The police say that over the weekend, officers found the poles the cameras were mounted on had been cut down and the cameras were gone. Flock cameras are stirring controversy across the country as they compile license plate and other vehicle details in a national database.
  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    1212·
    2 months ago

    I have never and I will never see someone cutting down a Flock camera.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
      67·
      2 months ago

      I mean it’s the cameras’ job to keep track of criminals, right? So it’s not my job anymore to give a shit about where they went or what they looked like, surely.

      • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
        28·
        2 months ago

        Growing up watching Batman and Spiderman be told to leave it to the professionals, I think it might be my job to not interfere by knowing anything.

        My memory has been shot for ten years anyways.

        • fartographer@lemmy.world
          5·
          2 months ago

          I mean, who am I gonna trust? Some person on the Internet saying that I didn’t see anything, or my lying eyes?

    • chocrates@piefed.worldEnglish
      6·
      2 months ago

      It’s never our job to assist the police. If they talk to you the only response is “am I being detained”

  • CubitOom@infosec.pubEnglish
    106·
    2 months ago

    I think flock is stealing their own cameras so they can reset them and charge to replace them. There is a clear incentive.

  • Garbagio@lemmy.zip
    28·
    2 months ago

    I didn’t see shit, I don’t know shit, I plead the 5th, get out of my doorway

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      2 months ago

      If you don’t have a cellphone but ya got a sheisty…

      There’s not really anyway to ID the person in the video.

      • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.mlEnglish
        61·
        2 months ago

        They’d recognize my LIMP. I have a (documented) broken bone in my foot.

        (For a short time I can limp on the wrong foot so THEY have PROOF that it wasn’t me)

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 months ago

          Gait recognition is not as good as they say it is…

          They use it to say two videos are of the same person, but if you think “expert testimony” gives actual opinions and not just what will get lawyers to pay them again…

          Then you don’t understand how any of this works.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      6·
      2 months ago

      I know it’s a joke, but I’m hijacking youry comment because it’s a great example sentence on why you should never, ever talk to the police outside of an active emergency when you need their help.

      You didn’t do anything, but your words self-incriminated you as someone who took part in the destruction of the cameras.

      • ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        7·
        2 months ago

        Hmm, never thought of it that way. Yes, if someone were incredibly stupid or malicious, that would certainly come off that way. So I can see why a cop might see it like that.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          7·
          2 months ago

          Exactly. And when they testify at trial that you admitted to being with the offender at the time of the crime, it’s not just the cop’s opinion you have to worry anout. Your defense of “I was lying to get the real culprit off the hook” also wouldn’t help you much at that point. Best case you’re looking at an obstruction conviction.

          Even more interestingly - this scenario doesn’t require the officer to be corrupt.

          Never talk to cops.

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
    18·
    2 months ago

    If you see someone vandalizing / stealing private surveillance cameras in public areas : No You Didn’t.

    While I get them in public transit it’s still a slippery slope, and could be manually triggered by a (physically protected) driver in needed situation. Then there’s the whole everyone with a phone camera uploading them to Google / Apple (and consequently three letter agencies as well) which is the granddaddy of privacy destruction.

    At some point, when this all shakes out as the terrible idea many have already suggested, we need to require third party consent for visual recording (like for audio in some jurisdictions) and was once required for profitable publication. If that ends up with a lot more landscapes and art photography online, I’ll consider it a win.

    • DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip
      91·
      2 months ago

      Oh yeah man Police departments all over the country will love that rule about always obtaining consent to record.

      “We can brutalize people even harder now??”

      I do hate the Flock shit and everything else you mentioned though. Idk what the answer is other than sane legislation that is for the people so of course that will not ever happen here.

      • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
        7·
        2 months ago

        Oh yeah man Police departments all over the country will love that rule about always obtaining consent to record.

        Yeah, good point. An exception here would be good, also not requiring consent to film police (and other actors for state violence) should be baked in.

    • ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml
      1·
      2 months ago

      In Germany (most of Europe I think), it’s illegal to film people without their consent. Private citizens that is, you can always film the cops of course.