09-01-2026, 04:13 AM
The needs of the many...
I prefer to think of it as more of a “burning man” argument. Feel the burn. Up in flames.
Being very clear as the PunaWeb "wordsmithers" love to chop up and distort points being made, but at its present status, I would without any hesitation say that I am flat out against Flock cameras.
In as much as its value can be considerable on catching the worst of the worst without any doubt, but if you have not read the linked news article the Dude posted about how good Dallas uses its Flock cameras, it says, and I quote:
About 1,900 Dallas police officers and city employees have approved access to 684 Flock cameras scattered around the city.
Dallas has about 3,400 sworn police officers. So, 56% of the force has access to the Flock camera data. That, in and of itself is just flat-out insanity. If access to the stored Flock camera data can't be regulated and required to follow the law around probable cause and a duly issued search warrant, then I'm thinking it should be two, maybe three highest ranking officers at the most who have access.
Then, if you take the news link I posted about the Lufkin, TX officer who got fired after searching his ex-girlfriend's license plate over 10,000 times, one has to ask why didn't alarm bells go off after say maybe 10 searches??
At any event, there can be a priceless benefit from the potential of Flock cameras. Allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry with a badge, apparently quite a few of them with obsessions of ex-lovers or chasing down those suspected of getting medial services in another State are just as bad as those who support unbridled and unlimited access to Flock camera data to be used to simply harass, intimidate and possibly arrest someone, or collect that 10,000-dollar bounty.
Oh, one observation on the use of Flock cameras, they did play a big role in finally getting that Milo guy deported once and for all! But then again, the rule of law and due process played no part in that whatsoever.
I prefer to think of it as more of a “burning man” argument. Feel the burn. Up in flames.
Being very clear as the PunaWeb "wordsmithers" love to chop up and distort points being made, but at its present status, I would without any hesitation say that I am flat out against Flock cameras.
In as much as its value can be considerable on catching the worst of the worst without any doubt, but if you have not read the linked news article the Dude posted about how good Dallas uses its Flock cameras, it says, and I quote:
About 1,900 Dallas police officers and city employees have approved access to 684 Flock cameras scattered around the city.
Dallas has about 3,400 sworn police officers. So, 56% of the force has access to the Flock camera data. That, in and of itself is just flat-out insanity. If access to the stored Flock camera data can't be regulated and required to follow the law around probable cause and a duly issued search warrant, then I'm thinking it should be two, maybe three highest ranking officers at the most who have access.
Then, if you take the news link I posted about the Lufkin, TX officer who got fired after searching his ex-girlfriend's license plate over 10,000 times, one has to ask why didn't alarm bells go off after say maybe 10 searches??
At any event, there can be a priceless benefit from the potential of Flock cameras. Allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry with a badge, apparently quite a few of them with obsessions of ex-lovers or chasing down those suspected of getting medial services in another State are just as bad as those who support unbridled and unlimited access to Flock camera data to be used to simply harass, intimidate and possibly arrest someone, or collect that 10,000-dollar bounty.
Oh, one observation on the use of Flock cameras, they did play a big role in finally getting that Milo guy deported once and for all! But then again, the rule of law and due process played no part in that whatsoever.
“I could say the stupidest things and you’d clap”
-DJT
-DJT