Not sure you need AI just to divide distance by time. No wonder data centers are going up everywhere...
Fight Against Flock Safety in BCS
5,250 Views |
54 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by jeremy
I swear I posted on this thread. Not sure what happened to it. I posted a quote from Ben Franklin:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
[Your post was removed in an automatic cleanup of other posts. We do request that when posters use a quote that they add their opinion about how the quote is relevant to the thread and their opinion about the subject and not make a post that just has a quote. Thank you. -Staff]
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
[Your post was removed in an automatic cleanup of other posts. We do request that when posters use a quote that they add their opinion about how the quote is relevant to the thread and their opinion about the subject and not make a post that just has a quote. Thank you. -Staff]
[You were warned about being respectful on this forum. -Staff]
Darthag11 said:
meh if you are not committing crimes no one cares about your info.
Who defines the crimes? Do you think you'll always agree with the definition of "crime"?
bonfarr said:JB said:
How long before insurance companies get access to these things.
100% against.
Data brokers as well.
If cities want to increase ticket revenue all they have to do is have a flock camera at two points on a road and use AI to calculate the speed of a car from point A to Point B then a citation is automatically mailed when posted speeds are exceeded.
If I ever get a ticket for this, im fighting it on the basis that you think that my vehicle follows the continuity equation. "You cannot average 80 miles an hour without having an instantaneous velocity of 80 miles per hour. Welp, prove my car follows a continuous equation. Innocent until proven guilty, booooiiiiyyyy
Pig Robbins said:
They can't and they won't.
You cannot predict the future.
Quote:
Quit being soft on crime.
Quit being soft on civil liberties.
Tailgate88 said:Pig Robbins said:
They can't and they won't.
You cannot predict the future.Quote:
Quit being soft on crime.
Quit being soft on civil liberties.
I regret that I have but one blue star to give this post.
jeremy said:bonfarr said:JB said:
How long before insurance companies get access to these things.
100% against.
Data brokers as well.
If cities want to increase ticket revenue all they have to do is have a flock camera at two points on a road and use AI to calculate the speed of a car from point A to Point B then a citation is automatically mailed when posted speeds are exceeded.
If I ever get a ticket for this, im fighting it on the basis that you think that my vehicle follows the continuity equation. "You cannot average 80 miles an hour without having an instantaneous velocity of 80 miles per hour. Welp, prove my car follows a continuous equation. Innocent until proven guilty, booooiiiiyyyy
Europe does this in countries like the Netherlands. It is a flat fee based upon the fact that to get from point a to point b meant you had to speed at some point in the distance. Not sure your logic actually works. They actually buffer it a little as well. I am not advocating for this to occur here just saying that it already does happen.
LOYAL AG said:Darthag11 said:
meh if you are not committing crimes no one cares about your info.
That's a really poor answer. Never trust government. All of human history proves this basic fact. The greatest nation in human history was founded on the basic idea that government cannot be trusted and freedom means government can't watch you because it wants to.
Its a very very dangerous take. Privacy is important, and only those that lack knowledge of history seem to have this perspective... or work in law enforcement/government.
How quickly government can leverage what was meant for safety/security to abuse its citizens. Covid era had examples of this. Socialist/Communist countries are notorious for it, and we certainly have plenty of advocates in this country.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
[Be respectful or do not post on this forum. -Staff]
Pig Robbins said:
Cops who misuse the data should be held accountable, as they are when they misuse anything else. That doesn't mean you ban an incredibly effective tool. It means developing clear safeguards and guidelines. It's not that hard.
Again, no civil liberties are being violated when they are used under sound, established policy.
The evidence is in, and I remain 100% in favor.
So, how are they held accountable?? The cases I've seen, they lose their job after an "internal investigation", and oh, yeah, they still get paid whilst the investigation is going on.
Then it's up to the victim to file a civil suit, which the lawyer will likely go after not only the ex-officer that did the wrong, but lawyers tend to "roll the dude with the deepest pockets", meaning the city.
Then there's the issue of cost. Cost to put the cameras in. Costs associated with the police investigating themselves (there's an oxymoron) and then there's the cost of removing the cameras after public outrage and folks show up to city council meetings with pitchforks. You can bet Flock has early termination clauses in their contract with penalties.
Who bears the brunt for all that cost and time wasted and lawsuit?
Flock? LOL.
The Police Dept. or their pension fund? Again, LOL.
The taxpayers of the city. That's who. My taxes are high enough as it is.
Quit being soft on fiscal responsibility.
I have mixed feelings about this. I was dead set against red light cameras and I still am.
In theory I don't have a problem with CSPD, BPD or BCSO using traffic cameras to help investigations. I know a lot of LEOs locally and have a hard time believing they're a part of some big brother conspiracy.
In the other hand, I really hate the data gathering aspect of this. I hate the fact that this company can benefit financially from me personally simply by me using a public ROW.
