this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
774 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

89355 readers
3203 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The country needs to find a “compromise” between privacy and safety, according to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley.

“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Safety from what Langley? What are the cameras keeping us safe from?

[–] chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

"Us" is the pedophiles running things, and "keeping us safe" means attacking their critics.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] THE_GR8_MIKE@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Sure, the compromise is we cut them down until you stop. Sound good to everyone else?

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

Asked and answered.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Little bitch is negotiating, and it's not even Halloween, yet.

[–] Big_Boss_77@fedinsfw.app 9 points 2 months ago

Take your cameras down and maybe people don't want to destroy them. Good compromise, eh?

[–] Microtonal_Banana@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 months ago

No quarter for flock cameras no compromise with surveillance tech ceos

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

I propose this compromise:

  • No surveillance, at all.
  • Flock rebrands to the shitty SaaS startup its name suggested it to be. I want to see the YouTube ads for "IrfanView, but paid and is a 500+MB chromium app"!
[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

On the right, three House Republicans recently introduced a bill that would prohibit the federal government from purchasing automated surveillance systems that use facial recognition, biometric IDs, or license plate recognition, “including a Flock Safety camera.”

Really? Wow. Okay, when you lose Republicans (well, some Republicans), you KNOW you've gone too far. Damn.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 7 points 2 months ago

I AGREE! There IS common Ground between allowing the Epstein Class to SPY ON CHILDREN and the People who think CHILD RAPISTS Spying on Children is WRONG! Maybe just a COUPLE MILLION of Taxpayer Dollars to Spy on Children as a Treat?

-Centrists!

[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

No, fuck off.

[–] KulunkelBoom@lemmus.org 7 points 2 months ago

there's no compromise - take down ALL the fucking surveillance crap and take it down NOW.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Yeah, no, the interpretations of the 4th amendment that led to these things being legal were clearly made in an era where they relied on the high cost of surveillance to minimize the amount there is. A reasonable modern day interpretation of the 4th should ban these

[–] einlander@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

They're not even watching traffic though...

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Langley needs to find a compromise between living and getting Luigi'd.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 6 points 2 months ago

I drove my company at the wall. Dearest wall, give me a compromise, pretty please?

[–] darkmarx@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[–] ironpangolin29@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's how you know the reasons behind flock is nefarious, when they have to scale back what they're doing because of how blatantly obvious the overreach and invasion of privacy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

ok.

we'll continue ripping down your shitty products and you can just shut the fuck up.

see, isn't that a nice compromise?

[–] Aarrodri@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Not an inch ! Not a mm!

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 5 points 2 months ago

The only compromise we want to see is the structural kind.

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I call for something else lol.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

My suggestion for compromise would be to bring back tar and feathering

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 5 points 2 months ago

You have both by not having you around, asshole.

[–] AzuranAurora@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago

Die, Flock. The company would not be missed.

[–] leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 5 points 2 months ago

the compromise could be that they should take their own cameras down then do door to door petitions on who actually wants them.

[–] bagsy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

My privacy and freedom are invaluable to me, I don't give 2 shits about some CEOs profits. He can go rot in a ditch for all I care.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›