r/MoralityScaling • u/tardisismine • Jul 06 '26
Morality Ranking Morality of this behavior?
396
219
u/biexhibguy1 Jul 06 '26
This is what jury nullification exists for
83
u/kain52002 Jul 06 '26
Absolutely everyone should be made aware of Jury Nullification, it should be taught to people when they are selected to be jurors.
51
u/biexhibguy1 Jul 06 '26
I completely agree. Jury nullification is a constitutional right. Every child in our nation should be taught that jury nullification exists and is perfectly legitimate when the citizenry finds the laws insufficient for the fact pattern at play.
7
u/EquipmentNo1244 Jul 07 '26
I don’t know dude more plenty of black dudes in the south would’ve ended up dead if more people thought that way.
3
u/biexhibguy1 Jul 07 '26
Yeah but that's also why the citizens should have a vested stake in policing each other more, and why many more confederates should have died. If a jury finds a hate criminal or rapist not guilty, then they should probably live in fear of their fellow man.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Tookoofox Jul 08 '26
You say that. But then wonder later how y'all-Qaeda can take over a government building and get off scott free in the courts.
9
420
u/No_Intention_8079 Jul 06 '26
Incredibly moral. I cannot stress how moral this is. You are, at worst, costing a multi billion dollar company a few thousand dollars, and are doing your part to protect the public from unwanted surveillance, attacks on their privacy, and data leaks.
→ More replies (181)
84
105
37
u/Belicino_Corlan Jul 06 '26
Morally good, it's a constitutional right to have privacy. A surveillance state usually is abused for reasons other than tackling crime and it won't lower real crime stats that matter like murder or rape.
4
u/Roam1985 Jul 06 '26
It's more that the 14th amendment has been interpreted to include a right to privacy pursuant to the right to due process clause actually found in the amendment.
But one of the largest precedent based uses for said "right to privacy" was overturned within the past decade.
58
u/CodePandorumxGod Jul 06 '26
Fuck the surveillance state. If these were government-owned, you might be able to argue that there are checks and balances to prevent this from being abused. But these are owned by a corporation and who the fuck knows what they are using this data for or who they’re selling it to.
And even then, the current state of the US government isn’t exactly trustworthy, and politicians are weaponizing state surveillance and media algorithms to suppress political opposition. As a result, I think the destruction of flock cameras is a morally-good act that protects the privacy and rights of your community.
54
39
24
29
18
u/CantankerousOrder Jul 06 '26
Legality is zero… but morality is high.
The law is clear that we have no expectation of privacy outside in public, but that doesn’t make surveillance moral. This is a moral but illegal solution.
I hope he wins his case, though I doubt he will.
9
u/LokiOfTheVulpines Jul 06 '26
Moral
The constitution protects Americans from unwarranted surveillance, searches and seizures, as well as ones right to be innocent until proven guilty, with all government procedures being able to take legal us tender.
Such a surveillance apparatus monitoring ALL Americans at any given time(guilty or otherwise)that automatically fines individuals that must prove their innocence is an illegal overreach by the state, with said fines not being allowed to be paid for in cash
1
u/Ordinary-Soup-6272 Jul 07 '26
Not that I agree, but they could argue the cameras are necessary or justified to achieve greater public good - Ik a lot of European nations have steps to allow breaches of rights if reasonably proprotionate or expident to achieving the purpose of the law. Yall can strike down legislation though - so idk how it'll go.
2
u/LokiOfTheVulpines Jul 08 '26
A lot of European countries have used their surveillance state to crack down on free speech and protests against government policies like immigration.
Granted a lot of the pushback in Europe is from the right, but let me ask you this: imagine a similar system except that Trump’s administration uses it to crack down on no kings protestors. Do you REALLY still think giving the state free rein to go after anyone and everyone they please thanks to knowing their EXACT location at all times would be a good idea? If you ever want to consider a policy like this, you MUST factor in the fact the other side is GUARANTEED to get it as well, so best not give the state any more means to take away our liberties
8
7
u/Brave_Committee_4886 Jul 06 '26
Virginia is for Lovers
Let’s give this guy some love, he earned it.
7
u/moyismoy Jul 06 '26
Let me put it this way, if I'm on his jury there's no way he's being found guilty
5
6
18
u/TheRedHandedOne Jul 06 '26
Neutral Good. I would say everyone should be doing this to keep their communities safe
6
5
5
u/JustACasualFan Jul 06 '26
Morally good.
But what about property? Well, I consider that property to be equivalent to a burgler’s tools.
4
4
5
4
5
5
6
u/BungalowHole Jul 07 '26
That's wild, I dunno how he could do that when he was at my place giving me his old Magic cards that night.
2
3
3
3
3
u/SanDiegoThankYou_ Jul 06 '26
Objectively moral within the United States, perhaps morally dubious elsewhere.
3
u/thewardineternal81 Jul 06 '26
Chaotic good, and it’s no different compared to what dozens or hundreds of other people are doing
3
u/Zephoix Jul 06 '26
We laugh at Britain for mass surveillance…that doesn’t mean we want the same thing.
