Comment by ceejayoz
20 days ago
Drawing this line gets tough.
If I build a sidewalk curb, there's a perfectly legitimate use case for it. It can also be used to curb-stomp someone to death.
Can't we build the curb and forbid curb-stomping at the same time? Shouldn't that be our right?
If you build a curb for someone that is well-known for curb stomping people to death and has a bunch of people behind them saying how great curb stomping is, that's on you.
Maybe! But maybe that area still really does need a curb, and it's the curb-stomping people we need to worry about more than the curb?
The sharing of the database in clear contravention of the law is a symptom of the widespread police culture of immunity from civil oversight in the United States. They do it because they get away with it.
I in no way meant to imply the curb-stompers were in the right, only that building a curb for them when you know very well what it'll be used for makes you culpable as well.
1 reply →
Flock didn’t build a sidewalk. Flock built the stomp-o-tron 9000 with convenient victim loading ramp and mechanical leg.
Flock built a surveillance data repository with convenient sharing mechanisms. Someone then used those mechanisms as designed for their intended purpose.
Sure. But California forsaw that, and passed a law to prevent that use case.
The cops - public servants, in theory - then blatantly violated that law.
Did they? The cops shared with other state agencies who then shared with the feds. From what I understand of the situation the cops didn’t break the law, which is the problem.
2 replies →