    "Over 1,200 vendors had access to our information through the Flock system," Steinmetz said, adding he did not know the identities of all those entities.

Even if for some strange reason you're OK with the police having access to the surveillance data (despite multiple recent articles revealing abuse), I'd like to think most people would take issue with random third parties also having access to it.

Flock cameras and their ilk are not OK in a civilized, free society.

▲ SlightlyLeftPad 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For what legitimate reason would Flock be giving 1,200 vendors access to the city’s information? I don’t see how they’re going to be able to feasibly walk back from this without taking a massive punch to their business.

And also great timing because Flock almost swept it all under the rug [1]:

1: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flock-ceo-apologizes-surveillan...

	▲	skywhopper 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No legitimate reason, but money plus investor pressure plus lack of privacy laws goes a long way towards self-justification.

▲ frm88 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is an expansion to the surveillance. The cameras now get additional phone tracking abilities: https://archive.is/Tkwc3

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

[deleted]

▲ sneak 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

By the exact same token, the same thing applies to payment cards and cashless systems in general, but everyone seems to be fine with universal suspicionless surveillance by a private compant in that case.