Comment by Terr_

> So...should warrants be required for this kind of Flock data also?

Based on another incident [0] I feel Flock's explanation for their actions boils down to:

1. "We are familiar with the customer the person claimed to be an agent for."

2. "We didn't know whether the person was doing something illegal with the data... And we don't want to know, and we don't try to find out."

3. "They didn't force us. They gave us money! We like money!"

As you might guess, I don't find these points especially compelling or exculpating. Certainly nothing that would/should stand up against state or local laws that prohibit the data being shared this way.

_____________

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45382434