Presumably the license to surveil the city is extended to flock by the city? Presumably they should be able to compel them to disable them, and provide proof of this (whether they’re trusted or not…)

▲

kortilla 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the problem is that people are allowed to set up cameras of public spaces without requiring any “license to surveil”.

	▲	nemomarx 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		are they on land flock owns though? I don't think I could go put up a camera on city infrastructure like traffic lights without their permission. does flock buy a lot of little permissions to install and power their cameras or something?
	▲	cucumber3732842 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I assure you that if I slapped a camera on city infrastructure they would absolutely find some license or permission that I don't have and threaten me with a million+ dollar fine over it.
	▲	logancbrown 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Making recording in public require a license is a very easy way to cut free speech and document wrong-doing of a system.