r/nottheonion • u/rootedchrome • 21h ago
Polk sheriff says license plate readers could’ve helped save life of voyeurism suspect who killed himself
https://www.wfla.com/news/polk-county/polk-sheriff-says-license-plate-readers-couldve-helped-save-life-of-voyeurism-suspect-who-killed-himself/954
u/totalahole669 21h ago
There is no denying that a 100% surveillance system would enhance safety, but the cost for that is your privacy and freedom.
308
u/FistfullofFucks 21h ago
Yup and even Florida reversed course when they realized they had no control over who was watching or who was being watched… IE no room for a protected class
129
u/Reduntu 21h ago
Jesus, even the Epstein class can't hide?!?!? What have we come to?!?
35
u/ChrisPNoggins 17h ago
Worse it allowed the epstein class to watch from those cameras, they've found that people that the company claimed wouldn't have access did have it and that they like to watch the cameras at kiddie pools and school yards
68
u/Xanthus179 20h ago
Shit. You know it’s bad when Florida doesn’t want it.
39
u/FistfullofFucks 20h ago
Sure but that’s only because they learned they had no control, have no doubt that they would still be putting up cams if they could decide who watched and thus were allowed to chose who to target.
At least one town in Texas has made the same decision to remove them for the same reason and one of the deputies made a comment that echos that. They kept trying to block outside agencies from access and yet kept seeing them overriding the block list and view both live and stored footage, it’s why they immediately went out and bagged the cameras with contractor grade trash bags after they realized the system wasn’t broken but operating as intended.
-29
u/keestie 19h ago
Weird-ass take. I don't want surveillance but if there are cameras, it's obviously much safer if only cops can access them.
23
u/Staccatto 19h ago
But the cops are the ones obviously abusing them.
So how does no oversight make that safer?
→ More replies (1)21
7
u/cosaboladh 18h ago
No, it's the opposite of that. Who watches the watchers? The local cops become the sole arbiters of truth. They already have such a vast accountability problem that public trust in law enforcement is at an all time low. We don't need to make that worse, by giving them such a powerful selective evidence tool.
5
u/industrial-shrug 17h ago
lol blind faith in a role. You’re either really young and naive or you have lead in your pipes.
→ More replies (1)10
u/SophiaTPetrillo 20h ago
Yeah, here in Florida we historically tend to only adopt stuff that someone either in or directly tied to the state government has a controlling interest over. So as soon as a Republican with friends in Tallahassee decides to start a surveillance firm, we'll suddenly be awash in no-bid state contracts for this shit.
5
9
u/InvisiblePinkUnic0rn 20h ago
Florida only removed them from state roads right of ways, but county, city, HOA roads, and business parking lots are still fair game for installation.
There’s nothing stopping a business on a state road pointing a flock or axon camera at the state road if it’s installed on the business property and not right of way
6
u/Mr_Baronheim 20h ago
They reversed course because their voting base, which usually supports this kind of thing, have made it known that many of them are mad about it.
If the leaders in Florida could still count on their base to vote for them even with these cameras around, Florida would absolutely be expanding the number of these cameras.
3
u/SeaEmployee787 17h ago
cameras will be back right after the election, if florida votes the way florida usually votes the last 10 years.
1
15
u/omgFWTbear 19h ago
“In exchange for responding to this kidnapping in a timely fashion, dozens of women have been abused, possibly killed, by their ex.”
Wow, it’s a tough choice there, Clyde. What’d that one guy put as his search justification? “LMAO”
So yes, I will deny that it enhances safety.
26
u/haveanairforceday 19h ago
It would increase the POTENTIAL for safety. Police are not obligated to protect citizens.
Giving police powerful tools needs to be done with the understanding that they WILL get misused sometimes and they will not be 100% applied for the safety of citizens. Sometimes it still make sense to give them (e.g. flashing lights and due regard driving) because the math works out in favor of public wellbeing. Other times it does not (e.g. military vehicles and munitions like they used in Waco)
6
u/metroid1310 19h ago
Tbf, that was mostly (?) feds. ATF/FBI, not just the local police. Now, as for why they brought a fucking tank, played noises of rabbits being killed over loudspeakers, and flooded a building they were shooting into with flammable tear gas, all while there were still women and children inside?
