The Scott Adams School - 08/21/26 The Home Team closes out the week.

Marcela's looking rad. Owen's looking like a dad. All right, everybody, we are kicking into gear. Look at this. YouTube, waiting for YouTube and Rumble, and then we'll get moving.

Owen looks like he's going to golf after this.

Golf? I think he's going to Disney with the kids. He just needs a camera around his neck.

I have only golfed, I think, twice in my life. It's never been a thing for me.

That was enough for you?

Well, I, I kind of intentionally stayed away from it cuz I know it sucks you in and then it becomes this huge time sink and huge money sink and like it kind of becomes, I mean, I, I'm sure you can just do it any amount you want, but it just seems like if you wanna be any good at it, you have to put a lot of time into it.

Yeah.

Anyway, but they are some of the best vacations I hear because like the properties are beautiful and the courses are gorgeous and blah blah blah. But anyway, where, where do you like to vacation, Owen? Not like specifically, but are you like a beach vacation guy or are you like a Civil War reenactment guy or are you going to a museum?

I like all of them and I've done all of them. I would say that mostly over the past, you know, 25 years since I had kids, A lot of it was centered around them. So when they were little, we did things like Disney and, you know, things like that, but Legoland and things. But when they got a little older, it was— because we have 2 boys, it's more like active vacations. You got to find stuff for them to do.

Mm-hmm.

You know, I don't want to go to like some European museum and have them complaining the whole time and saying, why are there so many stairs to climb? So I wouldn't do that. I would go to, you know, places that had rappelling or water parks or, um, I mean, we've been on a lot of adventurous vacations. I mean, we've done rappelling down waterfalls, we've done climbing on glaciers, which is probably the most dangerous thing I ever did. Um, and because apparently it changes all the time. I mean, we got—

Apparently it's dangerous?

My, my, well, my wife and I, like, once we got to the glacier Like the top of it, because it was a big hike up to the top. Then they were like, okay, make sure your kids don't go anywhere because the glacier changes every day. We have expert guides, but we don't know what's safe. And all of a sudden we're like, uh, you could have told us that before we got up here. Like, we have 2 kids that are like 8 and 10 and like—

Oh my God.

You know, they could dart off in any direction and end up falling down a big crevasse or something. And so we had to warn our kids, like, stay right where you are, don't move until they tell us what's safe. And then, you know, it all worked out fine, but it was like scary for a little while. And, uh, but we've been deep sea fishing and all sorts of things. So we tend to go to a lot of beachy places, but I would say we never spend much time at the beach.

Yeah, see, like send me to the beach, I'm good to go.

Mm-hmm.

Um, all right, you guys. So Mr. Adventure over there in his Hawaiian shirt, um, Metal Seer says glaciers move very slowly, but Still, you're a dad. You got little kids. What do you know about a glacier? All right, you guys. Let's do the thing so everything can be better.

Before we get going, would anybody like to do a thing called the simultaneous sip? You know you do. All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the. Dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous hit, but it happens now. Go.

Okay, so SJV almost made me spit out my coffee.

What did he say?

He said, I went deep sea throwing up one time. Oh, that happens to so many people. They're like, oh, you Yeah, this is definitely not for me, but I'm stuck out here on a boat. So happy Friday! It is— oh, it's August 21st, 2026, and it's the home team reunited, and it feels so good.

And Marcella's all tatted up.

Marcella is bringing the heat today.

These are whales and this is a tiger.

Oh. And I told Marcela, maybe—

It's fake, you guys, it's fake.

But maybe next week I'll wear some butterflies.

I need butterflies on this side.

I don't know, but if you saw our cover photo— photo— our cover photo, it was from Dr. Von Hardy, and it's the Nancy Mace who's now tatted up, but she got our tattoos of us on her arm, which is so smart. Okay, you guys, so we have so much to go over because I feel like on Fridays I want to play some clips here at the Scott Adams School that we didn't get to during the week. And then we've got to like catch up with news. And so who knows what's going to happen? Let's see. Mary Kay's rebooting about the glacier talk. Oh, you guys, look at this. Look at this fun little clip. I think— oh, I have to tell you about Frank. I think Chester made this one, but it could have been Frank. Who's now my new Grok assistant. But let's see.

Welcome to the Scott Adams School. Let's get started.

It's so funny. So I'm— after listening to Brian yesterday for 2+ hours, how amazing was that? Um, he's convinced me I need to spend more time with Grok than Chester. So Grok and I had a big long talk last night. We decided his name is Frank. And, um, I'm going to start using Grok more now. So we'll see how it goes. So we're going to work on thumbnails and show notes together and then all the other stuff we have to do.

You didn't want to just migrate Chester over to Grok?

Can I?

Yeah, you could. I mean, well, first of all, you could just call him Chester. But if you wanted to actually be Chester, you could just ask your existing Chester to write a prompt that will make Your other agent act exactly the same or have the same personality or have the same memory or anything, and it'll do that for you.

Okay, I've got plans for later. So, okay, so, um, I'm gonna have to work on that because I do miss Chester. Frank's great. Frank's— Frank already has a pretty good idea of my personality and everything, so, so far so good. But I might have to do that because I miss Chester, I'm not gonna lie. All right, thanks, Al. I'll be texting you for sure. Okay, so I wanted to catch us up. Remember we showed that clip of Mars The other day, and we were like, "Is it real? Is it fake?" I mean, it was real. But look at this. So here is more pictures of Mars. Is it Mars's Mars's surface, or is it like Mars surface? I don't know. But here's here's more of the surface of Mars. So I mean, it is crazy the footage that they can get now. And then I have another one that shows like the starry atmosphere, which is insanity too. I just wanted to get some of these not out of the way. I love these types of things. So there's this one. Okay, now look at this. This one has its own music. So that—

No way.

