On: The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

[arjie]

Yeah it’s quite common it seems. Similar to the ULEZ camera takedowns. And the ULEZ cameras were also supposedly a tool of government control. As were SF’s speed cameras. And so on and so forth.

I am not convinced. I am happy with the speed cameras, and I’m happy with the ULEZ cameras, and I’m happy with Flock cameras.

The position that we must destroy state function is outrageous to me. We have a path to peace and safety and the ensuing prosperity. The cameras must be preserved.

[pluralmonad → arjie]

How does a centralized power structure knowing every action millions of people take bring about "peace and safety and the ensuing prosperity"? I guess you didn't mean for most of us.

[vrganj → arjie]

It's one thing if a democratically legitimized government entity is in control, like with ULEZ.

It's another thing entirely if a private oligarch owns the cameras.

Flock and ULEZ are not the same.

[Symbiote → vrganj]

Also ULEZ is working, with reduced hospital admissions, reduced pollution levels, and no decrease in economic activity.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-...

[arjie → vrganj]

ULEZ cameras are also run by private contractors: Capita and Yunex. Is the entire objection centered around the distinction between owning vs. operating? i.e. if each city owned their network and used it (as ULEZ cameras are - in addition to their primary reason) for policing and used contractors to operate it then the objections would disappear? I see, I didn't realize this was a question of structuring of the purchase orders.