera footage, perhaps from the very Flock cameras that have been so controversial.
If the negative consequences of implementing such surveillance powers is too intolerable for Americans, then the general public will also have to accept that there’s going to less video assistance when the bad stuff happens. Entire neighborhoods might be less safe because cars can act a fool with impunity. Can we tolerate the negative consequences of non implementation?
From a culture that brings their smartphones - and the cameras - with them into the bathroom, caring about privacy whilst out on public streets seem a bit dubious. Even if Flock cameras weren’t a thing, we are absolutely surrounded by capture devices. Soon as you leave the house, you might notice that every house on the residential block has outward-facing records. You get into your car, and dashcams are as popular as ever. Thanks to videos of blatant insurance fraud like this.
We are getting caught in 4K in public all the time.
Now obviously the argument here is that we would rather a scattershot of disparate camera operators, than one monolithic system accessible by the notoriously trustworthy government. And on that I have to concede the point. Perhaps this sort of crowd-sourced surveillance is a solid compromise that already exists.
Golden sun.