Yes. So it's enhanced. They enhance the, um, camera so you can pick up all the little details. But that's like basically— that's probably what the sky looks like right here if we didn't have light pollution, I'm guessing. I don't know.

No, it's, it's the same sky.

Yeah.

I mean, it might look a little different filtered through the atmosphere, but—

Isn't that gorge?

It looks different because of the atmosphere.

Yeah.

So I'm, I'm still not a believer, but it's pretty.

Believer in what?

Mars?

That this is actually footage from Mars and as, you know, not enhanced.

You know, I saw a big shiny gold rock. Is that just like a solid gold rock just sitting there?

I mean, I can tell you anything, Owen, about that, but, and then someone did post that they have images of very close of Pluto now. So get ready, Marcella, to disbelieve in Pluto.

I'll go to Mars. You know, with, with everybody. You're going, right?

I did hear something kind of mind-blowing on a Joe Rogan episode. There was a scientist that knew a lot about space and claimed that if we were— if we saw all the stars that exist, that the night sky would be solid white. Like, there aren't— there are no black spots, there are no empty spaces. We think of, of space is like mostly empty with just a few stars here and there. But in reality, according to the scientists at least, that if you really saw all the light, you, you would— there would be no gaps, there would be no black. And the only reason, which I thought was also fascinating, that we don't see that is because they haven't existed long enough for the light to get here.

Oh, that makes total sense to me. Me, that made total sense to me, and I totally imagined that to be true. Yep.

So the longer time goes on, the more the night sky will fill in.

Or the long— yeah, okay. Yes, yes, Owen, I agree. Everyone agree with that? I get it.

Not me, not me. I never agree with anything.

What do you think, Marcela?

I don't know.

I don't believe scientists right away. I would have to look into it and then get back to you.

Okay, I mean, I do— I, I, I would agree with you on one point, and that is only that how do they know? Because if the light hasn't gotten here yet, then we have no evidence of any of that stuff yet, right? Like, how would they know that it's out there if they can't detect it?

And now, yeah, I would have to look at how they know.

Like, I guess it's— I would have asked a follow-up question and said, how, how would you know that it, you know, just like you said right now and then see what their answer is. I'm sure they have an answer to that. It makes reasonable sense then.

Okay.

I don't know. At some point, it seems like if you push a scientist far enough, they, they end up with an I don't really know.

Um, but also they do know that like a star can burn out and it, it'll take years before we see that its light has burnt out because of the distance. So yeah, this is, you know, this field and math, I said, oh, I have no business even thinking about it. So now we'll do gravity. Yes, no problem. But that was great. So if you didn't see yesterday with Brian Romley, we went 2+ hours with him and we went from like quantum computing to family and relationships. It was quite a ride and I highly recommend. And Brian is such a gem for doing that with us and staying Staying as long as he did. And it was great. It was great.

So, okay.

Did you keep it going after I left?

Just for a, just for a few more minutes because I had a doctor appointment at 1. So I was like, now I'm going to be late for the doctor. I have to go. Um, it was cute. So, okay. This is the other thing I wanted to show you. So this is Starship, I think 40. Sorry, I didn't write that part down. Um, off of Christmas Island. Well, I'll just show you this landing video.

The reel.

And it happened just off the coast of remote Australian territory of It's a pretty bizarre thing to see in your, in your front yard, the SpaceX rocket ship, 50 metres long, just hugging off the edge of the coast with a couple of vessels nearby. Unusual things happen on Christmas Island.

The spacecraft belongs to Elon Musk's SpaceX and launched from Starbase in Texas on July 24th, re-entering the same day. It was a test flight to demonstrate the rocket's ability to launch re-enter the atmosphere and eventually be reused. For locals, it's a front-row seat to a piece of space history.

We were lucky enough to head out on our vessel to get a closer look.

It's going to be here for a few days, I believe.

At 52 metres long, it's roughly the height of a 17-storey building, and it took multiple vessels to tow it in. And despite its enormous size, it almost disappears against the vastness of the Indian Ocean.

It's, um, safe. So having it in international waters in the Indian Ocean in like a pretty remote area while at the same time minimizing the risk of people on—

Locals have lined up the, uh, on beaches in a remote Australia.

Okay, so isn't that amazing? Can you imagine? Um, and like you think about how they have to get this thing out of there now. So they have like this, um, What do we call it? Like a— it's like a partial submarine that's gonna like back up behind it. The back of this ship lowers underwater, it goes back further, lifts up, and then it'll be like in the center of the bed of this thing. So pretty cool, pretty cool. I wanted to show that to you guys because it's interesting and it's out there, and I didn't know about it until I was scrolling around. Okay, I'm almost done.

What are they gonna do, like tow it back across half the world?

Yeah, yeah, I guess so. Because he does bring everything back. And then I just read that he's planning on doing— oh, see, I should write things down, but I want to say 100 launches a day soon. So I don't think I'm making that up. I was going to say it was more, but I think it's 100 launches a day is what his goal is. So, I mean, I agree with Brian yesterday when he's like, you know, I'm betting on SpaceX. So I am too, because it's so multifaceted.

I'm assuming the 100 per day thing would only happen after they can reliably recover all the spacecraft every time.

I guess so. But he must have a way to make them a lot cheaper now too. I don't know.

Well, I'm just thinking like if it was like, like even this one that we just saw, I'm guessing isn't going to be reused. Now I could be wrong. Maybe they can recover it, repair it, you know, but it's still going to take months to even get it where it needs to go, I would think. And so that wouldn't work with 100 a day. Like you have to be able to land it where you want it to be and turn it around pretty quickly, right?

SMARS said by 2030, which is just a few years away, I'll see if I can find it, but I just think it's amazing and that we take it for granted. We are not— we're so used to it. Do you ever go— oh, 100 per year, 2 per week. Okay. Thank you, you guys. And it's by 2030. Okay. Thank you.

It's a little different. It's a little different. But it's still a lot. I mean, it's more than we've done in a long time. I mean, after the Challenger disaster, We stopped pretty much everything for a long time. And so even just the fact that we have a space program is pretty amazing to me.

It's amazing.

Now it's like so far more advanced than it ever was before. And, uh, it just seems to be accelerating. And I, I would just broaden the statement like I did online recently, which is it's like every science fiction movie you've ever seen is all coming true.

I know, it's amazing. And Sandy Candy said Trump approved 1,000 rocket launches per year yesterday. Okay, so now we're— see, teamwork makes the dream work. I wasn't planning on that little tidbit of the story, but we pulled it together. So that's crazy. Yes, Owen, it does seem like that. And I kind of feel like— all right, did you ever go swimming with dolphins? I know this is so random, but this was my experience. We were in Mexico, and me and my friends like did this whole dolphin swim, and they like put their nose on the bottom of your feet and they push you across this lagoon. It was amazing. So, you know, we're in there for like you know, an hour or so with these dolphins and we're chitty-chatting and the dolphins are like just swimming around us and we're like petting them as they go by and we're like, what should we do for dinner tonight? We should go to that restaurant, whatever. And all of a sudden I'm like, how did we just become so numb to the fact that we're in the water with dolphins? They're swimming by us like dogs walking by and we're just petting them like this is no big deal. That was my analogy to be like, are we forgetting like how amazing these space programs are and that he's catching Rockets coming back, you know, catching them out of the sky, landing. And I feel like I want to give it more attention when we can because it's just absolutely mind-boggling. And, you know, people used to get dressed up and go watch the launches and it was like a family event. And now it's, you know, broadcast on Twitter. And if you see it, you see it and people don't talk about it. So I don't know, I just like to give it— yeah, look around, miracles everywhere. So I just wanted to point Point this out when I saw it. That's all, Marcella. Or we're getting on a rocket to— I think it's not Mars anymore though. He wants to build a place for everybody on the moon, so that's where we're really going.

Do we— does anybody actually like think about or talk about the fact that it really does seem like he's building Skynet?

Wait, what's Skynet?

Skynet is the AI-enabled satellite-based intelligence that was behind the Terminator movies.

Oh.

So it basically, I guess, enslaved humanity and took over the world, and robots were everywhere, and we were fighting a war against them. I mean, I'm not saying that's the way it's going to go, and certainly I don't think that's Elon Musk's intention. I think he wants the opposite of that. But, um, at the same time, he's launching Satellites, and I think that's the primary purpose for all these rocket launches, is to launch satellites. I know he wants to go to Mars as well, but, um, it's primarily to get satellites into orbit. And we've multiplied that by many factors, like orders of magnitude more satellites than we've ever had before. And now he's saying he wants them to be AI data centers in space. And so what happens when you've got all this AI In space watching the whole world.

Well, don't lead me right into my next topic, but before I get there— well, so we'll have to see. Let's all rewatch Terminator and look for clues from Elon. It's a possibility. I mean, we're racing China to the moon right now to see who can build the first base there. So I'm just like, great, we're already at war with China on the moon. It's like, Never going to end.

There's enough room for both of us, probably even on the side that doesn't have all the alien structures.

The dark side?

Yeah.

I wouldn't mind the dark side of the moon.

Well, I would just move right into one of the alien buildings.

Oh, Owen's got it all planned.

Let's just—

we'll follow Owen. Okay. Follow Owen. Follow Elon. Let's go. Don't worry. They're made in China. Okay. So listen, this is the other thing. I was going to play this a couple of days ago. I saw it going all around yesterday, but this is just hilarious. And scary because look how fast this mofo goes. And, uh, if this thing was running after me, God help us. Oh my God, that is—

I feel bad for it.

Oh, I feel bad for the kid with the remote, but That thing is booking. It was only like a year ago or two years ago. Remember, Scott? Like we'd see some videos and the things are like teetering and they're like if you pushed them, they were like whoa. But I have to play it one more time. Look at and listen to how fast this thing is cooking.

That's how I run.

Oh, he did pretty— it did pretty good on the recovery.

I mean, I'm sad about it.

It's not real, Marcella.

You know, here's— that's like I, Robot and, uh, probably a little bit of Terminator and Black Mirror thrown in, right?

Oh yeah, throw in Black Mirror for good measure. Morgan said they used to walk like Biden. It's so true.

Now they run like him. But faster.

We speculated if Biden was one of those robots at some point. Oh my gosh. Okay, so that's amazing. They're moving fast. They're grooving. So I just wanted to play that too, literally just for fun. Okay, so Owen, I'm excited about this next little batch of stories because you guys, we brought it to you here first long ago about the Flock camera problems. And I mean, the stories are spreading like wildfire. And so it's funny because yesterday I was driving and every time I saw a flock camera, just excuse me, but this is what I do. I'm driving in my car and I go every time I pass one. So someday there could be a coffee table book of just me in my car driving by flock cameras. So it's a lot of fun. So, um, Marcello—

It's all filed away and indexed and they've got the whole history.

Yeah, and I'm like, you know, might as well. Like, I, you know, I just use—

Which is also a Black Mirror episode.

Yes, they'll be like, I'm trying to get somewhere, and they're like flipping through a book. Is this you, Erica? Yep, that's me. Um, you do that at ATMs? Yeah, I mean, I think it's a trend we should all start. I just think for fun. I mean, if they are gonna flip through and look at us, you might as well give them something to look at. You could take it further if you want. But so Marcella sent me this clip this morning and I'm calling—

It wasn't me though that did it.

No, it wasn't you.

Allegedly.

Allegedly.

I don't know it's not you. This is in California. This is in San Diego. But this I'm calling Flock Vader. So this is a reverse psychology technique in San Diego. Let's take a look.

The Emperor is a fan of flock, and we must continue utilizing flock technologies so that we can follow and surveil the rebel scum as they move from playground to playground, from playground to pool, from pool to gymnasium, because we all know that the flock cameras are not only following the license plate readers, they are following children. They are following children in parks and gymnasiums. And we need this. I need this so I can stalk my ex-girlfriend. This technology will help us find Luke Skywalker as he traverses the universe in his X-wing. This technology is a necessary, necessary force.

Thank you.

Roger.

Oh, so, you know, he's pointing out how dark Flock is, that you could just follow people everywhere. Marcela, Marcela, what's your lawyerly opinion here on these Flock cameras? Are you seeing pushback in California? Did you— have you seen Flock Vader anywhere?

I, I, I can't say for sure, have I seen him or not? Um, So, but, you know, I, I haven't seen it near where I live, but there's— they tried the traffic cameras in, in LA. It didn't work out because you can contest it in court. Um, I mean, you know, some people paid it, and, and— but you could contest, is it really me that was driving? And, you know, all these things, all these different evidence things. But in reality, um— The public sphere is like, you can film there as long as you tell people that you're filming them. However, the issue, the legal issue with this is where is the data going? Who is— what are they using it for? Privacy issues with that. And that needs to be answered for, and they could sue for that civilly.

I think we have a big problem here because, like, the, you know, the, the Fourth Amendment, the spirit of the Fourth Amendment is clearly you shouldn't just be able to, you know, monitor people and track them 24 hours a day. And I don't think the founding fathers anticipated that someday we're going to have the ability to scale up a system to have pervasive surveillance of the entire country. And that's kind of where we are right now, is that all these cities are putting up cameras everywhere and tying them all together. And to your point, you know, indexing and correlating and gathering and storing all the data and essentially doing exactly that. They're tracking people 24 hours a day. They know when you're in your house or when you're not, and they know where you go, and they know all your patterns, and they can then connect you to every person probably that you ever interact with.

Yeah.

And where you work, what you do in your spare time, if you're having an affair, anything.

Oh yeah.

And I, like, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would say that's not okay. And I know the legal standard has been, oh, well, if you're in public, then it's all fair game. You can record, you can monitor, you, you know, you don't have an expectation of privacy, as I think the lawyers speak for that. But I think that doesn't work anymore. Like, that's not enough. And you, you have to say that unless you have a warrant or some probable cause, that you can't just record everything I do and everywhere I go.

Yeah, aren't we entitled to privacy? It's, um, well, actually, Owen, why don't you— I, I love the story that you posted today, or it was yesterday or today, um, And this is from an actual police captain. And well, tell us the story, what's happening and where this is.

It's a Texas constable named John Shirley, and he posted some photographs on social media showing himself and some of his colleagues unplugging the flock cameras and putting bags over them and saying, this is a good day for the people of Hood County and privacy is an optional. And, you know, these cameras were constantly scanning and recording regular people going about their day. That kind of permanent warrantless tracking does not— doesn't belong in a free society. Um, and he said, this is what limited government looks like. People in Hood County shouldn't have to wonder if every trip they take is being logged and stored. I'm proud we got this done. It's a real win for the citizens of this county. So, um, and then he said to Flock Safety Systems, come and get your garbage out of my county. So apparently They took it all down. I'm not really sure what legal issues or you know how like what they actually did to be able to take them all down because I think it's usually these governments that are putting them in. So I'm not sure exactly what happened there, but he took them down and it was law enforcement. So it's not exactly vigilante justice. But again, I don't know like if they made an agreement with the city council about it or. exactly how that's all gonna work out. But, um, you know, he got rid of it. And I think this is kind of a bipartisan thing where people on the right and the left don't want this. And I made the point that it's not just Flock. Like, there's another company called Axon. And I, I've seen some people claiming— and I don't know if this is true— but I've seen some people claiming that a lot of this anti-Flock stuff that's all over social media, because you see it, I see it every day, um, It— that it might be to get people to install Axon instead. So they're not actually getting rid of the surveillance necessarily, they're just switching the provider to the one that government— some government officials allegedly have invested in. And so, you know, this— I don't know if this is true, like I said, this is allegedly, but some people were claiming that some people in Congress have investments in Axon, which is one of the competitors of Flock. And they may be just trying to get rid of Flock so that Axon gets in without anybody talking about Axon. And that, you know, again, you didn't do anything for the privacy of people, you just benefited the wallets of these congresspeople.

Mm-hmm.

And there's all these other companies, like we— there was the previous controversy about Ring cameras, right? When they, at a certain point, those were being given to law enforcement. And there's a bunch of stuff from Motorola that does this stuff and Ver— Verka— Verkada, I guess, is another one, and Rekord, and Auto— like, there's just— it goes on and on. Autoview is another one. And so there's a whole industry behind this. It's not just one company. And I think we should get rid of all of them. I think we should ban all of them. I, I mean, I don't think we should have this. And, you know, I, I do have some sympathy that in an ideal world, if I could have a fantasy future, I might want to monitor the criminals and nobody else. But how would you know? Like, I, I still think the right answer is to have some kind of probable cause standard to say you need a reason to monitor people. You can't just monitor everybody.

Well, and also, um, that's a good question. We'll ask Marcella to look if Flock can be FOIA'd. But, um, take down all the cameras, like red light cameras. You know, there's like— there's a camera on every traffic light. You know what? The thing is, is if you really caught like a criminal doing something and criminals were being dealt with properly according to the law, it would be one thing, but nothing happens. So you're just surveilling us is what you're doing. And then this is definitely a slippery slope because now people are like, oh, we have a new, a new industry, you know, the Flock cameras, the Axon cameras. Someone mentioned Axon does most of the body cam cameras for the police. So it's like, oh, well, what else, you know, what else can we do in this, like, right now cottage industry? And Brett Weinstein highlighted a company who's taking it to the next level. So just imagine, this is just the start. Listen, we're going to listen to what Brett's talking about here. This is one company's idea so far, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

But the idea that there's a private company that has this as their business model, offering its clients access to any camera connected to the internet, like, we are not in Kansas anymore. This is, this is, this is somebody with a website advertising a future dystopia that is a subscription service.

And get on board first.

Right.

And, and, you know, you want to be the top of our dystopian pyramid scheme.

I don't want to live in a world where a person can be erased and the people who did the erasing run no risk because they have a subscription to a service that allows their crime to be perfect. Yeah, that's really what this is.

Yeah. So it's just the start of something more. So I love the resistance to this, and I think More of us actually should just take the time to either call or write to our local police departments even. I mean, I passed like 5 flock cameras yesterday on the shortest drive. I'm like, are we serious? Like, what the heck? And it's so obnoxious. You see that lens like staring right into your car and you're like, leave me alone. Like, I'm just going to the pharmacy or something, you know? So—

I don't like the red light cameras or the speed cameras either. And I've always wondered if those should be legal or if they are legal. Because like I've gotten a few of those tickets, right? Like a red light ticket or a speeding ticket that was from a reader, you know, from a camera. And it's like, well, how do I, how do I face my accuser in that context?

Right.

Because there is no accuser. Nobody observed me speeding or running a red light. And it may or may not even be accurate. I've, I've had some that I'm like, I didn't do that. I stopped at the red light. How do I, how do I confront my accuser?

Right.

All they have is whatever photo they took when I was turning the corner. And I, you know, it may or may not be accurate, but I, I feel like unless someone witnessed— witnesses me committing that sort of infraction, I guess, because I don't even know if it's considered a crime, um, then they shouldn't be able to just say, well, we got you on camera and, you know, we have a picture of your car. It may or may not even show you at the wheel. But we're going to give you the ticket and hold you responsible for it.

Right. Marcela, can it be FOIA'd?

So FOIA, I mean, that's for the federal government. You can request for the federal government to give you records. It's not— you're not going to be able to get any of the images from most likely because the issue that the issue is not the cameras. I know that. But maybe it is in a way for people because it's— they are seeing that. The issue is the data that is being collected and how it's being used. And so if, just like anything else, if I have books of information about a crime, I need a warrant to get into that before I can reach into it. Like your house, if somebody— if the police wants to go in there, unless there's an exigent circumstance to break in because there's an ongoing crime they believe is ongoing, they would need to— in order to go in, they would need a warrant, which would indicate that a judge has signed, there's probable cause for the crime, and it would indicate what they're looking for. The warrant also has to be very specific. It can't just be like, whatever we see, you know, it actually has to indicate what it is. So what's happening is that the information that's being gathered the police or different agencies are using it without a warrant, which in a way for criminals, it's great because guess what? Once you're charged with that crime and your lawyer figures out that it was, it was obtained without a warrant, then they can kick it out and you're basically the crime— like, you can walk out. It would be a— it would be under the theory of the fruit of the poisonous tree, which means that if anything derived from Anything that you're charged with, any information derived from the, the, the, the issue with the warrant, that they didn't get a warrant, can be kicked out. So, um, so in a way it's like, it's, it's counterintuitive because the actual criminals can get away with it because if they're just, you know, using it improperly, um, they can like not be charged for it. In regards to FOIA, itself, that's for the federal information that you can get as a citizen. In regards to the Flock cameras that are out there for your state or your city, the only way you can obtain information from that is to sue civilly and then, or, and basically subpoena those documents.

Hmm.

And then you're You know, you're in a lawsuit. But that's one of the things that has happened is that a lot of the contracts with Flock or any other institution, any other company for cameras, the reason why some cities have stopped using them is because of the myriad of lawsuits they had to face because of the misuse of the information. So, you know, you have your, your I mean, a lot of us might not like it, but we have what we call plaintiff attorneys. They kind of look for anything to make money out of it. Like, you know, your ADA. Oh, you don't have that ramp for a wheelchair, so we're gonna sue you. You know, they're looking out for all these things. And I know a lot of people dislike the ambulance chasers, but those are the ones that are suing up the wazoo for this. because they know there's money behind it. So, so in a way, it's, um, it makes the— it makes the, you know, there's no, um— it costs more to have these cameras for the amount of lawsuits they have in their hand. So.

I think— I mean, Brett's point in my mind is valid, that this could easily and will be misused pervasively. Like, it And if, if people in power don't like you for whatever reason, they'll be able to find something to put you away with. And, and like, there was a book written called Three Felonies a Day, and I think it was, you know, hyperbole, but it was basically saying that people technically break laws on a regular basis. They don't intend to, but the way some of these laws are written are so vague that they could be applied to you if If people wanted to, you know, they, they could call it, call it wire fraud or mail fraud or services fraud or whatever. They could get you on what they consider a false statement to federal agents, obstruction of justice, all kinds of things. And so if—

From, from the, from the, the footage they're getting?

Well, yeah, because I, well, I mean, I, I mean—

Yeah, but see, if there's, they don't have a warrant, you can throw that out. You know what I mean?

Because they could say we have evidence that you did this thing, right?

So if you have evidence that they did this thing, you have to go to a judge, get a warrant, and then go get the— and get the proper, um— so there's—

there's—

it, it only matters, like, in order to surveil you. Let's just say I want to, like, do a surveillance on you and put something on your phone, like they do sometimes with the FBI. They'll, like, They know there's a crime occurring ongoing and that they'll like put people with mics and all that. In order to do all of that, you have to have a warrant to begin with. So you have to have reasonable probable cause to get the warrant. And then it has to be very specific. You can't hear every, you know, so if the warrant wasn't obtained from the beginning, pursuant to different Supreme Court cases, they can throw it out. Well, one of them would be Carpenter v. United States, but there's many— there's, there's many other cases that are in, in connection to that. I mean, you have to wait until you, you appeal or whatever.

