does this work for any allegation? if it was a serious one surely they could get a warrant. if it's not enough for that it might as well be gossip imo.

▲

FireBeyond 7 hours ago | parent [-]

According to Flock's CEO, yes. He has stated he sees a false positive as a better outcome than a false negative.

▲

bko 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Flock provides technology. They don't set the laws. It's like complaining about the CEO of Ford bc a police Ford vehicle damaged some property

	▲	FireBeyond 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Sure. I actually worked for Flock. I watched them happily train officers from Agencies on doing things they were not allowed to do by law, that Flock knew they weren't. That "Chinese wall" of separation is nowhere near as concrete as you like to act. Flock might not set the laws, but when the Flock CEO says he would prefer you to be collateral damage on his company's mission for "a world without crime, thanks to Flock" than dare risk someone not get caught for a crime or alleged crime, via Flock, then sorry, they absolutely are participating in things, and complaints against them are entirely appropriately targeted.
	▲	antonvs 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Flock provides tools and information that influence and encourage bad behavior from police. Yes, we need laws to help stop this. Ideally, those laws should entirely destroy Flock's business model and lead to its bankruptcy. The issue is not whether cameras are useful for law enforcement. The issue is how that camera information is managed and overseen. What Flock is doing would fit right in in a cartoon authoritarian state, but it doesn't belong in the real world.