[steviedotboston]

my point is people are freaking out about Flock but everyone has a tracking device in their pocket at all times, and people absolutely love Ring doorbell cameras (ok maybe not you, I get it).

It seems incongruous to me that people are willing to recognize the benefits that these tools provide law enforcement at solving crimes but when it comes to Flock cameras somehow things are totally different. They're just cameras with really good software, and law enforcement likes them because it makes their jobs easier.

[fc417fc802]

A phone provides the individual with tangible benefits. It only tracks the individual. The individual is always free to opt out.

A ring doorbell camera provides the individual with tangible benefits. It is installed by the individual on personal property. It does however typically capture some amount of public space which I think is problematic.

Government run centralized surveillance does not provide the individual with tangible benefits. It almost exclusively captures public spaces (that's usually the entire point of the exercise after all). It generally is not realistic to opt out short of being denied access to any surveilled public spaces. If that happens to include the majority of roads near your home then I guess you'll want to look into moving.

[ranger_danger]

> Government run centralized surveillance does not provide the individual with tangible benefits

It certainly can if you're willing to see it from a different perspective.

Imagine a thief, stalker, abuser or anyone that commits a crime against you, but police normally would not be able to locate them after they run away. Having those cameras can absolutely help them locate them quickly in order to arrest them shortly after you report an incident.

I'm not trying to defend surveillance, I certainly don't want it, I'm just saying there can technically be non-obvious benefits.