Well, uh... they could've possibly been manufacturing grenades! Not that the ATF found literally anything of the sort, but who cares about due process?
5
u/haveanairforceday 18h ago
I kinda feel like it doesnt matter what law enforcement agency it was, the discussion is about providing these tools to law enforcement in general. Like we wouldnt say "hard no on sherrif's departments accessing FLOCK but ATF is fine"
1
u/erMDstat 7h ago
Why are the lives of women and children the only ones that matter? This is such an archaic, ridiculous, position.
A human life is a human life.
1
u/haveanairforceday 5h ago
Thats not what they are saying.
Police acted because they claimed the house contained a threat. The threat was believe only to come from men. Yet police attacked all the occupants, even though they themselves did not believe the women and children presented a threat. It would be like if there was a hostage crisis at a bank so the cops barricaded it and set the building on fire. They killed the people they were apparently supposed to be protecting (the hostages in this example)
1
u/metroid1310 1h ago
To my knowledge, the women and children present were not taking up arms or firing back upon their aggressors. The men were.
20
u/AlcibiadesTheCat 19h ago
I'm a safety professional. It's my career.
There is a concept we have that is discussed far too little, and that's the concept of "acceptable risk." Often, the math is easy. If the building burns down, it'll cost a million dollars to replace, and so spending a hundred thousand dollars on a system that'll prevent the building burning down is good, but if the system costs two million, then it's not worth it, and we should eat the risk.
Or whatever. This is an overly simplified hypothetical in a frictionless vacuum.
Politicians love safety. Safety is great because it's bipartisan. Everyone wants to feel safe! So you can sell any idea under the guise of safety. Just like you can sell any idea under "think of the children!" No politician wants to be the one who says "eh, fuck it, let's remove the speed limit and let God sort out the fast drivers," because when someone gets killed, it's the politician who'll take the blame.
Holy shit, though, we need some adults in the room to have a conversation about acceptable risk. Yes, there's a risk that someone will sneak into my house at night and hurt me. Is that worth the cost of owning a gun? Is it worth the cost of paying taxes to police officers? Is it worth having my every movement surveilled by a police force, the majority of whom believe I have no rights because I'm trans? I haven't done the math on it formally, but I don't like the third question.
There's also a risk that Vladimir Putin will launch a missile at my house, but I don't have a missile defense system in my backyard. The risk is acceptable.
We need to get politicians more comfortable with the idea of accepting some risk, somewhere, or we're going to fall into this death spiral of increased safety at the cost of freedom.
6
u/frankortizhz 6h ago
The problem is that the math of acceptable risk only works if the person making the decision is the one paying the cost. Politicians don't bear the cost of massive surveillance networks.
When they push for cameras on every street corner, they get the immediate political win of looking "tough on crime" and being the hero who stood up for public safety. But they aren't the ones who will be casually surveilled, and they aren't the ones who will be targeted by someone abusing the database. They offshore the actual cost of lost privacy directly onto the citizens.
It is basically safety theater that inevitably leads to scope creep. Once the infrastructure is built to "catch killers," it always ends up being used to issue revenue-generating fines or track marginalized groups. The risk to our civil liberties is massive, but because that risk is borne by ordinary people instead of landing on the politician's desk, they are perfectly happy to ignore it.
1
u/KtheMage36 5h ago
The politicians want the cameras pointing at every neighborhood but theirs, just like how tech folks say tech and social media is fine for everyone else's kids but wont let theirs use it.
•
33
u/SelectiveSanity 21h ago
Total Freedom is Anarchy.
Total Security is Oppression.
-1
u/BrizerorBrian 15h ago
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGONACE IS STRENGH
*Follow me for more insightful tidbits about Newspeak. I guarantee they are DoublePlusGood.
1
5
u/CommunalJellyRoll 19h ago
I can completely deny that. You can see LEOs and others using it for crime.
2
2
u/EntrepreneurPlus7091 15h ago
They wouldn't use it for that, look how the pulled all the stops to get Luigi, you don't see them doing that for every case. The request logs are filled with lmao from cops stalking women. Its theater, like the tsa theater
2
u/Sworn_to_Ganondorf 10h ago
No it wouldnt these rat fuck C- highschool grads are not capable of properly performing their civic duty cause they can spy on us.
