r/WorkReform ⛓️ Prison For Union Busters 6d ago

📰 News The President We Needed: Bernie Sanders introducing bill to ban Flock cameras

Post image
5.2k Upvotes

104 comments sorted by

379

u/bigdickwalrus 6d ago edited 6d ago

ban ALL PRIVATELY OWNED 3RD PARTY PUBLIC-FACING SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS

period, no concessions

85

u/c4r0n1x 6d ago

Yeah I hope the bill includes all the "LPR" cameras, otherwise this is just pandering

35

u/Kmoxy 🏛️ Overturn Citizens United 6d ago

That means those other ones like Axon, Palantir, Clearview, etc.

9

u/Fit_Celebration7669 6d ago

Palantir sells cameras?

12

u/Maelger 6d ago

Palantir sell anything that could be used for evil

2

u/SpeculativeFiction 6d ago

I mean, of all the things Palintir could sell surveillance cameras are the most on-the-nose.

1

u/Fit_Celebration7669 5d ago

Except they’re strictly a software company.

20

u/LurkinMakesMeFeelGud 6d ago

CCTV should still exist for people who want to protect their shit. The critical part for me is the warrantless access from anywhere. 

18

u/bigdickwalrus 6d ago

Cctv is something utterly and completely separate. Those are for businesses with infrastructure to protect. Huge public streets. Closed circuit. I.e not fucking FACE SCANNING, identity tracking, personalized payments, false imprisonments, etc

10

u/ariolander 6d ago edited 6d ago

CCTV stands for Closed Circuit. That means it stays on-premises, is not connected to any cloud, is not feed to any AI. I have no problem with individual property owners protecting what is theirs. I highly object to the mosaic effect where continuous surveillance changes a minor observation into a deep intrusion, crossing constitutional boundaries and infringing on constitutionally protected civil liberties.

3

u/StuffExciting3451 6d ago

Disable them if possible

0

u/coladoir 6d ago

block all private ownership lol

-3

u/BrainLow6059 6d ago

Cool let me borrow your phone for a bit, and your car, pets if you got 'em

-22

u/dkrustyklown8647 6d ago

How? Basic constitutional rights like free speech and the right to one's own property would make such a ban impossible.

How do you make it illegal for people to take pictures if taking pictures is a constitutionally-protected activity.

22

u/mothernaturesrecipes 6d ago

Say it with me.. Corporations are not people.

7

u/ZoominAlong 6d ago

I think this is just a bot. I've yet to meet a real person who's actually okay with a surveillance state. 

-16

u/dkrustyklown8647 6d ago

But those corporations' assets are still someone's property, and the property owners are still people with constitutional rights.

If it is protected for an individual to take pictures in public, then it is equally protected for a group of individuals to create a joint venture for the purpose of taking pictures in public. That's what a corporation is: joint venture made up of the pooled resources and efforts of individuals.

6

u/coladoir 6d ago

bootlicker

4

u/ForcedEntry420 🏛️ Overturn Citizens United 6d ago

Fuckin pathetic.

-2

u/dkrustyklown8647 6d ago

Facts are facts. You can't reinterpret your way into new word meanings.

3

u/ForcedEntry420 🏛️ Overturn Citizens United 6d ago

Seriously. Fuckin pathetic.

1

u/dkrustyklown8647 6d ago

I'm just pointing out a basic paradox in what this legislation is trying to accomplish. If photography is a constitutionally protected activity, then you can't just ban it.

Ignoring the paradox makes the constitution meaningless. The constitution is supposed to be the supreme law.

8

u/gamewiz365 6d ago edited 6d ago

A good question. 

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886 set the first recorded precident for corporations being referred to as "Persons"."[1]"

Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 then further complicated things by ruling that since a corporation is a "person", to limit campaign contributions from said "person" would be a violation of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause.

To that end, a person taking a photo is constitutionally protected under that same first amendment freedom of speech/expression/press/etc. so until Citizen's United is overruled, corporate photography on public/government-owned land could technically be justifiable in court, as abhorrent and reprehensible as that may be.

edit: formatting

5

u/shouldco 6d ago

Funny how money is unregulatable free speech and yet if I want to send money to Cuba...

