Well for one, so far they've only called the police on people who chose to use the service.

When we have evidence that Waymo is contracting its external cameras out to local governments and allowing abuse, then we can criticize them for it.

▲

handwarmers 2 days ago | parent [-]

What do you mean? Google is legally required to share information, and does share information, when such information is requested through a whole variety of different means available to local governments. https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests

▲

anon84873628 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's the same as the police getting security footage from any random building.

The problem with Flock is that they let police hop on and look at whatever they want whenever they want. Completely different operating modes and intentions.

Also, Google and Waymo are different companies under the same parent. Google's policies are irrelevant.

	▲	handwarmers 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah good point on the policies. It makes Waymo's case worse though, because they have nothing defined publicly. They are also for-profit, and trying to deploy to more cities. The concerns are real - https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2025/jul/1/driverless... "While companies like Waymo insist they require search warrants for footage, based on probable cause and judicial approval, the legal framework for accessing autonomous vehicle data remains unsettled. A 2022 analysis by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) noted that few states have specific laws governing law enforcement access to such data, leaving gaps in oversight. In Arizona, where Waymo operates extensively, police must typically obtain a search warrant to access footage, as required by state law for electronic records and consistent with Fourth Amendment protections. "

▲

seanmcdirmid 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Only if they retain it, and I would bet they are purging it quickly as a matter of policy to avoid these kinds of situations.