  > and stolen

I’m sure flock’s agreement with the Winona Police Department makes clear that they are only purchasing a license to use these cameras, so in fact the department’s cameras have not been stolen at all, they’ve merely been prevented from enjoying licensed use.

▲ yapyap 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I’m sure flock’s agreement with the Winona Police Department makes clear that they are only purchasing a license to use these cameras

License to use but responsible for loss

▲ kotaKat 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> That cost falls directly on the Winona Police Department’s budget.

Nope, Flock bills out the ass for replacement cost right to the taxpayer. The grift continues!

Alternatively, "defunding the police" by way of smashing Flocks is another view point, from what I've heard.

	▲	eli 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They bill out the ass to lease them

▲ s1artibartfast 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why would you think that and be so confident?

▲

semiquaver 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Because it’s a matter of public record. Thousands of executed contracts between flock safety and its customers are public. Here’s one which makes clear that flock retains ownership and is actually entering into a hybrid hardware lease and concurrent services agreement.

https://53024.org/documents

▲

s1artibartfast 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Who pays when a leased car is destroyed?

The point is the city is on the hook for damaged hardware.

	▲	semiquaver 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Of course. Did I suggest otherwise? I merely made a (to me) amusing observation about the modern, somewhat confusing nature of so-called “ownership.”
	▲	3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]