This seems like some sort of bait style "news" that hurts the very real awareness of issues with flock. It is not only normal but standard practice for a company to try to get users to evangelize its products.

I am not pro FLOCK.

▲

anigbrowl 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

'Users' here are not a neutral, non-aligned set of private customers expressing their opinion about proposed regulation. They're public officials being trained to shape policy before the public has a chance to weigh in.

The agencies that fare best aren't the ones with the best set of talking points after the fact. They're the ones who walked into city council meeting chambers first, before there was anything to react to, and said 'here's what we're using, here's why we're using it, and here's how to hold us accountable.

- Chris Colwell, SVP of customer experience at Flock, quoted on page 4 of the document

In other words, they're advising public officials (the police) to pre-empt the public approval process and then shut down potential objections by claiming that regulatory mechanisms already in place. There's a name for this: regulatory or institutional capture. The 'users' of the technology are not private individuals who are free to go off and make their own buying decisions about what works best for them.

▲

wredcoll 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're not wrong, exactly, but also people are justifiably mad at flock's existence and as a result articles like this get written.

Perhaps there is a perfect world where every article is "better" than this, but this one doesn't seem so bad.

▲

tencentshill 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

City councils represent all the people of the community, not just the police department or a private company. The problem will solve itself in one election cycle as people vote out the candidates that Flock swayed.

	▲	anigbrowl 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The problem will solve itself in one election cycle Yeah that's pretty unlikely because it's hard to organize people for candidate B just based on one point of dissatisfaction with candidate A, especially when votes against candidate A can be easily split and Candidate A uses their incumbent advantage to claim credit for any and all positive outcomes.
	▲	moate 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		...that doesn't solve the actual problem, as all that guarantees is new officials. You need another step which is electing officials that are willing/able to enact policy change on this issue and who then do it. There's countless examples of "we need to get the bad man out of office, oh shit, the new man is also bad in the exact same way!" All this is to say: voting is a process, not a solution.

▲

moate 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Finding out the battle plan for your opponent and finding ways to attack their strongest points is absolutely valuable in public policy debate.

I'd rather have this information available vs not if I found out my city council was about to lay out money for this trash service. Of course I understand the cops are driving the issue, but knowing how to cut their legs out from under them is helpful.