> Last month, the San Francisco Standard reported that a prior version of Mar’s resolution was removed from the party’s agenda by a subcommittee chaired by Ho.
> The committee does not have rules related to conflicts of interest for issues like this one, Tung told Mar. They then proceeded to count both Ho and Chandler’s votes.
Voting for flock cameras right now though? That seems impossibly tone deaf to me.
I would have thought the politico playbook would be to stay quiet on the issue, then sneakily swap in a flock alternative AI camera company while loudly heralding how awesome you are for removing the flock menace. Boiled frogs applaud. On to the next 15 seconds of outrage (datacenters I assume :) )
I'm generalizing the political groups involved, but I don't understand how anyone who is conscious and/or cautious of AI safety, perhaps to the point of regulation, would then support the usage of AI-assisted surveillance.
> Both sides acknowledged that the city’s Flock camera data was illegally accessed more than 1.6 million times in 2024 and 2025, with lots of those searches reaching out-of-state agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And, more recently the San Francisco Police Department admitted around 300 out-of-state illegal searches had happened in the last year.
If the abolition movement wants progress we should start throwing white collar criminals that allow this to happen in prison. See how quickly those with power will start considering transformative/restorative justice alternatives
We already have laws making a lot of what Flock does illegal. We just don't enforce them
Personally I think people should start taking them personally to court via class action lawsuits. Prison would be a bonus, but crushing them financially would be the most effective.
What we do need is the death penalty to corporations. Reap them, take their cash and tell shareholders to do their due diligence when investing in criminal activities.
Why we keep protecting corporations just because there's a piece of paper that claims to do XYZ is such a bizarre world.
There’s an argument that a private citizen operating a Flock-like device is exercising a constitutionally protected right to gather news and observe public events, and sharing those observations is constitutionally protected free speech. And, unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment is worded to restrict government invasion of privacy, not citizen invasion of privacy.
I expect the Supreme Court to eventually rule on the constitutionality of mass surveillance of public places, at least by the government. Maybe also by random citizens.
Am I the only one here who doesnt really care that the government is watching me all the time? London effectively eliminated violent crime by watching everyone all the time, doesnt seem to bad to me.
Didn't they have that whole thing a year or two ago where criminals were snatching phones out of peoples hands? Where the police response was to blame the victims and tell them to just pay more attention to their surroundings next time?
It boggles my mind that Dorsey is even welcome in the SF Dem Party space after he posted on Twitter that mass amounts of civilians in Gaza welcome being killed by missiles:
I know SF supervising has 0 to do with the Middle East. But if he thinks like this about groups he doesn't like, what about when one of his constituents is part of a group he doesn't like?
Also crazy that 2 of the 20-ish members were employees of Flock and allowed to vote on this
21 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 33.4 ms ] threadThe only appropriate response to this is "What the fuck?"
> Last month, the San Francisco Standard reported that a prior version of Mar’s resolution was removed from the party’s agenda by a subcommittee chaired by Ho.
> The committee does not have rules related to conflicts of interest for issues like this one, Tung told Mar. They then proceeded to count both Ho and Chandler’s votes.
Dammit
Voting for flock cameras right now though? That seems impossibly tone deaf to me.
I would have thought the politico playbook would be to stay quiet on the issue, then sneakily swap in a flock alternative AI camera company while loudly heralding how awesome you are for removing the flock menace. Boiled frogs applaud. On to the next 15 seconds of outrage (datacenters I assume :) )
If the abolition movement wants progress we should start throwing white collar criminals that allow this to happen in prison. See how quickly those with power will start considering transformative/restorative justice alternatives
We already have laws making a lot of what Flock does illegal. We just don't enforce them
Personally I think people should start taking them personally to court via class action lawsuits. Prison would be a bonus, but crushing them financially would be the most effective.
What we do need is the death penalty to corporations. Reap them, take their cash and tell shareholders to do their due diligence when investing in criminal activities.
Why we keep protecting corporations just because there's a piece of paper that claims to do XYZ is such a bizarre world.
I expect the Supreme Court to eventually rule on the constitutionality of mass surveillance of public places, at least by the government. Maybe also by random citizens.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Daf9d_7mh22/?img_index=2
I know SF supervising has 0 to do with the Middle East. But if he thinks like this about groups he doesn't like, what about when one of his constituents is part of a group he doesn't like?
Also crazy that 2 of the 20-ish members were employees of Flock and allowed to vote on this