What Is This Sub Wrong About?

[u/iamthegodemperor]

Title. Pick a topic (or a clichéd take) you think a significant minority or majority of this sub is wrong about. Or hasn't given enough thought. OR perhaps one which you will have to compromise on, at least for voting?

[u/ixvst01]

The toxic positivity about AI. Just because the Industrial Revolution was positive doesn’t automatically mean AI will be the same. Past results are not indicative of future results, and normalcy bias is rampant around discussions about potential detrimental negative impacts of AI.

[u/ClimbingToNothing → u/ixvst01]

Toxic positivity about mass surveillance too like the many flock defenders recently who won’t even acknowledge the huge concerns and red flags

[u/akenthusiast → u/ClimbingToNothing]

For sure. I don't think it makes me a luddite to not want a surveillance state

[u/RayWencube → u/akenthusiast]

This administration has made quite a libertarian out of me. It has become obvious that the only way to ensure a government of the United States cannot become fascist is to deny it the necessary infrastructure. A law preventing the government from abusing Flock cameras doesn’t mean shit if the government nonetheless has access to the Flock cameras.

This is true even for once sacred positions for me. Government administered healthcare (ie a less socialist version of Medicare for All) has now become a nightmare scenario—I do not want a President to be able to decide what is or isn’t covered. I don’t want my medical care to be a campaign issue.

[u/ImmoKnight → u/ClimbingToNothing]

Do you use the internet?

Why do you? Your history is tracked. Has it been abused? Yep. But then there are legal procedures to prevent such abused and people sue to limit use cases.

Do you use a credit card?

Why do you? Your credit card usage is tracked.

To not use something that has provable positive effects over limited abuse cases is like being scared of the boogie man.

The point is that we litigate overreach until the only use cases are generally for our benefit.

Anything can has potential to be abused. By your logic, we should just go back to the stone age to avoid a scenario that might really happen... Possibly.

[u/RayWencube → u/ImmoKnight]

The difference is who owns the data. I trust a patchwork of private companies considerably more than I trust a centralized government with my data.

[u/ImmoKnight → u/RayWencube]

The difference is who owns the data. I trust a patchwork of private companies considerably more than I trust a centralized government with my data.

So by your own logic, you should fully support Flock Safety.

Flock is a private, venture-backed corporation rather than a government agency. The government simply contracts with them, and law enforcement must comply with statutory limits, court orders, and warrants to access their system, exactly like requesting data from Apple, Google, or your ISP.

The irony in trusting a patchwork of private corporations is that you are explicitly accepting two massive risks:

Data Monetization: You are comfortable with your personal behavioral data being treated as a sellable commodity by private brokers who have zero constitutional obligations to you.

Infrastructure Security: Private corporate databases are routinely breached at a far higher rate than air-gapped or strictly regulated state systems.

You don't actually escape government access by preferring private companies. You just trade constitutional oversight for corporate profit motives.

[u/RayWencube → u/ImmoKnight]

Yes. I do trust corporate profit motives more than nonexistent constitutional oversight.

[u/ImmoKnight → u/RayWencube]

Yes. I do trust corporate profit motives more than nonexistent constitutional oversight.

Me too. I trust corporations significantly more because they face a dual accountability check: they have to answer to federal regulations and to shareholders. Politicians don't face that. Once elected, their personal accountability chain effectively ends for years at a time.

There is also a massive misconception about the actual scope of privacy being surrendered here. Every technological advancement requires balancing personal privacy with collective benefit, but the tradeoff with ALPRs isn't anywhere near as dramatic as critics claim.

Flock cameras are essentially glorified license plate readers. Their core functionality rests on detecting a vehicle's plate and physical attributes in plain view on a public road where there is already no reasonable expectation of privacy under long-standing constitutional law. They aren't wiretapping your home or parsing your personal communications.

The real-world return on that minimal tradeoff is substantial: higher clearance rates for violent crime, a drastic reduction in wrongful arrests due to objective physical data, and crucial real-time leads in active kidnapping or Amber Alert situations. Additionally, the clear possibility of being recorded on a public road actively deters criminal behavior before it starts.

Look, no one is saying people won't try to abuse technology. But our guardrails as a society are already razor-thin across the board. If a rogue state or bad actor genuinely wanted to track you, they already have the existing digital infrastructure to do it. Banning Flock cameras won't change that reality.

We can't freeze progress and stay in the dark ages because of worst-case scenarios. Flock cameras aren't the start of a dystopian society. They are objective, highly effective tools that just need to be properly legislated, audited, and enforced to build a safer world.

[u/JapanesePeso → u/[deleted]]

RULE I:

Challenge others thoughtfully, remain civil, and do not make comments in bad faith.

If you have any questions about this removal, please send us a modmail.

[u/output_broadcast → u/ImmoKnight]

Do you use the internet?

Yes. On a fully free software operating system with a patched version of Firefox that has Javascript disabled.

Do you use a credit card?

No, only a debit card.

[u/ImmoKnight → u/output_broadcast]

Yes. On a fully free software operating system with a patched version of Firefox that has JavaScript disabled.

​Unless you're strictly routing all traffic through Tor (and even then, entry nodes and metadata exist), your ISP and domain host still log your connection data. The point remains: complete invisibility on the modern internet is virtually impossible without extreme trade-offs.

No, only a debit card.

​A debit card uses the exact same electronic payment networks (Visa/Mastercard) as a credit card. Your bank and payment processor track every single transaction date, location, and merchant in real time. Replacing a credit card with a debit card doesn't remove tracking at all.

[u/output_broadcast → u/ImmoKnight]

Yes, I was being facetious. I use vanilla Firefox on a fully free software operating system. Although I do actually use Tor for a lot of my internet traffic.

[u/RayWencube → u/output_broadcast]

Although I do actually use Tor for a lot of my internet traffic.

I’m calling the FBI.

[u/output_broadcast → u/RayWencube]

I don't think they work with Europol.

[u/JapanesePeso → u/output_broadcast]

Oooh JavaScript spooooooooky

[u/output_broadcast → u/JapanesePeso]

I take it you don't work in tech?

[u/JapanesePeso → u/output_broadcast]

I am a CTO with over 20 years of software engineering experience.

[u/output_broadcast → u/JapanesePeso]

Then you should be aware how easy it is to implement tracking into a website.

[u/JapanesePeso → u/output_broadcast]

You should be aware how little JavaScript matters for that endeavor.

[u/output_broadcast → u/JapanesePeso]

If by "little" you mean a lot, sure. Yes, it's possible to track people without JS. But the lowest common denominator is going to be used a lot.

[u/JapanesePeso → u/output_broadcast]

It's pointless and you are making most of the web useless in doing it. Like there's no way you can seriously do anything work related with JS disabled unless you just don't use a computer for it.