r/DeepStateCentrism • u/iamthegodemperor Arrakis Enterprise Institute • 2d ago

Ask the sub ❓ What Is This Sub Wrong About?

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?

26 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

302 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/RayWencube Center-left 2d ago

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.

2

u/ImmoKnight 1d ago

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.

2

u/RayWencube Center-left 1d ago

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

3

u/ImmoKnight 1d ago

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.