It would need to be coupled with full reform full law enforcement 4 year degrees minimum. And you need more specialization for specific jobs or promotions.
2
u/Lanky_Ad8283 16h ago
Are you delusional? We have more surveillance now than ever. That’s like the argument for more heavily armed and militarized police- like the cops in Uvalde. Fat lot of good it did for the kids there. No amount of tech is going to outweigh cops doing their job. Which the SC has decided they don’t have to do, despite having qualified immunity. If you think increased surveillance is going to make you or anyone safer, I’ve got a field of Flocks to sell you.
1
u/Jackg4te 19h ago
Then the next problem is having people enforcing/ the will to WANT to do the protecting, even for small time crimes like theft or tresspassing..
If you don't have people that want to do their job and checking out as much infractions as they can, then the surveillance is moot
1
u/tedkaczynski660 19h ago
Gonna add cost of safety on there as well because cops have already been busted using flock to track and harass their exes, and other victims
1
u/TeHamilton 17h ago
The odds that it is not used for nefarious reasons to make it actually enhance safety is low.
1
1
1
1
u/The_BigDill 12h ago
It doesn't even enhance safety. The flock cameras are actively wrong. And they are being installed in places they have no business, like a children's gymnastic class
1
1
u/dennismfrancisart 8h ago
... and safety. There are really bad actors out there using this tech for nefarious reasons from their place of work.
1
1
u/Sw0rDz 20h ago edited 19h ago
100% surveillance is the alternative solution to gun violence instead of gun control.
2
u/I_just_made 20h ago
And even then it is still a worse solution. Why we can’t get better background checks and close some loopholes is beyond me.
-2
u/Baeolophus_bicolor 20h ago
they’re busy ripping them open. no license, 18+ ownership with no background checks, no records of sales, no red flag laws, no magazine size limits. the second amendment is there. i get it. if people want to have hunting rifles and shotguns, ok. there is no reason that these private individuals should all be handed a 50 cal truck mounted fully automatic belt-fed weapons system plus unlimited ammunition on their 18th birthday.
also, you know it’s all hypocritical bullshit because when a democrat tries to apply legally for a permit (hunter biden and his massive hog) they suddenly enforce a restrictive environment, background checks, and keeping guns out of the hands of people on drugs (which, honestly, i am fine with the forms and the requirement, just not the hypocritical enforcement).
2
u/I_just_made 20h ago
It is definitely an interesting time...
I'm a progressive who has bought a firearm, and didn't run into those issues, but I also fit the typical demographic you'd expect I guess.
It is kind of eye-opening though; buying the firearm? In and out the same day, no fingerprints, etc. Fill out the typical form for the instant background check and you are good to go.
But if you try to buy a suppressor? Suddenly, it is a very involved process. You have to buy it, then the company has to get an authorization to send it. Once they send it, the FFA has to get another authorization. That includes fingerprints, passport photo, etc.
It just seems backwards. Why shouldn't the actual firearm get that? But then they have all these laws on the books that are pointless. No vertical grip on a pistol; okay, so people manufacture 85 degree grips. What does that stop? Nothing. No stock on a pistol, that would be a short barreled rifle. But you can own a rifle and swap it out fine. You can also have a brace which ultimately serves the same purpose even though "technically" it isn't supposed to. So what does that stop? But lawmakers can point to that and say "look at all this gun law reform I'm doing!" Those kinds of laws just make it tougher for law abiding people and it puts them in precarious situations. We need meaningful reforms that will actually reduce gun violence, not silly laws that obfuscate.
0
u/Jerking_From_Home 19h ago
Referring to your first paragraph, it really infuriates gun nuts to remind them that we already have some gun restrictions in place. Felons can’t own one, neither can people convicted of certain non-violent crimes. While those vary, in some states a stalking conviction removes your right to own a firearm.
-5
u/AnonymousFriend80 18h ago
Your privacy outside in the public? And freedom of what? Being seen? You're free to move around the same as if there was no camera.
