Remix.run Logo
hopelite 9 hours ago

They de facto are because they only place cameras in public places and on public land by contract with the government in one form or another; be it with a treasonous sheriff or a treasonous state executive and legislature. The public would not be talking about Flock if they had not worked to create a treasonous surveillance state and instead only did things like monitored truck movements in a logistics depot. The private contracts for things like HOA neighborhoods and corporations, e.g., big box store loss prevention and customer data tracking, but those’s are a totally different issue that have nothing to do with the use of public funds and power for mass surveillance.

RHSeeger 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This feels a lot like "Yeah, but we'll do it anyways until a court makes us stop; because the profit is more than the fine"

immibis 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

but thry're not literally the government and the relevant laws only affect the literal government.

svnt 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No, there is legal precedent that private companies who perform government services are subject to the same laws.

tptacek 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

This is generally not the case.