Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison
11971.com
11971.com
~94,000 Cameras in the national Flock network that Southold officers had access to, never disclosed to the Town Board
0 Opt-in or opt-out decisions the Town made about any of this sharing, in its own words
Can any private corporation request/buy access? Or is Home Depot special?
Found this: https://corporate.homedepot.com/page/immigration-activity-ou...
That sounds very weasel worded, if they get license plate readers from someone who does.
- Montana vehicle registrations give you privacy
- are not tax evasion, those straw mans and ad hominems are to scare you into giving away your privacy protections
- you can pay use tax still (consult a professional, I'm no attorney)
That will speak louder to your representatives who are voting in these cameras which violate your privacy.
BTW officials in California, Texas have a history of selling your persona info tied to your vehicle registrations to 3rd policies and have been fined before. Trust them to have changed? Hah.
The appropriate party can pay California or New York use tax arising from the vehicle’s in-state use. Whether Montana registration may legally remain or California requires a registration from you for a vehicle you do not own is a separate question. Generally, the LLC registers it. Since this vehicle has had its use tax already paid, the tax evasion argument won't apply.
If the LLC owns the vehicle, you do not.
How can you own something that is owned by another company?
Or said another way, do you have any sound basis to say you are on the hook to register property in New York (you linked to a New York statue) that you do not own. Or is it the LLC’s responsibility. Genuinely curious as every state is a bit different.
In other words, the car’s owner is only deemed a resident of a foreign jurisdiction if the car is garaged at a place of business in that foreign jurisdiction AND compelled to register in that jurisdiction. It does not matter where the car’s owner is located. If it’s not garaged in that foreign jurisdiction, it is considered to be an NY resident vehicle.
Your workaround does not work according to NY law because your car is not garaged in Wyoming or whatever.
Who's car is it?
You seem to portray high confidence in your opinions and misrepresent your statements while fundamentally misunderstanding ownership. The moment the car legally becomes owned by another entity, it ceases being yours - this applies for all intents and purposes such as the NY statutes you share that require the owners to register the car.
> Except as provided in Section 6700, 6702, and 6703, any vehicle which is registered to a nonresident owner, and which is based in California or primarily used on California highways, shall be registered in California.
The appropriate party can pay California or New York use tax arising from the vehicle’s in-state use. Whether Montana registration may legally remain or California requires a registration from you for a vehicle you do not own is a separate question. Generally, the LLC registers it. Since this vehicle has had its use tax already paid, the tax evasion argument won't apply.
Now is vehicle registration evasion a real thing or something you made up to conflate your fear mongering with legality?
You are though, through your state registration at the DMV.
Unless, of course, you have Montana registrations.
I am arguing that a Montana registration, with registration under an LLC and not you, with insurance even where the vehicle's vin is tied to your name, as a driver of the vehicle (not owner), is still more privacy protection and better for you in reference to Flock privacy-invading-cameras than an in-state registration where it's directly registered under you.
Seems your whole post may fall under my original "Straw Man" camp that I was referring to. edit: And the whole "bad actors lie" comment feels to me like a bad faith, Ad hominem style statement that attacks credibility rather than substance.
I really wish it did and I hoped you had some solution!
And my bad too for assuming bad faith there and/or projecting onto you.
I don’t want to believe it’s true that you compromise privacy by registering a vehicle under your name, particularly in regards to flock. I admit you could be right, but I want to investigate this more. Do you think it’s possible there could be car insurance agencies that offer you privacy protection of some sort or that there’s another way to keep yourself private?
Some ideas I have: - get a cheaper vehicle and get it insurance coverage from the company or someone else - get yourself insurance for another car, and get the coverage for Liability ie to protect the other persons car if you hit someone else and don’t worry about your own car. For example; a $5k car pays for itself after 1-2 years of no significant claims and now you have what your insurance would have offered for your car anyway. (“The cost of privacy”.) - I am not convinced your insurance company would data sharing with flock or its subsidiaries if they only have your vin. What are your data sources for this?
Edit: as a legitimate need; perhaps the market will reveal itself large enough to surface an insurance company that offers privacy protection and refuses flock data sharing. However just because this could true that insurance companies would share with flock today, doesn’t mean it is.
https://www.policygenius.com/auto-insurance/what-is-broad-fo...
But I believe the intersection of states with highly private registration and where broad form is available is the empty set.
> I am not convinced your insurance company would data sharing with flock or its subsidiaries if they only have your vin.
Go pull your lexis nexis report.
> log every trip
> This system tracks the whole of everyone's movements, every day
Funny, because current lawsuits over flock have hinged on the point that they DO NOT have total coverage of roads. Author seems to be talking about Long Island, which is an unusual case, and flock might have total coverage there. But special places need special laws, and an edge case isn't the model for the whole world!
> The Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that the government may not track the whole of a person's movements without a warrant.
No, that court case established that the government needs a warrant to get, specifically, historical cellphone pings from a 3rd party (the cellphone companies).
And overly-emotional language to fool the more credulous:
> It is called Flock for a reason. We are sheep only if we let this happen
Oh please, it's named flock because it's perched on a pole, like a bird, not a sheep.
> feed a national database searched by 59 outside agencies nobody in this town chose
> 0: Opt-in or opt-out decisions the Town made about any of this sharing, in its own words
Well why not? It seems like a lot of the flock discussion takes a bizarre twist where people go "It's useless to try to limit it, we need to ban it outright". Like okay? Do we ban the police when one goes rogue? (I guess that's kind of a bad question to ask, given that "defund the police" was trending a few years ago)
Flock is gathering far, far more intrusive data than "cellphone pings" including hoovering up bluetooth signals and other identifying information. The court may not have ruled on it yet, but it is absurd to think that the courts would think that the government needs a warrant to collect cellphone pings but doesn't need a warrant to collect far more blanket data, including facial recognition on a mass scale. Hopefully we will get a ruling on this sooner rather than later.
>Well why not? It seems like a lot of the flock discussion takes a bizarre twist where people go "It's useless to try to limit it, we need to ban it outright". Like okay? Do we ban the police when one goes rogue? (I guess that's kind of a bad question to ask, given that "defund the police" was trending a few years ago)
This is a bizarre take. Police are a necessary component for running a society. Blanket surveillance is not. This is self-evidently true because society still functioned before the recent past when they introduced blanket surveillance. Equating, or even comparing, a core and necessary function of society, like policing, with a new and completely optional and unnecessary blanket surveillance system is absurd (and that's the polite term).
I mean worth a shot right? Do we need armed government funded domestic violence perpetrators? Can anyone make the case for the current situation from first principles?
I’m an American living in Turkey at the moment. My airbnb host tells me that as a white collar software guy, he personally knows a large fraction of people who have been detained in prison for 1,2 or 3 months for having parties or fake traffic violations.
Of course i don’t love the ever-tightening shackles of algorithmic pricing, which is already well in place for insurance, finance and banking.
But the situation in Turkey reminds me that we are only one “national emergency” away from your freedoms being ripped from us with zero recourse. The chilling effect here is real.
The casually interested, confidently wrong argument can be summed up pretty easily. There is a risk v reward calculation with mass surveillance. What’s the reward? I don’t know the details, but apparently police love the tech because it makes catching bad guys easier. What’s the risk? Unfathomably and Immeasurably high, in ways that we won’t always get to know, or find out years later.
Any refutation of said high risk argument should be something like “relax, guy!” The corporations and state authorities are never gonna use their surveillance of innocents in ways that have any real consequences.
Do what you have to do. shrug But when it doesn't have any effect, consider that maybe your bar for "bad faith argument" includes large swaths of completely legitimate differing opinions.