TacticoolWolf
21636
930
11
Aug 9, 2026 4:27 PM
TacticoolWolf
21636
930
11
Resistance1000
Do NOT do any of these things. None of them, OK? I mean it. No kidding.
Headcase444
The people that put those cameras up don't live there.
drGrafenberg
My city did neither.
Clayman8
Oh we'll make sure they spend more to repair them, dont you worry.
ThinkThisOut
The efficiency in which the program was deployed is proof that things can run smoothly. That’s the most frustrating part of it all. The last 10k years we’ve been challenged with our inability to function in groups effectively and poof this occurs with flawless execution until they are discovered
Noahbalboa82
I'm curious if there's even been a change in crime rates and actually catching criminals where these cameras have been set up in large numbers
manwithsevenlivers
It doesn't cost much to make a pothole, does it? Oh, wait...
cattlegrazer82
I bought a cheap pickaxe at home depot. Does the trick as well as the fancy hole diggers.
LogicalLimes
Drawing penises around them is likely to draw more attention to them, and therefore getting them fixed.
ssumner13
https://www.atlasofsurveillance.org/
RElGNMAN
ssumner13
https://www.kqed.org/news/12069705/santa-cruz-the-first-in-california-to-terminate-its-contract-with-flock-safety
GarmBlack
We need to redefine our ancient thoughts on safety. More punishment, more "deterrents" more cops. None of that really works. Safety comes from people, even those who would otherwise commit crimes, being safe. Access to food, housing, medical care, education, vocation, work, pay... Crime plummets when more people are "okay."
StellarJay77
For every $1 spent combatting homelessness and food insecurity that generates ~$1.50-$5.00. It is objectively profitable and good for the economy to ensure people are housed, fed, and in good health. The only issue with it is the profits don't go into the pockets of the current parasite class.
NinjablazerZero
Meanwhile in NYC, all you have to do is say Mamdani three times infront of a pothole, and that shit will be filled by the end of the day.
darbiify
As someone in Altanta... Yeah.
BigDaddyChapy
Freedom is just a mirage in the USA
foxpotate
All mass surveillance devices are a violation of the anti-pinkerton act.
Rongeong
When the anit-pinkerton act was put into place the US government decided to simply ignore it and kept doing business with the pinkertons. They've done so much business with the pinkertons that there are now at least five companies under the pinkerton umbrella. They've just simply refused to enforce the law for 133 years.
foxpotate
Nobody tried a writ of mandamus? https://usconstitution.net/writ-of-mandamus-explained/
Rongeong
Oh I'm sure many people tried things like that but when the government is the one breaking the law they can just choose to keep breaking it and never punish themselves.
fartyandbloated
Ehh, it’s only for the federal government and has been severely narrowed in scope by courts. I doubt many courts would interpret it that way and The current Supreme Court definitely wouldn’t.
HarryDresdenIsMySpiritAnimal
The current Supreme Court is full of oath breakers and traitors.
Rangecontrol
if the executive can ignore the courts, the ppl damn sure should.
SpottedDickSandwich
Since when has the law meant anything?
CharlesTooke
It meant a lot before Trump. And hopefully will again when he's gone.
kousaroe
I dream of that day
Avarice4020
It didn't mean much before Trump either to be fair, it just wasn't as highlighted before him.
Primotimewaster
Or updating water lines, had lines, electrical grids, fire department vehicles and ongoing training, hospitals or urgent cares, libraries, schools, etc...
thedudeman519
Public transportation
Shaodyn
Or even sidewalks. All those residential neighborhoods where it's not safe to walk anywhere because there's no sidewalk. The city "can't afford" that but has no problem installing expensive spy cameras.
ToSisPoS
Well, none of those get generous campaign donations from interested parties.
BeaverOnFire
That's because filling potholes doesn't help with "contributions".
do7rkb5n
Or fixing our crumbling bridges
TierfreierNichtraucherhaushalt
Or trees
iConfirmAnythingAndEverything
MY city didnt spend money and either.
cousteau
Chop down the cameras and use them to fill the potholes. That'll send a message.
CharlesTooke
Cousteau, I like the way you think.
leviaton
Plus it would be pretty funny. Toss the camera in the whole and pour in a bucket of clear epoxy resin
KarenFromTheHOA
I like the cut of your jib
Imadethisaccounttopost
Even worse, here in MA, we have an excise tax on cars.
When it was initially establishished, the money was supposed to go to road upkeep and repair...
Now it's just another tax.
AsiagoBandit
What party controls cities?
THISISYELLING
Which party controls you, loser?
wabitgirl
Give me any evidence that this is a partisan problem, and not a wealthy vs impoverished problem. Literally any fucking evidence.
bahukiba
You tell me
JohnnySilverballs
Get a life, mars.
rowzdowr
Look, I hate the constant surveillance as much as anybody, but this is likely just not true.
Technically, my city didn't pay for them, they have a 40/60 profit share agreement, and the money raised went into the city general fund to fix streets, among other things. I would assume the sudden proliferation of cameras all over the country means they did the same, and aren't paying for them upfront.
MustyTrd
Cameras can bring in money. Fixing potholes costs money and doesn't earn anything. They could just leave the potholes and all the damage they cause to vehicles are now money that has to be spent on repairs meaning more tax money.
PickleRiiiiiiiiiiiiick
Cameras only bring in money for the for-profit prison system.
wabitgirl
We have lost the plot so badly in society that we have utterly forgotten the idea of "this is a necessary social service that we pay for, not because it makes an ROI financially, but because it makes society pleasant, helpful, and meaningful to participate in." See: Libraries, the post office, road maintenance, education, etc. These things do not return funds immediately, but a society that eschews them collapses in short order.
aergered
What if I told you cameras don't actually bring in money and the potholes remain unfixed. Examples include every single city with Flock (or other) cameras.
JakSandrow
There are ways to make a local camera grid that don't involve outsourcing to a private company with cameras across the COUNTRY.
flornholio
Not flock specifically, but cameras are an easy knee-jerk reaction to a perceived problem, and only later do the officials find out they were wrong on the ROI. https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article286712290.html
Resistance1000
GreenFox
Most of these camera systems get set up for free. They spent millions to access cameras that would cost only thousands to build. They can't build them, because that would be a 4th amendment violation. But they can buy access to them for 10x markup. Basically they are using inefficiencies to buy constitutional violations.
BananaForScaIe
Yep, the pitches are "we'll do it for X, but amortize the cost over 5 years, and revenue projections on speeding and other tickets will more than cover that cost". For Flock the cancellation fee is the ENTIRE value of the contract. So canceling takes overwhelming public backlash, and the city loses it's "revenue".
Speed cameras were pitched the same way, Flock just takes it to the extreme.
Goatfer
Having a private company set them up for the government is just a 4th amendemnt violation by proxy. It was the same corruption Snowden exposed.
TacticoolWolf
Yeah, but just like a cable box, the subscription is where the companies make their money. Cities are paying $2-5k per camera. Sure, they catch the occasional criminal, but it's not like that's an instant win for the city either.