Flock Cameras

What if, for no reason you know of, a man shows up wherever you go with a camera and a notebook who is taking your picture and writng down where you are and what you are doing? He appears harmless and you never hear or see him do anything with the stuff he is collecting. Perhaps this is simple neuvo people watching, something the kids are doing which is innocent and more than a bit invasive, but not illegal? 

You might call a cop because it is suspect behavior at the least, if only to put your mind at rest.

• But what if it turns out that this man with his camera is a cop working on some police project they are thinking of doing later if it turns out that the project is needed to protect us all? 
• He isn't surveiling you, as such, just a sample of the citizenry and you happened along.
• You might wonder why they don't simply announce it and get some public input prior to beginning.
• You might ask to be excluded, as is your right, and he would have to go away.
• But what if he didn't?
• Or you might ask the man with the camera directly why he is doing this stuff. 
• But what if he says it is none of your business?
• What if he threatens legal action against you for wanting to know?
• What if the next day he is replaced by two such men?
• Or you might get pissed off if you are doing nothing wrong because it is your right to be left alone.
• You might want to smash his camera.
• You might want to tear up his notes.
• But what if the police protect his right to continue doing what he is doing despite the invasion of your privacy?

Now change the scenario so that the man with the camera is lazy and flying a drone around and following your movements that way. He doesn't want you to worry about seeing him doing what he is doing and has all the best intentions. He promises not to use the information wrongly. What would the difference be to you?

And even if it turns out the drone is owned by Goodtimes Inc, a ficticious marketing company aimed at making you happy (just looking for the opportunity to sell you a boat because boats make people happy). Would it make any difference that they didn't ask if you wanted them to help you be happy or even if boats interest you, or if you wanted your picture taken?

Government needs tools to do its job effectively. That being said, Government has a process by which it goes about using those tools which is entirely subject to the will and consent of the governed and overseen by all of its citizens equally. Private companies have no such protective architecture in place. So when government circumvents the protections of the people's choosing and opts to contract surveilance it knows is marginally illegal and absolutely immoral, it is time to act to reign these things in. 

Today I am worried about something I needn't worry about but do: Flock Cameras. I won't go into what they are, Google will tell you all you need to know if you don't know. 

Yesterday I heard about Flock Cameras and did some cursory looking into it. Oregon has suprizingly few of these things compared to the rest of the country, but the few we have are still too many. Private companies are surveiling the streets and squares of the United States, photographing everything rolling by and logging the movements of every person in the country.

This has to stop and we have to stop it. Here's why. . . .

The fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects us all from unreasonable searches and seizures. You have the right to privacy in your personal effects and documents and this is a right which can be over-ridden reasonably once due process occurs, but otherwise this right cannot be violated. These cameras directly violate that right. 

It is no business of anyone where I go, and they have no need to know who I visit, where I buy things, or what I am doing generally unless I am involved in some sort of criminal enterprise that they are already aware of prior to my becoming a subject to their lawful investigation. Even then they have to follow process fully before invading my rights. But police are allowing these camera to be set up and then to sell them information which tracks me, and you. They do this by signing a contract which allows it that they themselves cannot simply end the contract allowed collection of data, so the contract is in force even without police consent or any intent of the police to use the data. 

The wrong here is not immediately apparent damages. The wrong is the invasion of privacy by "thinking machines" that know no rights at all. Why must I protect myself from being targeted by machines which collect data without cause? I don't want to be talking about this but it seems necessary that I do.

Yesterday I looked into these things.

I don't go many places, but the Fred Meyer on Imbrie has two of these things watching who comes and goes. So I wrote Fred Meyer and explained that I will not use the Fred Meyer on Imbrie so long as those cameras exist where they are. I said openly that I would join in protest of these things if I see one. But for a wonderful company like Fred Meyer there simply is no win in having these things on thier property, so why are they putting them in? What possible use is it to them? What bottom line issue does this improve for them or their customers?

It really doesn't matter why Freddies  did it. Whoever made that decision ought to be fired and go to work for ICE or the CIA because that is where these sorts of people thrive. But that I have my picture taken, my license plate photographed, the make, model, color, and details of my car logged, and the movement of me and my effects through the world checked. This is a problem looking for a justification. Not a problem requiring a just solution where all are concerned equally that Flock cameras solve for us all.