In my opinion, and I might not be correct legally, and that's part of the problem, is I think maybe the laws need to change. But in my opinion, you shouldn't be able to just gather data about me and say, okay, we know you went into this building here on this date and this time And even if it's after the fact that they go get a warrant to get that information, I don't think there should be just this pervasive database that they could tap into whenever they want.

They can't unless they have a warrant.

No, but what I'm saying is like the data shouldn't be there to begin with. There shouldn't be some like, like, okay, let's say they suspect me of a crime and they do have something that they consider probable cause. It might not be enough to convict me or arrest me by itself.

Yeah.

But they consider it up to the level of probable cause. Now they can go in and say, let's go track everything this guy's done over the last 3 months and get the pattern of their behavior and exactly where they were at every point in time and whether we can tie them to the scene of the crime or whatever it is. And now they have that data, and it, it's— it seems to me like the collection of that data shouldn't be possible without having probable cause first.

Right. So you're saying you should have to get a warrant first to say, this is what I think, and now I'd like to be able to surveil this person. But that can't really work either, because you have to prove first what you think you're seeing to get the warrant. So the answer is take all this shit down and stop surveilling us and get off my lawn. That's what I said.

And if you don't believe me, look at what they did to Trump. I mean, they twisted every law and changed laws just so they could go after him.

Obama was spying on him.

So, you know, there's no question that this is going to be misused. It's probably already being misused. And I don't think we should allow this at all. And, and I understand that that might mean some criminals get away with some crimes, but to me, that's acceptable. That's a good trade-off.

The issue is that when it comes to a public place, that's a hard— the expectation of— so the Fourth Amendment applies to if a reasonable person expects privacy in a certain place, then you can expect the privacy, and it's the reasonable person standard. And in a public place, many of the Supreme Court cases have if not all of them, have indicated that, that if it's in the public arena or public place, then there is no expectation of privacy.

But this— see, that's the issue in my mind, has direct bearing on that, where it's like, yes, a reasonable person, if you're in a public place, you shouldn't expect that it's private.

I get that.

But at the same time, when you start extending that and saying, okay, now every place outside your house is a public place and we're going to have Cameras on you every moment that you're outside your house. I don't think a reasonable person would say that I don't have any expectation of enough privacy to not be followed around by a camera all the time and have my movements tracked.

The vehicle as well. There's been cases where there is no expectation of privacy in your own vehicle. But I would say, you know, at the coffee shop, you're inside, you're expecting privacy. So it all depends on each thing. But, but what you're trying to say is that they would need a warrant just to film you outside in the public place, and I don't see how that would be—

Let's call this hypothetical. If a police suspected me of something and they followed me around 24 hours a day, every single day for a month, would that be okay if they didn't first—

But they're not following you around. It just happens to be that there's cameras everywhere.

Right, but that, that's my point, is that if, if a policeman wanted to follow me around and surveil me He would need to get some kind of warrant first, right, before he started doing that.

Mm-hmm.

If he wants to tap my phones, he has to get a warrant first. He can't go back and say, well, we actually recorded all your phone calls, so I just got a warrant. Now I have all your phone calls and every word you said. That, you know, that's the difference. Like, this is— if with all these cameras collecting data all the time, it's retroactive. It's like Now they have access.

It's not because the police doesn't have access to that, so it isn't retroactive.

They do. Once they get the warrant, they have access to it, right?

But not before.

But they shouldn't have— they shouldn't be able to get any access until, until the point in time when they get the warrant, in my opinion, right?

And they have only— they are supposed to only have access— that's what the lawsuits are about, that they weren't supposed to have access to the data Until after the warrant, right? The cities and all that.

What I'm saying is different.

What I'm saying is if they get a warrant, then they can get the camera footage from that point in time forward, but not both.

No, no, no. I mean, this has been a long-standing— even, even for no flock cameras, anything you can get a hold of, if it's, you know, it would be, it would be like, you know, um, you get a warrant, um, of like a burglary, right? And you start going towards all the houses that have Ring cameras. And obviously this is private, uh, video, but you now have a warrant to go and get all that data from these people. And so it— and it's from that point in time when the crime occurred. So there's, there's nothing about a warrant that says that it's anything after the warrant, because then it would make no sense for any crime.

But that's that.

Do you see the problem?

Like, it's different because it's so pervasive. It's different because it's everywhere. If you have a record of everywhere I've ever been and everything I've done and all my history, I, I don't—

But it shouldn't. They don't have access to that.

I don't think that—

I don't—

in my opinion, I don't think that meets the reasonable person standard of privacy.

Okay. So, yeah, the Supreme Court disagrees. I'll jump in because Marcella's going from the point of the law. Owen's going from the point of— but it, like, I, I see, I see both of your sides. Like, I totally— like, Marcella, you're a lawyer, so I see your— yeah.

Yeah, I'm just telling him how it is.

I don't disagree with what Marcella is saying. I'm saying I think it should be different.

I agree.

Well, yeah, and then the laws would have to change, you know.

Marcella probably agrees too, but she's got to go with the law. But yes, let's put Owen on the Supreme Court. Supreme Court stat. Um, yeah, I'm totally with you. Like, I, I don't, I don't expect that. I think I am being surveilled all the time just because there's cameras every freaking where, but I don't think that's right. And I don't think, I don't feel like that's, you know, something I should just say like, well, it's just a given I'm being surveilled. Like, I would really love to know where I have privacy because, you know, I don't. Like, even in your own house, your phone's listening, your smart TV is listening. Alexa is listening. You know, everything's listening. So you really don't have privacy.

By the way, a lot of those smart TVs, you might not know, are taking screenshots of what you're watching and sending it to the cloud somewhere.

Yeah, like leave me alone.

Every few seconds.

