There should really be platform bans for abuses like this. If Flock is aware it’s being abused against its own policies and the legal system they should be liable if they continue to let that person abuse the system, even if they get fired from one PD and given a job and a Flock login at another

▲

FireBeyond 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Flock will not disable features that are illegal to use in a state when selling to an agency in that state. It's "not their problem". They will offer training on said features to said agency if they ask, because again, "not our problem".

They knowingly facilitate the nudge nudge wink wink.

	▲	paimapi 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		their competitors are Clearview and Motorola, neither of which are what you would call unimpeachable from a corporate ethics standpoint [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] companies will only do better if their clientele wants it. if the police don't want accountability processes then that's just tech debt for a future roadmap some other team will handle [0] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/clearv... [1] https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/dutch-supervisory-authority-... [2] https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-v-clearview-ai [3] https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/motorola... [4] https://classactionu.org/our-news/motorola-solutions-faces-p...
	▲	mcmcmc 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Right… by “There should be” I meant there should be federal legislation on these kinds of tools and actual enforcement. Flock’s not going to do anything that could hurt their bottom line without being forced to.