The country needs to find a “compromise” between privacy and safety, according to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley.
“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”
There should be no compromising our right to privacy and these cameras need to go. Fuck Flock and their cash grab.
Fuck flock AND Axon.
Interesting that he’s framing it as a balance between privacy and safety instead of privacy and security.
Flock cameras haven’t been proven to make anyone safer.
The compromise is that he lives
There is absolutely no reason to track people everywhere they go. We were fine before these things.
Yup, violent crime has been dropping for decades and not an insignificant drop. We did not need mass surveillance, we did not want mass surveillance, nor do we want it now.
Lead levels dropped
Compromise offer: you stop spying on us and we’ll stop breaking your cameras.
I think the window of compromise has long since passed. Flock as a company went in with a guns blazing, anti-privacy, record everything, give the information to anyone style business style, and then chose to double and triple down on the style when the controversy/outcry first started. Once you’ve hit the stage where there’s people starting to protest and riot and cities have started to go out of their way to ban the product and retract contracts due to the fact that they’re concerned about public support. It’s too late. That’s a fire that’s not being put out.
And the zombies said “all we want to do is eat your brains, maybe we can compromise…”
“We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes”
We promise to access the brains from behind so your face still looks great!
That will be stuck in my head for the rest of the day. Great reference
to be fair, to Magastanians, the eyes are more valuable. That way they wouldn’t lose anything they’d miss.
hey bb, i cn only reed the top fore lines, so u wan sum fuk den?
(I’d normally use a winky emoticon down here to indicate I’m being silly here, but I know you younger kids interpret that in contexts like this with sexual overtones. :shakes fist: Leave my 1980s emoticons alone, damn you kids! heh)
I can guarantee this has been said already, but the compromise is simple; no flock cameras (or comparable tech) anywhere.
Corporate CEOs can all have 1 camera each, on their front lawn, for them to hang from.
Fuck off with compromise. take your shit and get out no one wants you in case the guillotine wasn’t fucking clear
Just wait til Flocko’ween.
The compromise is you scrap every camera, or we do.
*We didn’t invent police abuse! We actually shined a light on it and pointed it out"
Fuck right the hell off with this shit. You don’t get to sell your panopticon to a group that routinely abuses every tool they have, and feign ignorance in defense of the results.
Anyone who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserves neither.
Garrett can get fucked.
The fact that it improves safety is a claim that can easily be challenged as recently it seems to have put people in harms way. Texas police used it to stalk a woman across state lines to find out if she got an abortion elsewhere.
“So it protected her unborn baby from murder, see!”
-fascists
