zlacker

> This decision came after Illinois Secretary of State [...] discovered that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois cameras in a “pilot program” against state law, and after the RoundTable reported in June that out-of-state law enforcement agencies were able to search Flock’s data for assistance in immigration cases.

This illustrates the textbook argument for why mass surveillance is bad: these tools can quickly end up in the wrong hands.

Play silly games, win silly prizes.

>>forker+(OP)
> these tools can quickly end up in the wrong hands.

With respect, they ALWAYS end up in the wrong hands.

>>burnte+iI1
The people pitching for said surveillance are always the wrong hands if they're from the government. "We here from the government, we're here to help" are very scary words, and be careful if you take them up on the offer

>>EasyMa+hL1
I don't really want private parties doing mass surveillance either.

>>burnte+tM1
me either, but their power is limit. Governments can ruin you forever and even disappear you without any real consequences

>>EasyMa+hL1
This statement from Reagan is why we’re in this mess. There’s nothing wrong having the government come help you. The problem is regulatory capture, corruption, and a population that seems ok with it. A competent government with people who care can be a powerful force in people lives, eg social security, national parks, public schools.

>>EasyMa+CP1
Governments can equally allow private companies this same capacity.

>>EasyMa+CP1
I have recourse against the government. I have less recourse against private companies.