Ironically, those questions are more legal than Flock's current usage. The vast majority of Flock's revenue comes from government, and government cannot hire a 3rd party to do what would be unconstitutional if done directly. Thus far, pervasive monitoring without a warrant has been considered an unreasonable search.

[Edit: I think Flocks "victims" have a decent argument for injunctions for the removal of the cameras on the basis that Flock is conducting an illegal search on behalf of the government.]

However, the government can generally do what the public is allowed to do. So, if there are companies serving a genuine market for monitoring your employees, etc. via video surveillance installed on private property... then the government would not be restricted from accessing what private businesses have access to buy.

It’s an important reminder: I think a lot of people think that online privacy is just a thing that keeps you from being micro-targeted by ads and algorithms - and many don’t care about that. But it’s also a thing that keeps that data from governments that are increasingly confident that they can control the narrative, if and when they use this information in violent ways against their own residents. Because once it’s collected, it can and will be laundered for government use.

> government cannot hire a 3rd party to do what would be unconstitutional if done directly

Is there actually a legal precedent for this?