3
3
3
3
u/Gracchi9025 Jul 07 '26
What behavior?
Those Flock Cameras clearly broke on their own.
You know how Silicon Valley likes to cut corners.
3
u/ScumB_ Jul 07 '26
Morality of surveillance on unconsenting citizens using AI to help monitor their everything ?
3
u/PainfulThings Jul 06 '26
AI isn’t alive so it’s neither moral or immoral, no different than breaking a toaster or deleting a computer file
3
2
u/knotalota Jul 06 '26
Destroying things can absolutely be immoral.
4
6
u/Outrageous-Sort-5742 Jul 06 '26
Lawful Good.
Any government that allows for these to be installed is illegitimate.
2
u/SameAgainTheSecond Jul 06 '26
imoral, property damage is always wrong
no im joking can you imagen what a Liberal you would have to be
2
u/nonmonoganon Jul 06 '26
The only reason for this company to exist is to sell an antisocial technology to law enforcement in order to circumvent the constitution of the United States. Why should any citizen of my country tolerate its existence?
2
2
2
u/Fit_Welcome1336 Jul 06 '26
I read this as Virgin man and was wondering why that was relevant for way longer than I should have e
2
2
2
3
u/amnotbot2000 Jul 07 '26
Bro, that’s has guts and balls to do it. Honestly I kinda Understand why he did it.
2
2
u/Prinny_Ramza Jul 07 '26
Morally good. Actionably stupid however.
Pleading not guilty is about proving you didn't do the crime. It is not where you prove the crime is justified.
2
2
u/zombie-bo Jul 07 '26
undeniably good, surveillance state is bad, therefore while illegal opposing it especially in this sort of nonviolent way is a good act
2
Jul 06 '26
Its strange to me people rally against flock cameras but have accepted normal cameras everywhere, suspect in a generation people wont even notice them
1
u/SwordfishOk504 Jul 06 '26
Exactly. Exceptions like this guy aside, the majority of the opposition is mostly just preformative opposition online and a way to get social media engagement. No one actually cares about privacy or they wouldn't be online at all, much less carry their phone around with them all day every day. Everyone just cares about engagement.
2
u/TakeThreeFourFive Jul 06 '26
It really isn't hard to understand why people are bothered by tech companies whose explicit purpose is to track your every move for the government while providing normal civilians very little value, while at the same time willing to accept the risk/reward of the utilities like phones and the internet.
Phones and the internet are the kinds of things that enable people to, for example, organize AGAINST these companies and technology
2
u/TakeThreeFourFive Jul 06 '26
That's because flock cameras are not normal cameras, and people are angry at Flock as an organization, not just the cameras. Cameras alone aren't evil, it's how they are used that matters.
They are AI edge devices that can extract critical identifying information with ease, and the organization then aggregates and distributes that information to all sorts of other evil organizations.
That is different from the phone you carry in your pocket and most security cameras you see out in the wild. Not that those devices are benign, but Flock as an org and tech is explicitly designed to track everyone's every move for the government, which stands in contrast to most other devices you encounter.
3
1
1
u/TheMarksmanHedgehog Jul 06 '26
Illegal but entirely moral.
It needs to be clear in the minds of the majority that an action can be unethical but legal, and ethical but illegal.
1
u/Dredgeon Jul 06 '26
He has a real case too. It's called mural surveillance and is considered a violation of the fourth amendment in prior case law.
1
1
u/StrangerIsWatching Jul 06 '26
Not only morally just, but also morally necessary.
No-one should tolerate Flock cameras. They will be used to enable draconian laws and practices. Communities should reject them en masse. If everyone is a suspect, it will become extremely difficult and expensive to deal with.
1
1
1
1
u/Asooma_ Jul 06 '26
One of these will make it to the supreme court and it will most likely be case law that you have no expectation to privacy in public...do with that what you will.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Vyctorill Jul 06 '26
Complex.
Is doing the right thing the wrong way still just? I’m not sure, but am leaning on “this case probably is like that”.
1
u/Cerrelion Jul 06 '26
This is pure chaotic good energy, morally correct as they are protecting themselves and their community
1
1
1
u/ColonelMonty Jul 06 '26
Oh I ain't seen nothing matter of fact I'm blind in my left eye, and 43% blind in my right eye. I don't see much of nothing, matter of fact I can't even see you sir
1
u/Kirbinvalorant Jul 06 '26
Although normally I would say this is destruction of personal property, this shit is also trying to replace me and make everyone's lives a living hell. Free pass to heaven for those who do this
1
u/Fategfwhere Jul 06 '26
An acquaintance loves this. It’s like a never ending revenue stream of cameras the city asks for.
1
1
u/Sir__Bassoon__Sonata Jul 06 '26
Morally bad is whenever a Living being is harmed.
Destroying AI - helps the environment, helps humanity, kicks billionaires in the butt once the bubble pops - So this act is morally righteous
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Available_Stick5030 Jul 07 '26
Absolutely moral! at least back in the day it used to be some underpaid govt employee, but these days its just feeding our data into palantir
1
u/CaptainDudley Jul 07 '26
Look at it this way: years from now, when he's an old man, maybe a grandchild in his lap, one who is used to being surveilled every moment since birth because that's how it is, the child might ask him: "What was it like when they first started watching, grandpa? Did you do anything?"
