@bomberdawg: Yet another angle to consider when discussing how Flock cameras are encroaching on our Constitutional rights.

Michelle :

😂 silly goose, the shirt, 👏👏

Simonp19655 :

This has already started, for example, Flock cameras pointing into gun store and gun range parking lots

Silversurfer68 :

Good points to think about! Would a court order allowing access to data, similar to a wire tap, address these concerns?

barnum1965 :

I think we also need to consider the issue of allowing citizens to vote on flock camera use in their communities. I've seen at least one story already where a community has voted against flock cameras after they were already installed and the local government refused to take them down even though the citizens voted to remove them have you heard of this or do you have any more information on possibly voting for or against flock cameras

pjsjpm :

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8cmhSNS/

Mirabella :

Is there any hope/solution for people that are falsely & illegally placed on these flock hotlists and tracked everywhere they go?

FollowingTimmy :

Regardless of legality, I do not want a government that would prosecute its citizens for lashing 2 boats together on the ocean to have more surveillance tools.

loraineatkinson1 :

In your camp!

newsletter194-one :

Loving the hat!

brianr :

They also violate the Second Amendment. Flock cameras are being used to record plates of people that go to shooting ranges

ColeBaby 🤍 :

User0126 :

A major fly seeing the reasoning here, is that government agencies that operate flock do not place them on private property or at the entrances or exits of private property. The owners of private property might, and they might share that data with law-enforcement, but then it erodes the argument that “I lost business because of the government.” They would have lost business because of their acts.

Casandra Williams :

I enjoy your videos! I learn something each time I watch. I especially enjoy that you don't chop your videos. It feels like flock cameras are overstepping established laws to create new ones. I understand that the business must show harm, but also in doing that, must they expose the harmed parties? It seems like a catch 22. The parties go to the business as a private citizen but the city/government is watching. Then, if you stop going to the business because of the flock cameras the business must identify you to show harm.

Barry Brooks :

That is BS

Jimmy joe bob :

👍👍👍