| ▲ | CharlesW 13 hours ago | |||||||
Correct. Flock sells cameras and platform access, but gives data from their shared, nationwide surveillance utility to ICE and law enforcement. 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... | ||||||||
| ▲ | tptacek 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
I don't like that this is the case, but you understand that a pretty huge fraction of the country doesn't share your set of political premises that providing data for immigration enforcement is unethical, right? (I do, but that shouldn't matter for the analysis.) 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! | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | potato3732842 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
>but gives data from their shared, nationwide surveillance utility to ICE and law enforcement I don't think anyone with a network like that can not "give" the contents to the feds for very long without drawing ire. | ||||||||
| ||||||||