Whether or not Flock employees are child predators or not, the crux of the issue lies in the third parties Flock allows access to these cameras. For a link to their actual blog post where they make this comment: https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/understanding-flocks-testin...

(The terrorist allegations are from an interview December of last year https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46357850 )

▲

cyanydeez 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think third party access matters in the reason it's being scrutinized. Flock is the tip of the commercial security state offloaded by the government to it can "sanewash" it as a input into government surveillance.

I don't care who operates flock; it's being used to do government surveillance at scale to avoid privacy laws.

▲

prophesi 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The government is a third-party as well. Leveraging Flock to skirt privacy laws is two sides of the same coin; commercial entities are doing this too.

	▲	cyanydeez 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So, that's an interesting semantic. I think we're often dealing with the same philsophical argument about the FBI 'finding" terrorists versus 'inciting' terrorists via entrapment. I'd argue Flock doesn't exist if the government for private surveillance didn't exist.

▲

sieabahlpark 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]