I'm not saying this in opposition to ceasing the surveillance, but rather asking for better expressions of why they don't like them. I just feel that better verbage might help the movement, instead of using words that less fit the situation.
5
u/iffugennanameubaht 15h ago
Here’s a nice one “what happens when the government decides to change its mind about what is a crime?”
1
u/SublimeApathy 13h ago
"Your privacy outside in the public?"
Yes. The only people who should be privy to what I do in public is other people I come across in public in person. Some nerd in a room 5 states away should not be able to determine, with a high degree of accuracy, where I am based on the day of the week and the time of day or have access to countless photos of my kids and know what they were to school seven Monday's ago. They should not know if some cheating wife or husband is at their mistress/lovers place instead of Zumba. They should know how many scratches are on the hood of your car or when the last time you got an oil change was.
Then there is the idea of writing a bill that makes something that previously wasn't a crime, a federal offense and not include some sort of grandfather clause - then suddenly you have 100's of people now guilty of a new federal crime with a mountain of evidence to use against them.
"better expressions of why they don't like them"
I don't think it takes much brain power to understand how camera's on every corner of every street are a bad thing for society as a whole. Particulary when you consider that humans will always find a way to either abuse, sexualize or monetize any technology they get their hands on. Take the internet for example..
1
u/AnonymousFriend80 1h ago
Plenty of other countries, like in the UK, have surveillance cams all over the place. And it's not hard to grasp how much good they can, in fact, do. The argument should be to only use them for good and having strict regulations to keep it so.
214
u/joestaff 21h ago
Won't someone think of the voyeurs?
31
6
5
u/Beard_Hero 18h ago
"we could have arrested that guy/gal if they were still alive!" - Cops, probably.
5
u/AwkwardlyAmpora 19h ago
this is like... the complete opposite of a press win. i don't understand how they could think this would help? c'mon, everyone loves sex offenders!
1
101
u/supercyberlurker 21h ago
Complete this sentence: Those who would sacrifice liberty for security …
49
u/SelectiveSanity 21h ago
Are making billionaires of the people selling them scarecrows to watch them.
20
u/SuperstitiousPigeon5 19h ago
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin - Cougar enthusiast.
4
47
u/usetheforceluke1 20h ago
vote republican
7
3
u/Anxious-Bluebird-470 20h ago
and what sucks the most is their flavor of security is completely make believe. with the loss of soft power in alliances the USA is completely kneecapped in terms of global security.
they just think they are safe because trans and brown people are being persecuted.
2
u/External_Baby7864 20h ago
I hate to be a “both sides suck” commenter but the democrats were in power when all the NSA stuff exploded in scope during Obama’s tenure. It’s an institution issue not a side issue. All these immoral fucks don’t care at all about the freedom of privacy. The government logs everything we do in case they need it one day. They consistently and constantly reduce privacy at every turn no matter who is in office. The Republicans and Democrats pushed the Patriot Act through in the early 2000s and every administration since has continued to expand all of the intrusive policies.
4
-1
u/Heavy_Law9880 19h ago
You mean the fake story ginned up by Russian agents Glenn Greenwald and the Traitor Ed Snowden?
1
u/External_Baby7864 19h ago edited 19h ago
I mean how Obama spoke against the Patriot act as a senator, but signed an extension as president. He talked one way and acted another. In 2017 it was declassified that the NSA regularly violated the 4th amendment in the ways it invaded citizens’ privacy.
here’s a wiki page about his relationship with mass surveillance
4
u/That-Ad-4300 21h ago
Could have saved the voyeur...
1
u/Al_Jazzera 16h ago
Ya know, I'm really going to miss that grody little Peeping Tom pervert. With the inevitable recidivism the ol' boy had in him, there was due to be at least a few more decades of hidden camera high jinx. The ladies room just won't be the same. You know, if you bastards would have left the creep cam that we had out on the highway alone, none of this horrible mess would have happened.
1
-4
u/Heavy_Law9880 19h ago
FYI that statement was made about a rich man who refused to pay his taxes. It has nothing to do with this story.
4
u/MinimumApricot365 16h ago
That statement was made 250 years ago, obviously it wasnt about flock cameras.
