[flagged]
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachus...
https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-...
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-com...
It seems weird to me to hyperfocus on Flock's role here rather than the role your own local municipalities play in deciding how to configure these things. Not sharing with ICE is apparently quite doable? At least to the point of requiring a court order to get access to the data, which is a vulnerability all online cameras share.
Later
s/company/country, thanks for the correction!
I don't think anyone with a network like that can not "give" the contents to the feds for very long without drawing ire.
This is part of the problem with Flock, IMO. Lack of adherence to or support of norms. Psychopathy actualized as a corporation.
The societal impact of disruption of trust, of personal privacy, is under-appreciated by the corporation. It's concerned with winning profit.
(Meta) It's an inspecific argument I'm lazily laying out, yes, however the problem is ridiculously obvious.
We should not have to ask to be respected, and here we are.
Democratic decline (both the systems and participation in), truth, self respect/understanding of one's own rights ... those qualities are dying at the relentless toxic, ethically under-explored capitalization of our laws and resources. (Especially USA, compare to corporate social responsibility countries, I suspect)
Tech disruption is amazing to watch, and participate in, like a fire consuming the forest. "But what about the children?"
Flock does not sell data, they willingly give it away for free. And, technically, they don't do it - their customers do, and Flock knows and lets them.
Personally, in my view, this is worse. But they don't specifically sell data.
> we all understand that "selling data" does not literally mean exchanging money for data.
You're completely wrong there. That is exactly what it means.
If what you mean is lax security practices, or collecting data in general, just say that. There's really no need to bend over backwards to defend this.
They do not sell data, they willingly give it away for free - which is a form of selling data, with a price tag of $0.
Most reasonable human beings will actually say this is slightly worse than "selling" (literal) data. Therefore, I think most people would agree with me, and not with you.
In my mind it's very similar to claiming you're not a thief because you give away the stuff you take. No, you're still a thief, you just love being a thief so much you don't even do it for monetary gain. Which is... worse!