People who support second amendment to stand against government tyranny love to give government power to do tyranny.

To be specific, I love second amendment, and I stand by it. It just doesn't compute for me that some fellow 2nd amendment lovers are ok with the likes of Flock.

Plenty of leftists in rural areas that love the 2nd amendment too.

I don't think we have the same definition of the word "leftist".

What is the definition of the word "leftist?"

You would be surprised at how many people at all points of the spectrum are armed up.

Many, many LGBTQ+ people have taken measures to defend themselves and loved ones. In fact, more than one has gone on the offense and committed highly-publicized ideological homicide.

I could not personally say where on the spectrum are narcos and cartel members, but the way they are supported and abetted by leftists while also being heavily armed and well-versed, they are full-throated 2A supporters by any measure.

It is perfectly typical, and understandable, for any marginalized group to resort to weapons and self-defense techniques, and it is also logical for their backlash and rage to be so great that it goes beyond defense. This will only increase over time in the United States, and elsewhere.

So, these leftists supporting the 2A only do so because they can use them to assassinate peaceful speakers at colleges? You're not exactly painting a good look for them.

The Tree of Liberty is looking a little thirsty...

The person you replied to said many of them were armed, then said more than one did that, and you took that to mean that's the only reason any of them do that? I think you misread.

What do you mean? Do you think Bernie supporters are all on the right? That the Socialist Rifle Association is a rightist organization? That the 49% of rural people that vote democrat all hate guns?

This is an opposite problem. Flock is a private unelected unaccountable corporation. That's exactly of right leaning libertarians want, for some reason.

They say "you don't have an expectation of privacy driving a car on a public road/your license plate is public info". They don't address the fact that these are cameras, not ALPRs. They collect vehicle metadata. We have no way of knowing what other metadata they collect but don't "use". We'll have no idea when the software update goes out that adds facial recognition if it's not already there.

> “…no way of knowing what other metadata they collect…”

I would say ‘aggregation’ is my concern. Flock camera being one _instrument_ in an orchestra of surveillance.

They have already added the ability for these cameras to scrape Bluetooth metadata from phones passing by as well so they know who is in the car with you as well

Wait until 6G “wireless sensing” provides a clear map of your house and everyone in it. Apparently it may even have a good enough resolution to process vibrations into audio.

Check out page 41, it’s wild, cell towers could monitor your health as you walk around: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gr/ISC/001_099/001/01.01.0...

I look forward to the updated talking points. I’m sure it won’t be long before we hear “you don’t have a right to privacy except in your thoughts.”

I can see a future coming soon where everyone has cameras in their house and voluntarily sends the data to insurance companies for lower rates. If most people agree to do it then it could basically become manditory if you want insurance. Alexa is already this with audio and lots of people I know already have their house completely crammed with cameras for no particular reason at all.

I frankly do not trust a single word or single opinion of a person that doesn't see the immense problem with this kind of surveillance technology. They are either not arguing in good faith, making me question their entire agenda, or are simply not equipped to understand the implications.

Have you ever seen Wim Wenders’ original, “Wings of Desire”?

I heartily recommend it to anyone who is irrationally opposed to state surveillance, (or, by extension if you simply resent the idea of an omniscient God) just because it is an achingly beautiful and true film that proposes a more reasonable viewpoint.

> Have you ever seen Wim Wenders’ original, “Wings of Desire”?

Literally never heard of it, and honestly I'm not sure I care to if your response to my comment is thinking I'm "irrationally opposed to state surveillance".

Wings of Desire is a beautiful movie. It's probably my all time favorite. Bruno Ganz is sensational in it and Peter Falk has some great scenes, too.

Did it cure you of an irrational aversion to being tracked by the government and corporate surveillance apparatus?

No, but it cures me ennui every time. 10/10. Would recommended if in tailspin.

In response I will offer “The Lives of Others.” Fiction, but historically grounded.

I'll bite: How is a movie about an angel falling in love with a trapeze artist pro state surveillance?

Will it still apply if I'm rationally opposed to state surveillance?

Wait, lol do you thing an omniscient god and the state police are the same thing?