| ▲ | idopmstuff a day ago |
| The article doesn't really tell us what the contract terms are, though. Just because the city voted to cancel the contract doesn't mean it ends immediately and Flock has to come remove all the cameras upon request. It's very likely the contract has a fixed term, and cancellation really just means they're not going to renew it at the end of the term. If that's the case, you can't charge them with crimes for using infrastructure that the contract permits them to use. Still terrible that Flock isn't responding to them, and of course even if they intend to hold the city to the contract in terms of expecting to be paid for the full duration, they should still honor the request to shut off service. |
|
| ▲ | thephyber a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| If nothing else, this is a good example of why the contract terms for government vendors MUST be public records and NDAs of private companies on public officials for the purposes of sales should not be legally enforceable. The first thing the city should do when cancelling is lock down the data so no jurisdictions have access to the data. Even if the cameras are still powered on and connected, any ongoing searches should not return any results from that jurisdiction. |
|
| ▲ | SoftTalker a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One week to respond to a letter delivered by US postal mail isn't really much time. Not that I support Flock or the concept of Flock-style public cameras, but I don't think you can judge them to be "not responding" that quickly. |
| |
| ▲ | plussed_reader a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe we find a company recording the public that is attentive to public relations? They sure had a quick response when the ceos' home was placed in Google maps. Seems like their PR fire is self induced by sucking up to Money and whatever they qualify as investors? | |
| ▲ | nemetroid a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > One week to respond to a letter delivered by US postal mail isn't really much time. Why not? Because it takes long to deliver, or because they can't be expected to read their mail? | |
| ▲ | Closi a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, also it says that the account management team had been in contact within the week, just that they didn't have a 'legal/corporate' response within the week, which is also not an unreasonable length of time as those things can take a bit of time. | | |
| ▲ | skinfaxi a day ago | parent [-] | | Fuck that. If the IRS sent them a letter would they respond in time? Give me a fucking break. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The IRS generally gives you 30 days to respond to a letter. At least in my experience. | | |
| ▲ | skinfaxi a day ago | parent [-] | | LT26 is one example of a 10 calendar day limit. But the point is, we know companies can move mountains when they have to. They obviously don't feel compelled to. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker a day ago | parent [-] | | That's a letter you get as a final notice after previous non-response. Companies can move mountains yes, but a routine request to cancel a service probably isn't seen as requiring that. Especially since the service contract undoubtedly defines the terms upon which either side can cancel. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | thephyber a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm hoping that they are inundated with thousands of jurisdictions trying to back out these days so they are legit out of bandwidth to deal with cancellations in real time. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | whimsicalism a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The political grandstanding will continue at least through the end of midterm season and realistically we're just getting geared up for 2028. |
