Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed (Public Report)
IPVM is the world's leading independent intelligence source for physical security, profiled by Time, The Atlantic, Wired and collaborated with the BBC, NY Times, Reuters, WaPo, WSJ, and more.
deflock.org will show you where those invasive cameras are. i looked them up for our city and was shocked to see how many there are. they just popped up in the darkness of night... we have at least 30 in our small town and i had NEVER seen one of them being installed. the surveillance state is real.
What do you think all these unnecessary "data centers" are for?
For your digital prison we are being enslaved into
Who didn't see this coming!
surely not humble winn! he's a real dummy head!
deflock.org will show you where those invasive cameras are. i looked them up for our city and was shocked to see how many there are. they just popped up in the darkness of night... we have at least 30 in our small town and i had NEVER seen one of them being installed. the surveillance state is real.
deflock.org will show you where those invasive cameras are. i looked them up for our city and was shocked to see how many there are. they just popped up in the darkness of night... we have at least 30 in our small town and i had NEVER seen one of them being installed. the surveillance state is real.
We need emp
People are constantly surprised by the very simple truth of "If it CAN be abused, it WILL be abused"
Meanwhile, enforcement of people even having a license plate seems to be at an all time low. So you can't tell me this actually catches the worst criminals.
It catches stolen cars, cars specifically set to alert when trying to find them for whatever crime, helps search for suspect cars in child enticement cases, etc... lots of value to Flock cameras. I understand why people hate them, but they really are a valuable tool. The premise of the attached article is stupid. That Chiefs use them to stalk women. Newsflash, if your city's chief is a creep with Flock, they were a creep before Flock when they still had access to the state motor vehicle database and whatever other state databases you have. They have been stalking women, men, ex wives, girlfriends whoever long before Flock. Identify them, fire them and charge them. But don't take that valuable tool away from law enforcement.
Then law enforcement needs to actually enforce people not displaying a plate. I see cars without them or with a tattered year expired temporary every day. As is, any criminal with an IQ above 85 will just take theirs off or steal one. All you catch are people so stupid they would have been caught anyway or people who had no intention of committing a crime for random nonsense.
Besides the fact that the oathbreaking creeps who enforced the Wuhan lockdowns don't need any more tools.
This is (in my opinion) the most idiotic take in the posted article:
There is zero "tension between those two statements". Using Flock to "monitor ex-girlfriends (or something related)" was called out by Flock as the most common abuse, as well as saying it is rare. Then the article author tries to make it into some type of coverup by basically claiming the two statements contradict each other.
Compare that to this fictitious example. Say a computer company says their most common issue is bad CPU chips from an external factory, but also says the problem is rare. Same thing - the computer company may have had 300 failures out of a million shipped, a very small number, but it is their biggest bad issue. Issues can be both rare and the biggest issue a company has.
I knew the article would have an agenda when I saw this: