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?”
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.
There is no compromise. Garret, You will be lucky to be alive here in a few months. The only thing you can do is beg and grovel and give back every penny you and your company earned back to the American people and in addition, take down every flock camera. And to employees of this company, run and Publicly denounce them so you have a CHANCE to be hired anywhere again.
Work with evil, die with evil.
No compromises with fascists.
Corporate CEOs can all have 1 camera each, on their front lawn, for them to hang from.
Correct, “safety” compromises our privacy. Now you’re getting it, captain shithead CEO! So with that in mind, there is no way we can accept these cameras.
How about we compromise by saying remove them all, give back the money spent, delete all data and in exchange you don’t get the treatments due one helping enable orwillian levels of suvelance
Yup, the compromise is not sending him to Tennessee to be publically hanged.
What are you talking about?
Hey question… its illegal (I think) to suggest or call for the hanging of someone. But is it illegal to publish and support legislation calling for the execution of public figures involved in X Y Z?
If not, I call for legislation to be passed that criminalized the usage of personal data for surveillance. Data collected without permission…
I need to think this through a little more but fuck it right? Make a proposed law that people can publicly support that show just how goddamn serious people are about this shit.
It’s been tried before, and abandoned because it’s generally a bad idea. What you’re describing is a bill of attainder, a law passed specifically to punish an individual or group.
wouldn’t a law against murder also be punishing a specific individual or group?
No, but making it illegal to be named Garrett Langley and CEO of Flock would be
If a law punished a specific murderer or group of murderers it would be, but not if it punished an entire defined class of murderers equally. Lawmakers generally describe the qualifications of a crime (e.g. “anyone who knowingly and willfully causes the death of another person”) and prescribe a punishment for anyone convicted of it, and then the courts determine whether or not individuals are guilty by whether they meet the qualifications laid out in the law. Bills of attainder are laws that define individuals or specific groups as guilty by identity, not qualification, which means they don’t get a trial and the judiciary doesn’t get to act as a check on the legislature.
a law passed specifically to punish an individual or group.
Such as. … a tariff aimed at one specific country?
Not sure exactly, but international trade law is weird, and generally bills of attainder are targeted at one or more individuals rather than classes of individuals. If a law defines a class, like “anyone selling goods from China” then I don’t think it qualifies as a bill of attainder. I did find this article on Lawfare from 2019 where Huawei challenged parts of the NDAA because it specifically forbade the executive branch from buying Huawei gear. The courts ultimately did not agree with Huawei.
While not illegal to propose such a law, that would be a bill of attainder, and thus unconstitutional under article 1, section 9, clause 3.
We’ve kinda had that legislation for about 235 years, now.
They just don’t give a fuck.
I’m amazed at how their concern for our safety allows them to do all sorts of heinous shit for
profitour safety.Safety? They constantly put innocent victims at risk by misidentifying them as the criminals!!!
Odd description of ‘safety’
Take your cameras down and maybe people don’t want to destroy them. Good compromise, eh?
Compromise: Quit now, and keep your head.
was about to make a similar post.
Stop building the invasive bullshit, or we start building guillotines.
I like the whole “publicly hanged for treason” thing.
Here’s the compromise: Take down the cameras and people won’t guillotine you.
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
How many trafficking victims have been rescued using these?
None. They’ll be used to find people to snatch up for trafficking, if they aren’t already.
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.
Here’s my compromise: we give the Flock CEO twenty to life instead of sentencing him to public flaying like he deserves.
Elect me your president and I’ll bring back tarring and feathering.
public flaying?
No, no… Blood Eagle.
Scaphism needs a revival.
Im on board with this.
We had a compromise. It’s called the bill of rights. Goes like this:
- I’ll say what I fucking want and associate with who I fucking please.
- I’ll fucking shoot you if you get in the way.
- You stay rhe fuck out of my house.
- Did you fucking hear me? STAY OUT OF MY HOUSE. AND LEAVE MY SHIT ALONE.
- You’re not the fucking boss of me. My crew will tell me when I’m out of line.
- I’m fucking going home when I please, no matter what you say I did.
- If you think I owe you, I don’t unless my crew fucking says so.
- Don’t fuck with me about shit that doesn’t deserve it.
- Just because I didn’t say it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t back the fuck off. Use your goddamn brain.
- You don’t get to make up shit and say you’re in charge of it. My house. My rules.
With the way things are going being pro-Constitution will soon be terrorism.
This is poetry to my ears.
If you edit this down you could sell this as a t-shirt at truckstops
