Talk:Common Questions, Arguments, & Responses when discussing Flock Surveillance
Can this be generalised?
editMost of this does not seem to be specific to the Flock brand. We have numerous other and potentionally even more problematic surveillance camera vendors like Hikvision that this applies to.
It also seems like it would require expanding the scope of the Wiki to encompass all forms of surveillance captitalism, which I guess would make sense, since the data from both sources ultimately ends up in the same two places (big-tech/advertising and law enforcement/espionage).
Moreover, this is unfortunately a world-wide issue. Yet the way this article is structured is very US-centric right now.
For instance, London has long been at the forefront of video surveillance, and the heads of German federal states recently also announced their intent to significantly expand AI surveillance in the public space and to increase data retention (web usage data and location data) despite this being ruled illegal by the European court of justice in the past. MrTuttle (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- This article is only here temporarily as Louis sometimes creates an article of info related to the council meetings he goes to. It will be moved/deleted soon. Beanie Bo (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of if, when King Louis Rossmann does this, he can add it to CRW or his own namespace? It doesn't exactly hurt to be here, but it is a bit unusual being here. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that's what Keith did the last time. I guess he hasn't gotten around to it this time yet. Apparently Louis is planning to make a separate smaller wiki specifically for Flock and these types of articles Beanie Bo (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of if, when King Louis Rossmann does this, he can add it to CRW or his own namespace? It doesn't exactly hurt to be here, but it is a bit unusual being here. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Kyllo v. United States
editIt may be appropriate to mention Kyllo v. United States on this page. ( https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-8508 )
Like Katz, it's a bedrock case from before the era of ALPRs. It determined that the police couldn't use a thermal imaging camera to surveil inside a home without a warrant. It is frequently cited (including in Carpenter & Jones) as establishing the precedent that police can't use technology to sidestep the Fourth Amendment. The police basically said "we didn't go inside the house, so it wasn't a search" and the Supreme Court wasn't buying it. It was also important to the case that the technology used wasn't in general public use. Jdwx (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)