Really wish people realized this 20 years ago when we actually had a chance to stop it.
Everyone sounding the alarms two decades ago were ridiculed. Arguments seen as over reacting or a “my brand vs your brand” thing (really about the infrastructure).
Protesting is legal.
You are describing a chilling effect. Those weapons are not used at all protests and that is the point. They want you think twice before going to protest. In general, it’s not a criminal action though still.
It’s good that you and everyone here knows that these things are happening. If the twitter post was just speaking to the choir, then what’s the point? Circle jerk to make us feel better?
If the post is trying to reach people and wake them up, then they are speaking to people who are not aware of the story you cited. To them it just seems like OP is lying and the post does nothing to help anything.
We can still protest. We still have a legal right to free speech. It’s not worth the hyperbole. It also perpetuates a misconception that authoritarianism doesn’t allow for protests and free speech.
The model we are emulating is competitive authoritarianism. For the past four decades it has been an increasingly popular form of government.
There will be elections. There will be protests. There will be opposing parties and anti-government speech.
But the tables will be tilted heavily. They will allow small opposition wins, but the majority will stay with one party.
Speech won’t be illegal, but you will be harassed. Asked questions by law enforcement. Press will be sued.
They will leverage the private/public surveillance apparatus to monitor public sentiment on all topics and how far they can push (and release pressure when needed) and what opposition to monitor/harass. Decades of data from political science, sociology, and psychology will make this an art.
It’s dangerous if we perpetuate the idea that authoritarianism only exists when we can’t protest or say anti-government things. The underlying institutional foundations are being changed now. The referees are being captured now. Press and citizens can legally say what they want, but the chilling effect is happening now.
We need more mobilization. Hyperbolic takes and not being clear on what authoritarianism actually looks like in the 21st century will make it harder.
Your question is what is not decided yet. The merger of surveillance capitalism and the federal government is something warned about decades ago and now it’s here. It takes years for this stuff to make it’s way through courts and up to SCOTUS (assuming it will get there).
Your point makes sense because a ruling against flock could also impact the tech companies that have been doing invasive tracking, arguably even more invasive, for decades. What makes flock different though are the direct contracts with governments.
There is a recent case that may support all this being illegal. SCOTUS recently ruled governments using geofencing data does constituent a search and therefore 4th amendment protections.
They care about European markets and ensuring those markets can compete. This is all public day to day infrastructure now. It’s about long-term survival.
True. The issue is how prevalent it is now. Any moron can do it now.
Horrible loss for consumers in the long-run as there are already patents showing what monitoring is coming next. Eventually everyone will have to allow this kind of tracking to have an affordable rate. The data will be used for lots of other purposes besides auto insurance.
In the short-term consumers get immediate savings, so I expect this to be popular since we’re all hurting out here.
For anyone interested, this is a great legal review on the topic: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/clr/vol45/iss1/4/
It links to the abstract but the the full paper is free to download.