Perhaps their real customer isn't the City of East Bumfuck, Minnesota, but the FBI or ICE or NSA. Though even in that case it seems a bit inept: they need some buyin from the locals to get their cameras installed in the next small town.

▲

thephyber a day ago | parent [-]

The Flock search system is supposedly limited so the city/police employee has to choose the permissions (eg. Which other jurisdictions will search results show up for).

If a city wants to exempt ICE, they can. However, if the city has a rogue officer who accesses the Flock search, they can forward the results to their ICE/DHS boyfriend (the claims of a recent firing and lawsuit).

▲

upboundspiral a day ago | parent [-]

Supposedly is pulling extreme weight. Can't remember the source but I remember reading a case where the city council thought there was one data agreement and Flock implementing broad sharing across all government agencies.

	▲	thephyber 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My "supposedly" is based on previous Flock events where reporting found out how many searches matched data in their city's jurisdiction. Flock's PR statement was that "this is what the city's account settings allowed, save for one jurisdiction which was configured in the wrong state". It's quite possible that Flock has different sales contracts, so if a city manager (or whomever signs those contracts) doesn't have a lawyer review the contract or if neither the manager nor lawyer consider data sharing with the Feds to be a concern, then of course my assumptions are off. But Flock's current PR cycle pins all of the blame for too much data sharing on the customer's permissions settings.
	▲	voakbasda 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What’s this now? A corporation lied to its customer? There’s no way they will get away with it, right? It’s not like we have given corporations a blank check and won’t prosecute malfeasance… oh, wait, nevermind.