[–] ssl-3 4 days ago
[–] b00ty4breakfast 4 days ago
[–] ssl-3 4 days ago
We may end up getting rid of Flock the company (ha, as if), but we'll always have [what people call] Flock cameras.
[–] dualvariable 3 days ago
[–] ssl-3 3 days ago
We all know something about what it does, and that it is bad. Regular folks are often unaware at all that Heroin was once a product and trademark of Bayer, or that Bayer was the first to mass-produce the substance.
But we all know what is meant when someone mentions heroin. We know what is meant when someone talks about the iPad at the checkout counter at a restaurant, or says to get a Band-Aid from the cabinet or a box of Kleenex from the pantry. Beyond a certain age, at least, there's no issue with understanding what is being conveyed when a person Xeroxes a document.
We can understand these nouns even in the face of Clover payment terminals, Equate bandages, Puffs facial tissues, and Brother copiers.
We know (if we're paying attention at all) what a Flock camera is. It doesn't really matter that if it actually says Axiom on the box, instead; "Flock" doesn't serve to substantially diminish the understanding of what is being referred to.
In terms of spreading helpful information, "flock camera" is nice and easy. It communicates what needs to be communicated in a way that can be understood.
Besides, we don't have a good, concise, specific term for items like this. If we used the generic term, Automatic License Plate Reader (or ALPR), then that conversation would just make a normie's eyes glaze over and they'd stop listening.
[–] mindslight 3 days ago
One of the things we need to develop is a rough shape these laws should take, as it's not immediately apparent [0]. For starters - prohibiting ALPR/face recognition/anything else that turns standing video surveillance into personally identifiable information. Prohibiting city/town/state governments from setting these up on public property. Prohibiting corporate owned/controlled/backhauled cameras recording at any area that hasn't been expressly authorized by its owner/occupant. Statutory limits of retention times, and a requirement that all corporate users of surveillance cameras publish their locations and retention policy.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head. It's a thorny problem because there are longstanding uses of video surveillance that are mostly okay, while only sometimes abusive. The real sea change with "Flock" is the scale and the automation.
[0] whereas the way to approach tackling online surveillance is apparent - ie privacy legislation akin to the GDPR
Regular folks often refer to any larger-than-phone, smaller-than-laptop device they see with a screen as an iPad, even if it's a hardwired Clover payment terminal running Android. The description is wrong, but it's easier to accept it than to correct it. I'm over it.
Regular folks can go ahead and call any nefariously-networked camera a Flock camera. This description is also wrong, but I'm over it as well.