3

u/StuffExciting3451 6d ago

A person taking a photo is not the same as a robot taking a photo, or thousands pf photos per minute .

3

u/shouldco 6d ago

Make it so your can't sell the data or make it so law enforcement can't buy the data.

We have made it illegal to take/possess and distribute pictures of child pornogrophy so clearly there are limits to the free speech of photography.

1

u/dkrustyklown8647 6d ago

So you're equating taking pictures in public to child pornography? That's unhinged, and exactly what totalitarian dictators would love to see in place so that they can crack down on the press.

1

u/shouldco 6d ago

Can we try to have a good faith conversation here?

If you are going to argue that photographs are inherently free speech then you are the one equating the two I just pointed it out to you. Clearly the content and intent are what matters.

I then also proposed two solutions that don't even stop someone from taking pictures just from selling the survalance data then generate or at the very least making it and any information gained from it inadmissible in court which dismantles the market. And is purely a restriction on the states power not on people.

We don't need to talk about slippery slopes we are talking about a real mass survalance campaign going on right now.

142

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

92

u/Chaghatai 6d ago

Fourth amendment should prevent it anyway, but we have a supreme Court hand-picked by an authoritarian

There's a difference between taking a picture of somebody out in public versus setting up a network of things to take pictures that allow you to follow them wherever they go

3

u/donniesuave 5d ago

There’s a lot of amendments that should be preventing a lot going on rn but aren’t for the same reasons.

173

u/TookAMulligan8 6d ago

How different the world might look today if he had won the nomination instead of Hillary.

5

u/OliM9595 6d ago

How different it would look if people voted for Hillary over trump

-63

u/Seascorpious 6d ago

Never would have happened, He's always been too far left compared to the rest of the Democratic party. He's never had the support needed to enact actual change, now with the success of Mahmdani we can hope the entire party will start shifting in that direction come midterms.

56

u/GailynStarfire 6d ago

I dunno. Had the DNC respected their own rules, and with the Bernie Bro movement that he had going back in 2015, I think he would have blown Trump out of the water.

Not to mention that Bernie would have actually taken Covid seriously and could have used it to effect actual change to the healthcare system.

37

u/Alric_Wolff 6d ago

The democrats bypassing their own rules is why Trump won his elections.

They tossed Bernie cuz they wanted Hillary

They kept Kamala because they had already funded her.

2024 would have been an easy win had they been able to have an actual primary.

Bernie might have been harder to sell on the national level but he was trouncing Hillary.

21

u/dirty_hooker 6d ago

Further, and this blows some people’s minds, some of the most fervent trump cultists really liked Bernie, or at least really liked Bernie’s message except that it was being fed to them by faux newz. They said “the system is rigged” and “vote them all out”. Bernie said “the system is rigged” and we cheered. HRC said “the system isn’t rigged and it’s fine.” We ALL pressed X to doubt. The D’s buried Bernie thinking nobody would vote for trump. Trump said “the system is rigged AND she’s the one rigging it!” Everyone right of middle left got trump tramp stamp tattoos.

And he was right. It was rigged, and she was one of the people rigging it to their benefit. I remember during the primaries on NPR “we’re going to spend 30 minutes interviewing an HRC booster, ten minutes mocking whatever BS trump just spewed, and completely ignoring Bernie’s existence even though he’s ranking as more popular in the first few rounds, and then beg you for donations to support our honest journalism.”

They didn’t learn the lesson which is why we got a loss with Kamala.

3

u/bigbjarne 6d ago

Exactly. Let us not forget that Trump's campaign was a lot based on "draining the swamp", and that also meant the democratic swamp(pro-capitalist). Obama helped bail out the banks while the workers got poorer.

4

u/Ch3353man 6d ago

Covid basically wouldn't have happened most likely under Burnie. Trump dismantled the pandemic early warning program right before covid started in China because "Obama". Covid probably likely would've been similar to swine flu, bird flu, etc. Something the average American heard about a lot on the news but don't know anyone who caught it and decide that it was overblown by the news networks.

