Random people calling 911 on other people filming them is a staple of Youtube; banks, coffee store workers, hairdressers, most especially restaurant managers. I don't know why anyone would expect technicians from Flock to be different. It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.

You'd think from the response that this was like the VP/Sales of Flock Safety. But it's just some installer dude probably making $65k/year to climb poles and fasten cameras. I guess that's praxis for you though.

I think this is just a ragebait piece.

▲

DrewADesign 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Well, when you’re on the clock, you’re an agent of that company. And when you’re installing an indiscriminate mass-surveillance camera, calling the police on someone that’s video recording you is kind of bananas. Perhaps you don’t find that to be an interesting event, but a lot of people who are rightfully angry at the non-consensual deployment of a mass surveillance network disagree.

▲

saghm 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work. The bar should be higher for a company that's ostensibly being trusted to provide a law enforcement tool that's prone to misuse than for providing beverages or cosmetology.

▲

gruez 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

>The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work.

Should other law enforcement contractors also be subject to the same higher standard? For instance, should dell get extra flak if one of their contractors called 911, because they were installing PCs for a police department? If not, this just seems like a way of applying a double standard, just because you hate flock. It's fine to hate flock, but it should be actually justified reasons (eg. "they're enabling mass surveillance" or whatever), not spurious ones like "they did a bad that's vaguely common, but we're gonna admonish them extra hard for it because we hate them")

	▲	throwaway7783 a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Do you think Flock is in the same category of installing PCs for police departments, when it comes to public impact?
	▲	saghm 2 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If they called 911 because they were worried about privacy when publically installing a privacy-violating tool, then yes, they 100% should be. Having higher standards for higher impact things isn't somehow hypocritical.

▲

Someone1234 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.

Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard.

I actually agree it is unnerving, I just don't agree that one should be held to a different standard than the other.

▲

hammock 7 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> it's just some installer dude probably making $65k/year to climb poles and fasten cameras

I find it hard to be persuaded by the salary idea. A hitman who works for $100 is just as bad as one who works for $10,000.

In fact other immoral activities work the opposite, bizarrely (a whore who works for $100 is worse than one who works for $10,000)

	▲	ExoticPearTree 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Most jobs are imoral. If we were to do only the moral ones… we’d have probably 75% unemployment or something like that.

▲

cute_boi 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well then everyone is innocent except CEO's or management lol.

This isn't how world works.

▲

hk1337 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> technicians from Flock

Do they even have their own technicians? I believe there have been Dish Network technicians seen working on and setting up flock cameras and even those technicians are contractors of Dish network.

▲

EgregiousCube 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Especially when chances are that this camera installation was the result of local government asking and paying Flock to put it up. I'm not sure why the anger is directed at the company instead of local elected officials, and I understand the plight of the installer who's worried about being labeled as a bad guy for executing public works contracts.

▲

michaelt 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> I understand the plight of the installer who's worried about being labeled as a bad guy for executing public works contracts.

You do unpopular things, you gotta expect to be an unpopular person.

Sophisticated, educated types might understand that parking wardens are just doing their jobs, and they didn't make the policy they're enforcing. But to 70% of the population, the person putting a ticket on their car is an asshole.

▲

LeBit 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, politicians are to pay for the fact they have allowed something like Flock cameras to be put up and spy to egregiously on their constituents.

But Flock itself should not be spared . They are building things that are going against widely accepted values.

Since when Americans are okay with that level of erosion of their privacy?

Same thing with Meta building pervert glasses.

▲

diath 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The company could have rejected the government deal if they cared about the moral aspect of spying on citizens instead of money; by accepting the deal and executing the contract they are complicit.

	▲	xp84 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What? Is that not their whole business?