Beyond any discussion of “vigilante” / “criminal” destruction of cameras, there’s a clear difference between giving domestic corporations (who act hand in glove with your local government) access to cameras on your property vs. giving foreign corporations (working hand in glove with an adversary government) access to cameras on your property.

It really comes down to whether you consider an individual’s right to privacy more important than your state’s security. Neither is really a perfect options in this case, but having the Flock camera means some part of your property is under the panopticon of local law enforcement that could arrest you (loss of privacy).

Going with chinese tech, you are probably more private in regards to your own government, but you’re probably having some negative effect on state security based on the marginal benefit of CCP surveillance/ potential malware in your network.

The dichotomy is false. People could have cameras which report to no one, but that’s less useful for all governments involved.

I'll personally send my DNA and weekly blood work straight to Xi Jinping address and pay for postage myself before letting my own government spy my every moves. Thés risks of anything bad happening are much lower

As long as they're not pointed at the street that should be fine. If they are pointed at the street then, depending on where you live, that may not be acceptable.

Rather, a community could pass a law to prevent persistent filming of public locations—why not, right?

Far cry difference between that and the mass dragnet and centralized surveillance of entire communities at tap for agencies/police/fed.

yes.

> Should their homes be vandalized too for their lack of concern for the community?

If enough people can be convinced that those cameras are somehow helping Trump, you’ll find a lot of people in here and Reddit saying “yes”, I’ll imagine. Before this we had people vandalizing Teslas because of Elon.

[flagged]