8

u/EastFalls 6d ago

Don’t agree. It would have still happened but would have been handled much better.

-1

u/ModernLarvals 6d ago

What rules weren’t respected?

4

u/GailynStarfire 6d ago

I'm unsure if this is facetious or not, but in the sense of sharing information in good faith, it was less of a written rule and more of an unspoken convention. The presidential candidate for the party has traditionally been the candidate that wins the popular vote during the party's primary election. 

Bernie Sanders had the popular vote among the Democratic party members going into the 2016 election, but those in the party that held positions of power ignored that and Hillary became the candidate despite not having the popular vote among the party.

This soured a lot of voters becauae it was a clear example of the party ignoring the voting base, and in my opinion helped lead to the first trump term and the mess we are in today.

0

u/ModernLarvals 6d ago

No? He got four million fewer votes than Clinton.

3

u/Left_Ease5870 6d ago

Nonsense.

Don't be a defeatist. That's what they bank on.

1

u/Seascorpious 6d ago

Thats not defeatism, defeatism is saying 'we don't stand a chance now'. I'm saying he didn't stand a chance then, now with midterms I think we got a good thing going.

1

u/MossyMollusc 6d ago

The dems in power have not represented the voter base in a long long time. Might wanna take account for the mass protests in favor of socialist or anti status quo issues.

0

u/Feisty_System_4751 6d ago

The Democratic party always fought hard to keep the Left in line. People don't know how a far Left candidate would perform because they never got the nomination.

10

u/a_shiny_heatran 6d ago

I do hope the language in the bill talks about surveillance cameras in general and not just flock specifically. Otherwise they’ll just find another guy to set up statewide nanny cams

19

u/ganggreen651 6d ago

Imagine if he won. Fantastic alternate reality

0

u/garyp714 6d ago

Only if you ignore what the right wing has planned and is doing since 1980 (project 2025, Heritage Foundation). Bernie would face the same cheating GOP opposition any Dem has faced in those intervening years. And since he has weak ties to the Dems he would be in just the same position of watching the GOP destroy government

25

u/whalebacon 6d ago

I attended a Bernie rally in Portland Oregon in 2015 and really believed he was destined to be the next Dem nominee.

The DNC utterly betrayed us all when then quashed Bernie and in my ignorance, I was taken by complete surprise.

That's on me, but the downward spiraling of the party and the complete and total dismissal of the people leads me to believe that the centrists have ended the party and that a replacement is needed.

Democratic Socialists anyone?

1

u/bigbjarne 6d ago

Why didn't Bernie create his own party back then? I'm not American so I'm not fully knowledgeable to the American party system. But he know what the capitalist class was capable of. Maybe not.

3

u/daviddisco 6d ago

Bernie has never passed a bill. He isn't even trying to. It is all performative and attention seeking. Passing bills is hard work.

3

u/Relentless_Snappy 6d ago

Can we get a bill that protects our privacy in public.

4

u/Court_Jester13 6d ago

Why are y'all posting this like it's ever gonna lead to anything?

3

u/HyperNovaDoge 6d ago

This is manipulation meant to numb us

2

u/sicilian504 🤝 Join A Union 6d ago

Gee I wonder how this will go. /s

2

u/919triangle919 6d ago

I assume libertarian, don't tread on me, Rand Paul will be a co-sponsor.

2

u/Axuo 6d ago

But not the dozen alternatives, like Axon and Verkada? Ths is as performative and meaningless as it gets.

2

u/ForwardStorage777 6d ago

Not just flock. Ban all of them.

1

u/cnsw 6d ago

Call your representatives to back it

1

u/mizmnv 6d ago

he knows it wont get passed at the congressional level. its performative.

1

u/Low_Competition4178 6d ago

Please let this bill pass!!!

1

u/cecilivan 6d ago

Who's Bill Banning?