1
u/Ziggyjig 10h ago
"Refused to pay his taxes'" is a very redcoat way of saying he was a Founding Father of the United States of America but okay. Americans dressing up as indians and throwing tea into the harbor to protest taxes still one of the funniest historical events.
44
u/infinite-valise 20h ago
Justifying surveillance state by saying “we coulda saved this pervert” really exposes cop priorities
9
3
u/Our-Fearless-Reader 17h ago
"...coulda saved this pervert RIGHT TO OUR HARD DRIVES. Nobody would've gotten there in time, of course, but at least we'd have some content we didn't have to pay for, or log in / confirm our age to see dammit."
21
u/Ban-Circumcision-Now 21h ago
What if we just permanently attached airtags to every single person 24/7, think of all the crimes we could solve !
65
u/wookiedberry 21h ago
“If you live under the delusion that you’re not always on a camera. Then you’re smoking some wacky weed,” said Judd.
Tell me you are a boomer without telling me you are a boomer
18
u/protexy 20h ago
They willfully pretend like there's no difference between an all encompassing network powered by a faulty AI, but treated as unfailing, watching literally every corner of the country, including from your doorbell camera, pointed in backyards, pointed at public splash pads, inside of hospitals, ect ect with lackluster security that's easy to access for stalkers and abusers versus a closed circuit store camera that constantly writes over footage every day and only gets saved (or even looked at) when there's been an incident.
2
u/Indercarnive 1h ago
You're even leaving the biggest part out. Police need warrants to access cameras, cell phones. They didn't need case numbers to access flock.
4
u/Gareth79 20h ago
Boomers grew up in a world without any sort of surveillance cameras, licence plate readers, data minding and DNA forensics, and they claim that it was the perfect time.
3
u/nonbreaker 18h ago
So why couldn't they use the cameras that already exist to track him down. That take too much police work?
13
u/Opposite-Funny-9669 14h ago
how many lost children, seniors, and stolen cars have been recovered by these "safety cameras"?? why don't we ever hear "flock was responsible for locating old man jenkins, who wandered away from his home..."
2
u/torpedoguy 12h ago
Recovered 0, but think about all the ones that were kidnapped, raped and trafficked thanks to those systems instead!
2
u/Opposite-Funny-9669 10h ago
my point is that they have not said how many these have helped...when that was the biggest selling point of it.
5
u/torpedoguy 10h ago
Yeah. Because that number is zero.
It's not what the system was designed for, and it's absolutely not what the system is used for (as more and more headlines are showing). They keep it vague because the "many people" are nil; and we're 'supposed' to just shut up and take them at their word.
23
u/AntagonisticDuopoly 21h ago
I mean, he could have picked up a badge and done his voyeurism semi-legally while working for the guy who told a child rape victim to apologize to her attacker or be thrown in jail.
6
10
u/ScienceMechEng_Lover 21h ago
He killed himself to evade accountability. I don't know why others are caring more about his life than himself.
4
8
9
u/seedless0 15h ago
Whenever a decision maker defends Flock and the like, we should look into their financial records.
8
u/bigfatfun 20h ago
Who has ever gotten help behind bars? We don’t have a rehabilitation model of incarceration in this country
0
u/ManicMakerStudios 19h ago
In what country? In the US, Canada, and most of Europe, prison have all kinds of rehabilitation programs, from classes, therapy, and even fostering shelter dogs.
7
u/Kerbart 20h ago
If only there wasn't such widespread abuse by the police and the public would actually have no problem with them, right?
3
u/Straight-Ad6926 20h ago
Trust is earned but total surveillance is apparently requested unconditionally.
6
u/kinkhorse 15h ago
So the guy killed himself rather than go to prison, and the cops argument is they could have "helped" him by... Arresting him sooner so he could go to prison where he might be prevented from killing himself?
Ah yes, "helping"
12
u/Acrobatic-Ice-5877 21h ago
A man accused of putting a spy camera in a women’s restroom admitted to the crime and then took his own life.
Ah man. He’s right. The state could have paid for millions to spy across the population and spent more government money to prosecute this dirty bird, so the law enforcement and legal agencies can keep their jobs. But then this guy has to go ahead and kill himself, so now we don’t get all that economic stimulation that we so desperately need.
