I drove into a very affluent subdivision this weekend, and like most others around here it had a flock camera recording every car on the way in. This camera, however, had the gall to advertise its presence as a neighborhood security measure. "Flock Safety watches this neighborhood" read the sign on the post, or some such. Of course the residents there had no choice but to accept its installation, as the local police support it. Nefarious framing and marketing in the name of "safety".

It's probably the neighborhood HOA that pays for it. My HOA got Flock cameras after a string of thefts, and has similar signs up. The HOA encourages homeowners to submit their car license plate info so that if a crime is reported, it's easier to identify cars that don't belong to homeowners.

Soon after the cameras were installed, some thieves stole a gift my brother had sent me. Thanks to license plate data and images of their faces, Vancouver PD had little trouble catching the perpetrators. It turned out that in addition to stealing Amazon/UPS/Fedex packages, they were stealing USPS mail and using it to commit identity theft. IIRC they ended up getting a decade in federal prison.

It seems like only a few people are responsible for the majority of thefts, so catching them and locking them up drastically improves quality of life for everyone else. Obviously this technology could be abused, but that's also true for things like fingerprinting, DNA evidence, and ID requirements. Similarly to those technologies, we could have laws restricting certain uses, allowing us to reduce crime while preventing abuses. But if a private community wants to install cameras and allow law enforcement to access the data they record, I don't see any constitutional issues.

> no choice but to accept its installation

You might be shocked to discover there are subdivisions so affluent they can afford physical armed security and access control structures with far more invasive identification and logging procedures.

I am not shocked to know that, but there are Flock cameras all over the town. None of the other ones have this advertisement on them. This neighborhood is not gated. However, Flock decided to do announce its presence only here.

Why is this such a surprise? It’s just like those “ADT Monitoring” signs in someone’s yard, scaled to the community.

Because as far as I've seen until now, Flock cameras were stealthily installed and unannounced by the local government. When somebody contracts a company like ADT, they pay money and put that sign up voluntarily.

I saw the same thing in a Home Depot parking lot yesterday. I guess I'm glad there's some sort of notice about it, even if its intent is more, I dunno, branding? It took me a while to figure out what all the solar panel + camera on a post installations were as they popped up around my town. I even pulled over to inspect the hardware for signs of ownership and didn't find anything.

Most of the houses probably have little yard signs advertising some security service, and stickers on the doors advertising an alarm company too.

Ok? They paid for those.

It's all just part of the scenery in neighborhoods like that. Like "Beware of dog" signs in poorer neighborhoods or "This property protected by Smith & Wesson" in rural areas.

we enforce laws presumably in the name of safety, is this really nefarious framing or marketing? seems pretty straightforward to me.

It is very clearly advertising on their part. They have been paid to put that thing there and added the sign to announce the presence. It's like when you get your roof replaced by a business and they ask if they can put a sign in your yard. They're not doing it to make everybody know that you're getting your roof replaced, they're advertising.

Monte Sereno or Saratoga?

And the complicit, click-thirsty tech media falls for it every time.

What makes you sure that those are the ones laid off?

Not confident, but that's a good question. :)

Browsers can get access to your location too.

The best solution is to have a text box that asks for a ZIP code, and every important site has one. It covers all the above cases but also includes the ability to help others in a disaster zone.

Several years ago a hurricane passed through my elderly parent's hometown. There wasn't enough available cell availability to get internet access, but they could make SMS text messages. I was their lifeline getting them info on where the power outages were, which gas stations had gas, when restaurants and grocery stores reopened. If all that information was location-locked to where I was (thousands of miles away), it would have useless.

A little late to get in on the "AI"-based hype train in order to raise money, if you ask me. I guess they've fallen victim to the investors saying "What's your AI strategy?"

"We wouldn't want somebody scraping our data, that's ours!"

Consumers and retail investors will bear most of the brunt from this bubble. Even taxpayers, as the government will most likely bail out the "too big to fail" ai companies in the "race against China". All based on bullshit, hype, and greed.

Almost as if that "industry pushback" argument was not made in good faith? I wonder who would be against electric vehicles?

> I wonder who would be against electric vehicles?

The fossil fuel industry ?

And car companies, who made the classic “holding back the tide” strategic blunder and basically created Tesla, BYD, and others.

Turns out the market routes right around slow movers.

What!? As if to suggest! An assertion most improper!

D) Die. I'll reach my expected lifespan by then. If possible, move to a serious, stable country before then.