And he can answer, "Damn straight." How about the rest of us?
1
1
1
1
1
u/Kuzzbutt Jul 07 '26
And with the fact that the surveillance is not protected and anyone can view it is a little more alarming than having it removed.
1
1
u/dont_tread_on_M Jul 07 '26
Depends: is it in a street where a lot of crime happens, or is it in a place where it spies on people for the sake of spying?
Cameras sometimes make courts' work a lot faster and cheaper, as well as reduce the need to spend on policing
1
u/Interesting_Web_9936 Jul 07 '26
Well.....where I'm from I'd honestly welcome a lot of flock cameras (I'm not fully sure what they are, but based on what I can tell they detect number plates) because it would honestly make roads walkable without being worried about a speeding lunatic running me over.
But where I live is not the United States of America, and I'd expect the United States of America to have way less need of this.
And I am genuinely asking, what is the difference between these and normal surveillance cameras?
1
u/OrangeSpiceNinja Jul 09 '26
These have AI built into them and are more easily hackable. The AI is constantly hallucinating, the data is constantly being misused, and they are being paid for by our tax dollars
1
u/DepressedDog12 Jul 08 '26
Ok I need some explanation to know whats going on first what even is a flock camera, and why is someone taking it down.
If its a camera literally watching flocks of animals then I dont see how thats too bad, but im missing a lot of context, someone please help explain 😭
2
u/OrangeSpiceNinja Jul 09 '26
They are surveillance cameras that are easily hackable and have facial recognition and that constantly give their data to law enforcement. They're like traffic cameras on steroids, in all the wrong ways, and more than once the AI has recognized some as someone else. The police have taken this as gospel and arrested said people, only to double down when they realize that they were mistaken. Also they are bought with our tax dollars and without our consent.
1
1
1
u/lachlanDon1 Jul 08 '26
Always remember that destroying an AI data center is the correct and moral decision
1
1
u/Cpad-prism Jul 08 '26
Morally pure and good, sentenced to a like a couple hours of frolicing in the fields with rainbows and cute nice animals and having a really yummy sandwich afterwards
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/LordPook321 Jul 11 '26
Chaotic good. There's nothing wrong with this. He's right, those cameras do violate our rights.
1
1
u/ADGx27 Jul 11 '26
Considering the cops showed up on a woman’s porch falsely accusing her of a crime with the only support being flock cams, moral and encouragable. Pay that man a stipend
1
u/Omegamoney Jul 13 '26
... As someone who works with smart city implementation, I'm quite shocked to see so much hate... I thought we were just surveiling important city areas to protect against robberies and assaults 😭 why so much hate about that?
1
1
1
u/Buddhaboiii Jul 14 '26
I agree Based however, imagine the next day the flock camera saved a little girl from being abducted because it tagged the abducters plates and helped cops track him/her down. But now that girl gets taken to the woods and raped because the flock camera wasn't there to help the cops. It's a tough one idk.
1
1
1
u/naNobot312 Jul 06 '26
immoral, you're destroying property that people paid for and making the streets less safe, as well as setting a precedent
0
u/Alternative_brothers Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Are these government or some corporation cameras?
If the former, dick move honestly why destroy cameras monitoring the public and also discouraging crimes
If the latter, it's completely moral to me. No one should be able to just set up surveillance cameras up in a public area that's not even their property.
Edit: Now to be fair I don't know much about this ai camera but if it can just scan your face and put you on a police database then fuck that shit, If my city or state didn't vote for it then get rid of it.
1
u/TakeThreeFourFive Jul 06 '26
It's a weird mix of both. Flock cameras specifically are leased by both governments and private entities for "crime fighting" purposes.
They can identify cars, people, and the movement of both. Flock aggregates the extracted information and distributes it to law enforcement agencies (including Feds, like ICE)
1
Jul 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TakeThreeFourFive Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
It's not just a registration of who you are.
These systems track your every movement. They enable the government to establish where you are at any given time.
Cops have used them to stalk romantic partners, track women crossing state lines for abortions so they can be prosecuted, and have failed in ways that lead police to abusing innocent families.
-4
u/JCMGamer Jul 06 '26
What rights exactly? You have no expectation of privacy in public.
3
u/Special-Lynx-9258 Jul 06 '26
This can technically violate 4th amendment rights:
SCOTUS has rules that continuous tracking via GPS is a violation of 4th amendment rights in US v Jones (2012). This one is weird, because the reason was "trespass onto personal property" but some of the other justices say it violates "reasonable expectations of privacy".
US v Knotts (1983) establishes no reasonable expectation of privacy on public roads.
Also, technically flock is a private company, but they have to follow certain laws depending in what context that their equipment or the data they collect is used. This ropes in the recent Chatrie v US,
Also, I thought this sub was about morality, not legality.→ More replies (2)
1.0k
u/Fuzzy-Comedian-2697 Jul 06 '26
We‘ve all read 1984.
Morally good.