The law doesn't need to change. Court opinions just need to emerge (hasn't been tested yet), and this is quite clearly angling in the direction of the cell tower data decision.

> For what it's worth: if I own a business in the US and have a camera pointed at the street, and the police ask me for footage, I don't need to require a subpoena. I can just choose to give it to them.

Correct, and SCOTUS decided this was inappropriate for cell tower data because 1) you effectively need a cell phone to live in the modern world, and 2) having a cell phone spits of tons of data.

This is directly analogous to Flock. It's more likely than not that this will end up getting a Third Party Doctrine exception (i.e. Flock and similar will be forbidden from providing this data to the government in lieu of a subpoena)

▲

akerl_ an hour ago | parent [-]

Flock isn’t a third party here, when they’re being contracted by the government.

	▲	estearum an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You are incorrect. Flock is not a government agency – it is a privately owned business – therefore it is a third party as it's relevant to Third Party Doctrine. Whether it's contracted by the government or not is irrelevant. Even if you were correct, it would strengthen the 4th Amendment protections on Flock-collected data, not weaken them.