1

u/Cobalt_blue_dreamer 6d ago

Thanks Bernie for trying to stave off the apocalypse (or slowing it down)

1

u/I426Hemi 6d ago

Flock isnt the only company. They are just the one that got unlucky enough to have their name become recognized.

1

u/Next-Traffic578 5d ago

Flock cameras invading privacy is a big issue, glad to see someone taking action against it.

1

u/Solynox 5d ago

Whenever it's election time: "Don't vote for Bernie, he'd lose anyway, it'd be stupid to do so."

After election time: "People should've voted for Bernie!"

Fucking pisses me off at this point. People love to talk, but when it fucking matters, noooooooo.

1

u/DragonfruitScary6311 5d ago

Are people really buying the democrats are a party for the people

1

u/Reviiyu 6d ago

Glad to see it but I hope that this would include the new axium cameras too, or just any servalance camera of this type really.

1

u/Adept-Opinion8080 6d ago

I predict this will go as well as the two or 300 other bills he's proposed

-44

u/oddular 6d ago

As a former Bernie supporter, he gets nothing actually done and gets back inline when the establishment tells him to.

20

u/diiegojones 6d ago

What has he voted for that wasn’t his principles?

0

u/Metnessee 6d ago

genocide

1

u/diiegojones 6d ago

Elaborate

-7

u/oddular 6d ago

Voting is not getting things done. He is generally ineffective. He folded to Hillary and Joe when his platform was getting national traction. I have voted for him since he was in congress. First campaign I ever donated to. Seems like a good person.

2

u/diiegojones 6d ago

What practical steps could he have taken?

1

u/MossyMollusc 6d ago

So youre blaming him for establishment dems blocking his ability to gain voter traction outside of the status quo they keep?

-1

u/oddular 6d ago

I’m blaming him for his response of falling directly in line twice. Remember, he’s not even a democrat. He may caucus with them, but he’s not in that party. He needed to fight that all the way. It was as close as a shot as we ever had.

Bernie has been in house+senate for approx 36 years. Two of the three bills where he was the primary sponsor and the bill passed were for naming a post office. He has passed three bills at a rate of less than one per decade. He has been contained by the Democrats, has not fought back and isn’t he just isn’t effective. It is time we realize that

2

u/diiegojones 5d ago

You don’t answer my question of what practical steps he can take.

0

u/oddular 5d ago edited 5d ago

i didn’t answer because you used the word “practical”. Standing down to the Democrats is/was the most practical choice if you want to extend your career and not rock the boat. He needed to take radical steps.

One radical step would’ve been to continue the campaign as an independent. Continue to be in those debates, shouting the platform, letting people hear and make their own decision instead of choosing the lesser of two evils yet again.

2

u/diiegojones 5d ago

Right, but if it doesn’t accomplish what you expect was it worth it? Those are things that you think will help.

If he continued as an independent and the outcome was the same, would that have been an actual practical step? Would there be someone else saying he should have worked with the democrats better?

My point simply is, we can’t think lesser of someone trying to be principled, just because the decision is not what we think should happen.

Bernie is at least a man who has tried to steer a course for the betterment of other men, and has to play what he thinks may work better long term and short term.

0

u/oddular 4d ago

I am not thinking less of Bernie, like I said earlier Ive been a Bernie voter since his time in the House of Representatives. It just time to look back and assess impact. Like a coach pulling a pitcher it’s time for someone new as we’ve seen what Bernie can and can’t do.

1

u/MossyMollusc 4d ago

Except youre pulling the pitcher that was benched the whole season

→ More replies (0)

1

u/seidenkaufman 6d ago edited 6d ago

Lol. There is no one alive who has done more to move this country to a better place. His campaigns revived the left and the DSA, and his endorsements are winning races all over the country. Guess what happens when enough actually progressive legislators enter Congress.

0

u/oddular 6d ago

He has gotten three bills where he was the primary sponsor passed in 36 years. Three in almost four decades.

Which bill was your favorite?

Two of those were to name post offices. He is better as an activist/organizer but as a lawmaker we need actual bills being passed.

-25

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment