this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
168 points (98.3% liked)

Privacy

3616 readers
129 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Worth noting that:

  1. Ring is partnering with Flock:

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/16/amazon-ring-cameras-surveillance-law-enforcement-crime-police-investigations.html

  1. Police use of Flock cameras is notoriously inaccurate, particularly in the case of lazy or stupid cops.

https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 4 points 2 months ago

Hey, why did you say cops 3 times in the last bit there?

[–] greatwhitebuffalo41@slrpnk.net 10 points 2 months ago

As a polite reminder there's a map of these cameras and if you see a camera not on the map, you can add it.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If it's public, does that mean you can request other people's data as well?

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

Yes, exactly.

This is the point of a Public Records law, that it works similarly to a FOIA request... the data is public because the state operates those cams, least they can do is show you what they know.

Oh, is it concerning how much they know?

Well, at least you know what they know, as opposed to not knowing what they know.

WA has state wide initiatives, presumably it would not be too difficult to just attempt a direct vote to ban or otherwise regulate this level/volume of broad surveillance.