6 ms·
I think this or similar accountability measures is where we'll need to end up with this kind of technology. It's too useful for catching vehicle theft rings and
by jauer 1mo ago
I think this or similar accountability measures is where we'll need to end up with this kind of technology. It's too useful for catching vehicle theft rings and similar kinds of highly disruptive criminal networks to abandon the technology entirely.
LOVEINT has been a thing for as long as electronic surveillance has existed. We fire and/or prosecute people for it. We didn't turn out back on those capabilities.
I'd like to see someone using systems not available to the general public to to look up info on people without a legitimate purpose be treated as a kind of aggravated stalking.
Government employees should be held to a higher standard because they are in a position of public trust, but TBH people at companies like Google, Meta, Verizon, Comcast abusing internal tools for this should be similarly held accountable because they have access to resources far beyond e.g. one hobbyist logging TPMS IDs on passing vehicles.
- infinite_spin 1mo agoFair point, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, however I am fearful of a surveillance state. These trust issues seem to be stacking up, so I think statutory transparency is necessary.
- eptcyka 1mo agoWith Flock, we can and absolutely should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Good riddance for that demonic little pest.
- qmr 1mo agoFuck that baby and the bath water. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." In the words of the civil rights attorney on YouTube, "Freedom is scary, deal with it."
- wolfi1 1mo agobut wouldn't such vehicle theft rings change the license plates?
- runtime_terror 1mo agoBut who's going to police the literal police? They have a track record in this country of having near zero accountability