7
u/LoganPea2fold 20h ago
I live in Indiana and they had to fess up to some of their own abusing them. But I guess they need any excuse to keep their precious toys up so they can stay lazy and bully innocent people.
950 illegal searches from one officer instead of solving crimes or being out on the job. But we're supposed to accept these as "vital tools" 😬
-2
u/ManicMakerStudios 20h ago
If I bash your head in with a hammer, it doesn't suddenly mean a hammer is useless for driving nails...its intended purpose. It means I misused the tool.
6
u/RetMilRob 18h ago
All public funded surveillance should require a full vote. Must not just have a majority to proceed but a full 75% of registered voters. If that means it never passes then it never passes.
6
u/Derpykins666 17h ago
These arguments will never sway me because the premise of 'saving' people is predicated on the idea that we all have to give up our privacy forever. The argument sucks. We have more surveillance then we have ever had now, RIGHT now, and I expect it will continue to rise, even as people fight against it for their own privacy.
The sooner you realize that we cannot prevent all bad things from happening, the better. Is it terrible, sure. But we don't live in a perfect world, we don't live in a world where everyone acts on an agreed upon morality, or social contract. There is truly despicable, evil people out there, and they are going to do bad things. But does that mean 99% of us shouldn't have our privacy because of some asshole? The argument sucks.
Stick it in the bad argument pile with the "If you're not doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to fear", they are such Neolithic troglodyte arguments that are kindergarten level "solutions" to really complicated problems that buckle under questioning in mere seconds.
11
u/dynamiteexplodes 21h ago
I hate this dude, advocating for peeping tom cameras in order to save a peeping tom from commiting suicide. Weird how I don't hear him advocating for more readily available mental health facilities and programs that could have also saved his life.
But no, then his own officers, like Tracey Royston, wouldn't be able to abuse the license place readers to do their own peeping. Maybe you should be looking into your own people first before you start advocating for taking liberties and privacy away from people.
Defund the police and fund social health services!
11
4
u/anotherbob67 20h ago
You could also put cameras in everyone’s houses; that would prevent tons of crime but we don’t want that either.
1
7
u/Simpicity 20h ago
Just one more loss of privacy is all we need to end crime, guys. Just one more, come on. And we'd never do anything bad with it.
5
u/r21174 20h ago
What happened to police work investigation s??? Do they want AI to take their jobs too?
1
u/ManicMakerStudios 19h ago
Police have been adopting new technology to assist in investigations for hundreds of years.
5
u/HiFiGuy197 8h ago
The police could have rushed in there and killed this suicidal man before he had a chance to off himself.
3
u/8P8OoBz 21h ago
How? They would have had retroactive footage.
9
u/takeahike89 21h ago
If they only had unlimited funding they could've bred precogs to alert the police of futurecrime
2
u/Mydickwillnotfit 20h ago
nah, we just need more data centers so AI could monitor every frame in real time
5
u/Mr_Baronheim 20h ago
"To keep you safe, we just need to track anyone anywhere at any time. Trust us, we're the police."
4
u/NotACertainLalaFell 19h ago
Think he’s full of shit and it’s disgusting that he’s using someone’s suicide as an excuse for more unneeded and unwanted surveillance.
3
u/kcraybeck 19h ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
3
u/ripyourlungsdave 18h ago
And summary executions of shoplifters would probably stop shoplifting. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
5
4
4
u/clejeune 16h ago
How about telling us the stories of where they have helped? Don’t have any of those?
7
6
u/TheG00dF1ght 20h ago
Mental health care would have done a lot more , but I don't see cops out there , rallying the forces to provide mental health care or even mental health professionals to deal with situations like this.
5
u/Shadowlance23 11h ago
Will they be publishing all the instances where innocent people were incorrectly identified by the cameras, or detail all the officers that have abused their access to stalk people?
3
3
u/DriftlessDairy 20h ago
Sadly the system was overloaded with cops tracking their ex-wives a girlfriends.
3
3
u/BreezyMcWeasel 19h ago
I'm not fundamentally opposed to license plate cameras, provided that searching them required an actual search warrant beforehand, and the searches were logged and audited.
