Those aren't the problem, it's any "free" mobile app in the App Store or Play Store with an advertising SDK (which is almost all of them) that uses your location to "keep your weather forecast up-to-date" but also provide data brokers with your location...
Sure, and—setting aside the issues with all the millions of smart phone users who can't properly consent to these apps and their permissions because they don't have the knowledge to know what they're actually consenting to—the great thing is that I can choose not to install these apps. And I don't!
I don't have the same choice with cameras everywhere that feed into a company with a security team run by donkeys and that provides minimal to no oversight to the government bodies using the camera data to do an end run around the fourth amendment.
Uh... it's also the cell phone companies that triangulate every powered phone at all times and provide that info to data brokers, police departments, and intelligence agencies.
my point is people are freaking out about Flock but everyone has a tracking device in their pocket at all times, and people absolutely love Ring doorbell cameras (ok maybe not you, I get it).
It seems incongruous to me that people are willing to recognize the benefits that these tools provide law enforcement at solving crimes but when it comes to Flock cameras somehow things are totally different. They're just cameras with really good software, and law enforcement likes them because it makes their jobs easier.
A phone provides the individual with tangible benefits. It only tracks the individual. The individual is always free to opt out.
A ring doorbell camera provides the individual with tangible benefits. It is installed by the individual on personal property. It does however typically capture some amount of public space which I think is problematic.
Government run centralized surveillance does not provide the individual with tangible benefits. It almost exclusively captures public spaces (that's usually the entire point of the exercise after all). It generally is not realistic to opt out short of being denied access to any surveilled public spaces. If that happens to include the majority of roads near your home then I guess you'll want to look into moving.
> Government run centralized surveillance does not provide the individual with tangible benefits
It certainly can if you're willing to see it from a different perspective.
Imagine a thief, stalker, abuser or anyone that commits a crime against you, but police normally would not be able to locate them after they run away. Having those cameras can absolutely help them locate them quickly in order to arrest them shortly after you report an incident.
I'm not trying to defend surveillance, I certainly don't want it, I'm just saying there can technically be non-obvious benefits.
Most phones have a cellular modem in it, and as long as it is on and functioning normally, even without a valid SIM, it can still be tracked by any provider or person/group/government controlling that provider, even triangulated to a more precise location, 24/7.
We want a government and law enforcement that can investigate wrongdoing, but we want that access to be checked and limited, and, most importantly, we want the government actually following the checks and limitations they're supposed to be subject to.
Which brings us back to data laundering companies like Flock.
Only if it's the government wanting the data directly from the provider. The provider itself, any malicious actor within, or any companies they might be selling your data to, can still get the subscribers' location data. And the government can still legally purchase that info from a data broker without it being labeled a "search". And that's nothing to say of governments acting illegally, there are still ways they can access that data.
My point was that not having "facebook, X, or tiktok installed on my phone" does nothing to stop your carrier (or anyone else they might be working with) from tracking your exact location in much worse ways than any individual app normally would.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if FB bought raw data from the providers just to see if they could aggregate it into their shadow profiles. Whatever the cost of buying that data, it wouldn't mean anything to a corp that prints money. Yes, this is pure tin foil hat level conspiracy nonsense, but it goes to show how little I think of FB
I don't have facebook, X, or tiktok installed on my phone.