rich1.0uncleJim21 (npub1g5…e9lcr)https://nostr.now/npub1g5642xjqyudstx4e9dc702m7suqqvx3djxcdyre38muz7pfwkzzsye9lcrnjumphttps://nostr.nowTalking to the Pro Flock crowd is wild. Even ones that I think are relatively good natured will say things like "Tell that to the family of the woman who's murderer was found by Flock" or "Oh so you want ZERO cops??" It's telling how weak their arguments are by the fact that they have to do a strawman to make my views extreme. All I'm saying is we should reject running a drag net on every person that leaves their home. The entire fabric of our legal system is predicated on particularity of warrants because the founding fathers had King's officers ransack their homes to find something to pin on them. Flock's surveillance implementation is that times 1000x with automation speed and indefinite retention. So to recap: I just want judges and legislators to properly interpret the purpose and meaning of the constitution as written. No where did I say there should be 0 cops. What I've been saying is the highest leverage point in this system is the DA level because the leniency is causing criminals to run rampant and escalate. Meanwhile the Pro Flock crowd wants to justify collecting data on everyone, whether they're guilty or not and retain it forever and make it available to the sleaziest lowest character LEOs and politicians out there. Who's view is more extreme?