Do you believe anyone with a surveillance camera should have the owners name and address published if in any way a “public” area is recorded?

I suppose we can start with all Blink, Ring and Nest Cams. Then we will continue with dash cam owners.

You are equating installing personal security camera(s) to knowingly selling extra-judiciary mass-surveillance hardware and software to law enforcement. What's the point you're trying to make with this, exactly?

1. Installing a yard camera.

2. Building a mass surveillance dragnet and purpose-built tracking software and marketing it heavily to random local authorities.

Yep, totally the same thing...

I don't. But I do think the CEO of a company who sells spying as a service to cops should have a taste of his own medicine.

It sounds like you think Flock is just another home camera system, but it’s not and you could read up on that.

If they are sharing the footage with a dragnet, tracking people across the country, and giving access to unaccountable cops with a history of abusing that data?

Yes.

If they are using it to see when their amazon package got delivered, or for bog standard security purposes?

No.

Are you asking if a public registry of where you're being observed by security cameras is a good thing? Sure. I wouldn't mind that.

I have no issue banning ring and nest cams, actually. They hand the data to cops too

Scale matters. The “well technically an army of tens of millions of cops could achieve the same thing” argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

Context matters. Without it, very foolish things can be said.

[dead]