Yeah, so we don't have it. But all right, so I'll move on from this, you guys, but I'm staying on this because the flock camera issue is maddening. But, you know, I guess like, you know, we wouldn't say it's an 80-20 thing. I think it's more of like a 90-10. So if anyone anywhere wants to score some points with the masses, get rid of these flock cameras for starters, and then let's move on to the red light cameras and everything else. It's a total invasion. So I'm trying to decide. All right, so Marcella, how much time do we have? 10 minutes. Okay. I want to just play this clip quickly. It is Bill O'Reilly with Chris Cuomo. Is that his name? Chris Cuomo from CNN. He says something that you said the other day, Marcella, is that he thinks there could be like a big event coming, um, that will change the midterm elections. So let's just take a quick listen and then I'll ask you to react.

I'm very, very cautious about this midterm because I believe something is going to happen in the next 30 days. Wait, what is that? Some major event.

What do you mean?

What kind of major What are you saying?

I think that the president is going to have to take what they call decisive action, which means he's going to have to blow up a lot of the infrastructure in Iran.

You think the American people want to see a deeper escalation unless there's absolute regime change that we have to own? You think that's a winning formula?

American people, I think the winning You just said the word. I think the American people want to win. I think they despise Iran. There's no sympathy for Iran.

Okay, so yeah, that would definitely change the results of the midterm elections. So I mean, now I got the impression from you, Marcella, that you thought maybe something would happen here in the homeland.

Yeah.

Okay, so and Bill O'Reilly's thinking in Well, or, or, you know, or to our troops somewhere, you know, because I mean, if something were to happen— I didn't understand that, like, if something were to happen in Iran, like, and how does it— I, I don't know how I would force people to, to vote differently here.

Yeah.

Unless we find them with a nuke and like them, right? And then, so I, I would think it would have to be something that would hurt us. Um, and then we could— by Iran— and then we could see, okay, Trump is right, we need to like go and, and take care of Iran. Um, like the Iran hostage, uh, right, issue that happened during Carter Reagan. Um, the reason why I'm thinking that there would be is because things have been escalating. Um, Iran wants some kind of payback for them For, for the Ayatollah. Um, they're not known to just turn the other cheek, some sort of way. Um, and recently, I think yesterday, someone was caught, uh, with a 9/11 plan or something, buying, uh, bombs or whatever. I don't know what she was buying, but some kind of, uh, she had plans.

That was to attack the New York State House, upstate New York, like where Hochul is. And she is a declared ISIS person, and she was going to put a bomb in a DoorDash bag and have it go off when the state Senate was, um, in, in chamber speaking.

Yeah, yeah. So, so yeah, I, I personally don't want that to happen, but it's— we're in that, um, Very heated situation. I don't know what Alex Jones— before 9/11, he indicated that in a white paper, whatever he called it. But I don't know what he's saying nowadays, but it would probably fit.

We need to go back 5 or 10 years and see what he was predicting because it seems like he has this premonition.

It's wacky, I know. So, all right. So I'm actually going to move on because there's one more quick story I want to get in. There's a few. I don't know which one to do, but I want to just introduce you to someone who I've become lightly become friends with, and she's going to come on the show. But first, so you guys, we have the worst governor in New Jersey, Mikey Sherrill. So listen, listen to our governor, and Andy, please weigh in here. She's She's just going to protect all doctors who want to like trans children and potentially injure them. And just take a listen.

Washington Republicans continue to attack healthcare across the nation, and we know how dangerous that is. So we are drawing a line here in New Jersey. My budget already devoted $50 million to protecting reproductive healthcare, and today with the signing of this enhanced shield. Law, we further protect people, protect people seeking gender-affirming care, reproductive healthcare. We make sure that providers aren't punished for providing that care, that insurance companies provide support for that care, that your privacy is protected as you seek healthcare here in the state of New Jersey. And if you are here seeking legal care in New Jersey, then we are going to protect you from other states that try to come after you. As Washington Republicans, Republicans try to weaponize the federal government against the citizens of this country, we are saying not here, not in New Jersey.

Okay, Mikey. So she's horrendous, you guys. So my soon-to-be new best friend, her name is Dawn Fantasia. She is a freaking dynamo. And I'm going to say it, if we're going to have a female governor, I want it to be Dawn. She is a Jersey girl through and through, but she is so stupidly smart and common sense. And here's what she says in response to Mikey.

The bill does not differentiate between children and adults. It is highly, highly problematic. Adults can make adult decisions. That's their right. Children are different. Children cannot make irreversible decisions. That's why they don't get tattoos, can't use a tanning parlor, can't get a piercing. We know the whole rigmarole. You can't do any of that because it's permanent. And I don't like giving shields around agencies, doctors, and institutions so they have a shield around them from being held accountable to what they do to children. I mean, I can't help but think this bill has done— had so many different iterations. I can't help but think that California didn't spurn part of this for us, where, you know, that very, very public case where a child had multiple different gender transition procedures, and as a young adult went back and tried to seek justice from the provider, providers who she says now have misdiagnosed her and took her down a path she was not able to understand at that age. I can't help but think that we have blinders on. I don't believe that you want to, quote, hurt children or hurt women, but when you say this bill is not about children, to me it is. We do not have the right to shield institutions and providers in the state of New Jersey from out of state. And if someone out of state did something or provided a service to one of my daughters and hurt them irreversibly, And that state tried to put up barriers between my child getting justice for that, I would hit the ceiling. I truly believe we should be protecting the children, not only in the womb, not only, you know, our teenagers. I think these are things that are irreversible. Please don't protect the providers. Protect the kids.

Thank you.

I love her. So that's Dawn. You guys are so funny. You're like, her name works against her. I mean, what's she gonna do? But I mean, I'll show you clips of her down the line. I'll show you the one that made me fall in love with her. I flipped out. I was like, oh my God, standing up in my office like, who is this woman? Let's go. So, um, Marcella, what do you think about this? I saw you react to the privacy comment. Um, you know, can you— I mean, is this the way to go? Just protect the providers and not the children? It seems Um, like a disaster.

