The Problem With Flock - National Logistics Post

Well, let’s start with the name. It is demeaning. Sheep run in flocks. Are herded. The name tells us what those who intend to herd us have in mind for us. Keep in mind what eventually happens to sheep. Our would-be shepherds — so to speak — are not herding us to “keep us safe.” They intend to fence us in — so that we are easier to shear. They do not say this, of course. They say it is for our safety.

Read more TDS Victims

By now, people should reflexively become alarmed whenever they hear others talk about their “safety.”

By now, people should reflexively become alarmed whenever they hear others talk about their “safety.”

Everyone is naturally self-interested in their own safety. It is a survival mechanism. Children learn it isn’t safe to play in traffic. Adults know it isn’t safe to go for a walk in bad neighborhoods. Part of growing up is learning to evaluate risk and decide for oneself whether it is too much. There is risk in varying degrees in everything. Some risks — such as asking a pretty girl for a date — are worth taking. Some risks — such as jumping out of a perfectly good airplane — may not be worth taking. Note the subjective. Worth varies. There is no absolute standard; it is a valuation made by the individual. Some individuals may feel it is not worth the risk — of embarrassment or rejection — to ask a pretty girl for a date. Some individuals may feel it is. Some may think the rush of skydiving is worth it because the risk of something going wrong with the parachute is slight.

The only one who has the right to make such valuations is the individual.

The Flock people — specifically, CEO Garrett Langley — believe otherwise, or so they pretend to believe. The premise underlying the placing of cameras everywhere people go is that it will keep the “flock” safe. In other words, that it is a benevolent, altruistic operation. Something like a mom keeping an eye on her kid while he’s playing outside. Except, of course, Garrett Langley is not our mother and is not motivated by motherly protective instincts. He is motivated by pecuniary interests; i.e., the desire to make money. (RELATED: In Full Support of Flock Cameras… at the Wisconsin State Fair)

This is the other real motive behind “safety.”

In the car world, “safety” doesn’t sell as much as it is imposed — another hugely important distinction. Airbags, for instance. Initially, they were offered rather than imposed. You could buy them if you wanted to but were free not to. An attempt was made to sell people “safety.” The attempt failed because not enough people were sold. It is possible that might have changed over time.

The original airbags of the early 1970s were very expensive options. If the cost had been brought down, perhaps enough people would have been willing to buy. That is not the approach that was taken, of course. Airbags were imposed — on everyone who buys a new vehicle. The car industry (as well as the insurance industry, which is in fact a mafia) has a tremendous pecuniary interest in this kind of “safety.” Vast sums are made by forcing everyone who buys a new car to buy airbags — and vast sums are made (taken, is more accurate) by the insurance mafia, which imposes higher costs for “coverage” due to the greater costs involved in fixing and replacing airbagged vehicles, and never mind that prattle they once purveyed about how “safer” cars would reduce costs. If you bought that, you’re a sucker — and have been treated accordingly.

Flock (and Ring and Axon) want to treat you accordingly, too. They insist having our every move watched and recorded is a benevolence. This assumes every law is and will be benevolent — and never mind the money they are planning on making on their benevolence via recording every instance of scofflawing, such as making an illegal U-turn or using a phone while driving; all the millions of things that human cops can’t catch everyone doing. The plan is to sell that juicy data to the government and the insurance mafia, who shear us and pay Flock for the shears. (RELATED: Forget the Singularity: Universal AI Surveillance Is Here)

Of course, they have already conditioned the masses to accept this as a good thing by having taught them to accept that scofflawing is a bad thing; i.e., that it is always and necessarily wrong to not obey every law because it’s the law. Most people agree with this, having been conditioned to agree with it. Getting them to un-agree is vitally important. Getting them to draw the critically important distinction between an action that is wrong as such (what is called malum in se in law) and an action that is considered wrong because it is illegal (malum prohibitum) is vitally important.

Murder is wrong as such. Making an “illegal” U-turn is not.

Flock et al do not want this distinction to be made. What they want is to make money. The government wants money and control. There you have it. Money — and control — the two real reasons why all these cameras are being put up everywhere. Well, not exactly everywhere. There are no cameras in Garrett Langley’s home. His bedroom and bathroom. Why not? We have no idea what he might be doing in there. It could be something bad!