you're being deliberately daft. Its not the recording, its the surveillance dragnet with zero regulation or oversight that creates an instant dossier on whatever datapoints are searched for, by whomever decides to search for them who has paid for access.

Honestly the nuance isn't that intellectually taxing and having to explain it to people in the tech space is tiresome.

▲

Manuel_D 2 days ago | parent [-]

You're calling me daft yet you couldn't be bothered to answer the question. What is going the be legalized, as the above commenter wrote? What law is Flock breaking presently?

Like it or not recording and photographing people in public, then selling that information is not illegal. Paparazzi do it all the time. You can point a webcam out your window, run ALPR software on the video feed, and sell access to query that information. Nothing about that is illegal. If it is, then please reference the laws that prohibit this.

People talk about privacy laws being violated, but in general privacy laws do not cover public activity. Privacy laws mostly focus on protecting communications and activities carried out in private.

▲

joquarky a day ago | parent | next [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

▲

Manuel_D a day ago | parent [-]

Pointing out the incorrect assumption that Flock is doing something illegal is not sealioning. There's a reason why none of the replies actually point to the law that Flock is supposedly breaking: because there isn't one.

▲

joquarky 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Sealioning is a style of trolling, not a logical fallacy.

	▲	Manuel_D 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And what about pointing out the fact that Flock's activities are legal, contrary to what people claim, is trolling?

▲

refactorAbraxas 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That will notion of an individual’s right to photograph a person in public held against the rights of the person being photographed, to conduct their business and affairs undisturbed, is likely to be challenged successfully before the Supreme Court when it can be shown a majority of people are under perpetual persistent technical surveillance.

	▲	Manuel_D 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You assume that some future Supreme Court case will rule that governments' use of Flock violated the Fifth Amendment, but at present Flock is violating now laws. Like I said in the my original reply: nothing is good to be legalized because nothing Flock is doing violates the law. There's a big difference between "X is illegal" and "X is presently legal, but my prediction is that the Supreme Court will, in the future, rule that X is illegal."
	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]