There's an interesting idea here that is tangentially related to "common carrier" regulations ...

Specifically:

If a flock (or similar) camera is deployed on public land/infra there should exist default permission for any alternate vendor to deploy a camera in the same location.

I wonder how that could be used and/or abused and, further, what the response from a company like flock would be ...

▲

chaps 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Not directly an answer to your question, but installed Shotspotter locations are generally "not shared with police" and installations are done in a way where the location is obfuscated away from the police/city through Shotspotter contractors. It's not actually true that the device locations aren't shared with the police, but shotspotter/police testimonies in shotspotter cases say so anyway.

	▲	FireBeyond 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I have absolutely zero faith in any of this. Multiple cases have revealed that it seemed like police and Shotspotter worked hand-in-glove to tweak Shotspotter data and demographics to help shore up a case and make things appear more reliable than they were. And multiple cases where, sufficiently pushed, DAs have dropped cases or dropped Shotspotter as evidence rather than have the narrative challenged too closely.