← Back to context

Comment by duped

10 hours ago

Flock is a bad actor and untrustworthy (misleading departments and officials about how data is shared/accessed, literally reinstalling cameras that cities have demanded to be taken down). Regardless of whether the local municipality wants surveillance or not, Flock is not a trustworthy company to buy it from.

> Regardless of whether the local municipality wants surveillance or not, Flock is not a trustworthy company to buy it from.

That's because the local authorities aren't the final customer. The final customer is the federal government, they want allllll the data.

  • And Garrett, the founder, has what even he calls a quite literal, not aspirational/visionary/metaphorical, aim that "We want to eliminate all crime."

    • Dear God I hate this particular breed of techbros. These people don't give a damn about democracy, about human rights or anything else other than their stab at entering the history books in a "positive" light...

> misleading departments and officials about how data is shared/accessed

Many times this isn't misleading, per se, but nudge nudge wink wink. "We trust you to follow your own data privacy policy. It's not our job to police how access to your data is configured." In Washington, for example, there is data that LE cannot collect, and LE cannot pay someone to collect directly for them to bypass that...

... but if someone just so happens to ALREADY be collecting it, they can pay to access it.