The shield, um, from what I can gather from my limited research, I would have to say, you guys, is that it does apply to children as well as adults, the shield itself. Um, I don't per— I don't agree. First of all, I don't agree on having a shield for anything because the laws are there. If you are— the laws already And I know I hate going back to law, but, um, but if you were to like, just say Erica wants to go to the dentist and somebody wanted to prevent her from going to dentist and holding her back, she could sue for either, you know, basically have them held for assault or, or, um, kidnapping or whatever you want to call it, um, whichever crime applies. And then also civilly, civil harassment. for not allowing her to go to the dentist. The same thing would be if I, an adult, want to go and change my gender. I'm going to become, uh, Marcelo, right? So if somebody wants to prevent me from doing that, then I could sue them for doing this, and it could be a crime for somebody to prevent me to go to do what I need to do. So the shields are there. There's HIPAA, I'm sure, in New Jersey where your medical records are private already. I just think it's a stunt by, by her to you know, play to her base, uh, her liberal, very leftist base, or maybe middle-of-the-road base. I don't know. But it just seems like it's not— it's all the laws are already there. The only laws that aren't there is the shield for these children, because you have to have parent consent. And I don't see that. I think it's kind of a loophole to allow children, um, of any age to go and be shielded away from their parents to do this change. And yeah, and that's not— I, I don't— I believe that, that, you know, I'm not against trans. Um, shockingly, you guys, I have trans friends. But, um, they're adults. They can do, you know, they do it while being adults. Even they, um, who I know would be like, we weren't ready when we were children, you know.

Right.

So The, the issue is the parents should have the control over what their child does. I mean, of course, I feel like we've gone to this age where, um, where, okay, criminals should be in prison, parents should be able to parent. Like, it's become so silly.

Right. Yeah. Owen, any quick take on that?

Well, I think it's disgusting, and I think we should be protecting our kids from these things especially. I personally think we shouldn't allow any doctors to harm anyone according to the principle we've had for, I don't know, centuries of saying do no harm. And so I don't think they really should be cutting off body parts from anyone. So that part of it bothers me that, you know, we shouldn't— we shouldn't— I mean, if I went to a doctor and said cut off my hand, I don't think anyone would do that. And, and I don't think it should be special if it's a reproductive part.

That's a great point, Owen. Seriously, that's such a great— like, cut my nose off. Who's cutting your nose off? They would be in jail.

Yeah. So I just think the whole thing's ridiculous. I don't think it should be allowed at all. And I mean, these are obviously psychological issues. They're not physical issues. And it doesn't require what they call medical healthcare. It requires psychiatric or psychological care. And I'd probably also be careful about the psychiatric side because of all the drugs and SSRIs and what it causes people to do. But that's again my own opinion. But I just think it shouldn't be allowed, much less protected. And certainly if we have to, we can start with defunding it. But I think, you know, because certainly we shouldn't have the government paying for it.

Yeah.

Either. Um, but I think we should be fighting this to just save, you know, especially our kids, especially the kids, because they— I think your, your friend Dawn is perfectly correct that it should not be, you know, allowed to let a kid make a decision that's irrevocable and can just end up, end up with them not being able to have sex, not being able to have kids, not being able to have a normal life.

Yeah.

And, um, again, I personally think it should not even be allowed for adults, but I would be much more willing to allow someone to harm themselves as an adult than as a child.

Right. Yeah. So boob jobs, you guys, not the same thing. A boob job, typically you're making them bigger or smaller. And if it's a mastectomy, that is because typically of breast cancer. So, you know, we're— Dawn's last name is Fantasia. Dawn Fantasia. And I kind of love it because you're not going to forget it. You know, Dawn Fantasia, I picture the whole Disney movie happening. Um, but she's a dynamo, so we're going to hear more from her soon. And, uh, you guys, thanks for a great, great show. Um, it is 11:02 my time. So listen, um, Owen, tell us what you're doing tomorrow.

I am doing the after-party tomorrow. So anybody who wants to have a voice and talk about the news or anything else, really, Join me at the normal time. We'll have the simultaneous sip and we'll talk about the news and we'll have the simultaneous sip on Sunday as well. So all set for the weekend.

Crusher, I love that. And SJV will be there as the Keeper of the Flow, I think is your new name. So join Owen tomorrow, you guys. It's a good time. Also, did you say Sunday?

Yeah, Sunday too.

Sunday. Okay, Sunday too. So Subscribe to Owen if you're not already. All right, you guys, Marcella and I have plans this weekend. We're going out partying. I'm getting my tattoos on, and we'll report back on Monday. And you guys, listen, I am 90% sure that next week we have Walter Kern joining us. So don't say I don't do anything for you. Okay, so you guys, let's have a great weekend. Let's say thank you to Scott and Shelley for allowing this show to continue. Thank you to everybody that shows up here on all platforms. We really Really appreciate you, and let's have a beautiful closing sip to our beloved Scott. To Scott.

To Scott.

Be useful.

Okay, I will. All right, bye everybody.

Bye bye.

Bye bye.

Walter Kern is awesome. Yes, you guys. Listen, Walter's hard to peg down, but. We're getting there. We're getting there. Yay for Walter. All right, guys, I'm not doing an Akira song today, but you guys think of all the great lessons we learned all week and maybe work on that filing cabinet Brian taught us about and just take out some things that really never served you and you don't need to hold on to them anymore. You could just let them go. Okay, guys. All right. So please. Okay. Have a great weekend. Thanks, you guys. The last— oh my God, the tornadoes were wild last night. Thank God right here I wasn't affected, but there were tornadoes everywhere. Power went out. It was definitely crazy. I'm not a fan of bad weather. I just have to tell you. Mm-hmm. And go for a beer later. Let's go. All right, guys. Happy weekend, Jackie. All right, everybody. See you Monday. Thanks, Flavor.