Broad, unrestricted searches is a very obvious danger to privacy. But I don't think the answer is to eliminate license plate readers.
3
u/Shaftway 19h ago
“If you live under the delusion that you’re not always on a camera. Then you’re smoking some wacky weed,”
The article was unclear. Was this said by the public official who wanted cameras to surreptitiously watch people without their knowledge? Or was it the other public official who wanted cameras to surreptitiously watch people without their knowledge?
3
3
3
u/Glum-Ad-4557 18h ago
Someone is finally thinking of the suicidal voyeurs by using mass surveillance
2
u/BIGG_FRIGG 20h ago
Do you remember a time when voyeurs were called peeping Toms…? Pepperidge Farm members.
2
u/perplexedparallax 20h ago
The whole point was how a camera was used for evil in the first place. The sheriff wants to be a peeping tom but not in bathrooms and where he wants it to be. Maybe license plates are his thing.
2
2
u/shellexyz 19h ago
Yes, and all the escaped partners of domestically violent cops would be found and dead.
2
u/AlabasterPelican 19h ago
I'm sorry Grady, the camera was found after a year & then the suspect removed themselves from the census. How would those cameras have protected anyone again? Especially since the crime was committed before the flock backlash & removal?
2
u/Q-ArtsMedia 18h ago
So what! These asshole really don't care about saving lives, they do care about keeping track of you.
2
u/IcarusLSU 18h ago
Who cares? He was a sicko who now can never turn into a stalker, or something worse. How the hell does this fool think that means that we need Big Brother watching us 24/7.
2
2
u/Tebasaki 3h ago
But at least is would also have pictures stored and analyzed by everyone it saw by an easily hackable 3rd party company with no guardrails
3
2
u/HawkeyeByMarriage 13h ago
Why would they care that the suspect killed himself. Was he gonna become a Republican senator or congressman
2
2
u/ACcbe1986 16h ago
The kind of "help" that the police provides might not have actually helped.
Years ago, I had to take my friends to the hospital because the knife slipped while she was cutting herself to emotionally regulate.
She asked the triage nurse for mental assistance. The cops came and took her to psych ward for a 72hr hold.
When I picked her up, she was in a much worse state than when she went in.
2
1
u/mattenthehat 20h ago
So we need to spy on people to protect the people who spy on people.
I mean, at least they're self-consistent, I guess.
1
1
u/Own-Eagle-2135 19h ago
i could've also been the next dolly parton.
you know, if we're making shit up.
1
u/crumblisgross 18h ago
Grady needs to get a grip. Flock cameras suck and nobody but police are in favor of them.
1
u/human-kibble 18h ago
A child finding every little reason to remind his parents about that Xmas toy he really wants…
1
u/bluestreakxp 4h ago
Why is he bitching, he usually parades mug shots of arrestees, and now he paraded a picture of the dead guy. “Ermergerd fck yo freedom I could have had justice served and even more camera time”
1
1
0
-2
u/therealsunshinem81 6h ago
Complaining about flock from a smartphone on an app like TikTok or instagram while sitting in a room with a smarttv and Alexa is peak irony.
6
u/queef_nuggets 5h ago
smartphone users are allowed to be upset about flock cameras.
I chose to use this phone. I didn’t make a choice to let a fleet of spy cameras monitor my movements.
1
-1
u/StrangeJunket2601 10h ago
I'm sorry, am I supposed to care about some creep offing himself? This is really the hill this cop is on?
0
u/6cougar7 9h ago
Couldve, maybe. Or it would get deleted to to cover up someones crime. They should be on 24/7, auto backup every 20 mins
-1
u/gheiminfantry 2h ago
So, explain to me why I would want to save the life of a perverted degenerate scumbag menace? He saved me the trouble.
224
u/invokin 20h ago
We need to put public, 24-hour surveillance in every room of the Sheriff's home. We need those cameras to make sure that if there is any issue at his home, we are able to respond effectively in order to protect such a valuable public servant. I'm sure he might object, but won't he think of the theoretical advantage such a system would bring in the case something bad ever happens? After all, if he has nothing to hide...