It’s all fun and games until flock cameras start lowering your property value.
I wouldn’t have even booked a showing becausenits a HOA. But you know the HOA is going to use the cameras to harrass everyone they dont like.
There is a community pool so there needs to be someone managing the shared community assets.
My neighborhood has a neighborhood pool as well as an HOA… and managing the pool is about the only thing the HOA does. The annual dues are only $250, and the whole HOA board rotates membership about every 3 to 5 years. It’s about the best HOA situation I can imagine.
That is what a Lifeguard is for. They are a rich community they can afford to pay someone to be a Lifeguard.
That’s what an HOA is supposed to do?
You are arguing you don’t need an HOA cause the community will pay for it? The HOA collects taxes from residents and provide services like a lifeguard.
No I’m arguing that the HOA needs to do its fucking job and hire a person instead of a camera.
And someone needs to hire the lifeguard and manage that budget. That is why that house has to have an HOA.
I think there is some misunderstanding. I am saying that this HOA should be hiring a Lifeguard instead of using a camera. The fact that they decided not to is my issue.
I’d like to read this, but I didn’t have Twatter
Yeah screenshots are the go with that shithouse site
The internet is 5 giant websites and they’re all filled with screenshots of the other 4
It would be better if no one used it.
Just enabled reader mode on Safari on iOS and it removed the login nag.
I only occasionally get the pop-up asking if I wanted to use it. Which is almost 100% a yes. I almost wish it was the only way to read the web, like it’s back in the 90s
I have a web browser, was able to view the contents of the post that way.
I was asking a friend of mine who leans more on the pro-Flock side of things and he said that Flock cameras are generally constitutional so long as they’re only covering public property.
Covering a pool on private property seems to be illegal, unless something in the lease would have granted consent for that level of surveillance.
In the US, this is mostly going to be determined by local or state laws. You generally don’t have an “expectation of privacy” in an area like this even if it’s private property.
Some places may have laws against surveilling someone else’s property though.
Billeting is constitutional in the USA, that does not mean everybody would be just happy to be order to host and feed a bunch of soldiers on testosterone supplements
Just to point out that something being “Constitutional” should not, at all, imply that is good or even desirable for society
Correct.
But an entity like an HOA is much more likely to care about something being illegal than me thinking that it is bad for society.
Fair point