In theory I don't have a problem with CSPD, BPD or BCSO using traffic cameras to help investigations. I know a lot of LEOs locally and have a hard time believing they're a part of some big brother conspiracy.
In the other hand, I really hate the data gathering aspect of this. I hate the fact that this company can benefit financially from me personally simply by me using a public ROW.
Pig Robbins said:
They can't and they won't. They can only access specific pieces of Flock data if it becomes part of a public police report during a criminal investigation, or if they successfully subpoena a camera owner during a civil lawsuit.
Quit being soft on crime.
It's frustrating to debate these things with people that have a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper role of government.
The federal government was never meant to be this powerful.
You want to lose your mind. If I put up a flock camera on my property and capture the road traffic going by, I can see the data and do whatever I want with it.
Grmpy said:
[Be respectful or do not post on this forum. -Staff]
[We do not allow threads on this forum to become rude or insulting and posters will be respectful on this forum. Using insulting phrases or terms is not allowed on this forum and reposting something that was removed is an automatic ban. -Staff]
LOYAL AG said:Pig Robbins said:
They can't and they won't. They can only access specific pieces of Flock data if it becomes part of a public police report during a criminal investigation, or if they successfully subpoena a camera owner during a civil lawsuit.
Quit being soft on crime.
It's frustrating to debate these things with people that have a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper role of government.
Failing education system... Most of today Media (news and entertainment) attacks the entire idea of our structured government.
Heck, half the people can't explain what a republic is and why senators should not be a popular vote.
Civil education is dead.
TheAggieWalrus said:Aggie_Fire said:
Their poles are TXDOT approved. I can not find a site right now that shows they have TXDOT approval, but they do. TXDOT does not allow them to place them in their Right of way without breakaway designs. They have been tested and approved. That argument is not a valid one. Here is where Florida DOT goes into their different crash worthiness designs and what is approved:
https://www.fdot.gov/traffic/trafficservices/lpr/approved-lpr-supports
Do you really think that TXDOT would allow that to happen? No, they wouldn't. TXDOT takes Safety very seriously and would be greatly exposed to liability if they let a third party come in with a dangerous product in their Right-of-way
Side note: I am torn as well about these. I have a feeling they will go away one day like red light cameras when someone deems them unconstitutional.
I have yet to see a camera with the sheer plates like JB posted
Those shear plates that you're referring to are for higher speed roadways. Look around and you'll notice that some poles are just designed to bend over when they get it.
A&M's poles are square tubing with out a "shear plate" base, but are thin enough they would just bend over when hit.
Dunno if they've got the shear plates or not but the ones I'm seeing around the county are the same black poles as the ones in the Lowe's parking lot.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Aggie_Fire said:TheAggieWalrus said:Aggie_Fire said:
Their poles are TXDOT approved. I can not find a site right now that shows they have TXDOT approval, but they do. TXDOT does not allow them to place them in their Right of way without breakaway designs. They have been tested and approved. That argument is not a valid one. Here is where Florida DOT goes into their different crash worthiness designs and what is approved:
https://www.fdot.gov/traffic/trafficservices/lpr/approved-lpr-supports
Do you really think that TXDOT would allow that to happen? No, they wouldn't. TXDOT takes Safety very seriously and would be greatly exposed to liability if they let a third party come in with a dangerous product in their Right-of-way
Side note: I am torn as well about these. I have a feeling they will go away one day like red light cameras when someone deems them unconstitutional.
I have yet to see a camera with the sheer plates like JB posted
Those shear plates that you're referring to are for higher speed roadways. Look around and you'll notice that some poles are just designed to bend over when they get it.
A&M's poles are square tubing with out a "shear plate" base, but are thin enough they would just bend over when hit.
This is on 290. I don't see any obvious breakaway but it looks pretty thin.
Omperlodge said:jeremy said:bonfarr said:JB said:
How long before insurance companies get access to these things.
100% against.
Thats true for a continuous equation. Who is to say my vehicle follows a continuous equation. Prove I cannot quantum leap. I dont have to prove I can.
Data brokers as well.
If cities want to increase ticket revenue all they have to do is have a flock camera at two points on a road and use AI to calculate the speed of a car from point A to Point B then a citation is automatically mailed when posted speeds are exceeded.
If I ever get a ticket for this, im fighting it on the basis that you think that my vehicle follows the continuity equation. "You cannot average 80 miles an hour without having an instantaneous velocity of 80 miles per hour. Welp, prove my car follows a continuous equation. Innocent until proven guilty, booooiiiiyyyy
Europe does this in countries like the Netherlands. It is a flat fee based upon the fact that to get from point a to point b meant you had to speed at some point in the distance. Not sure your logic actually works. They actually buffer it a little as well. I am not advocating for this to occur here just saying that it already does happen.