IMO, when they have to hide, that's the beginning of the end. Too many people are aware of the what/why now. And above all else, once the tables turn on elected officials and they realize they're under the same surveillance, I bet their tune will change (likely due to a public egg-on-face moment involving illegal or suspicious activity). If people keep the pressure on, this will be a "remember when" rather quickly.
If Flock wants to be used by public services, it should be subject to maximum transparency. If you don't want your camera locations public, don't offer them to the public for their use.
In my uninformed opinion that would be a dangerous precedent if there is no proven collusion or conspiracy to act together. I anal though so I'll wait for people who know the law to respond.
IMO, when they have to hide, that's the beginning of the end. Too many people are aware of the what/why now. And above all else, once the tables turn on elected officials and they realize they're under the same surveillance, I bet their tune will change (likely due to a public egg-on-face moment involving illegal or suspicious activity). If people keep the pressure on, this will be a "remember when" rather quickly.
I still want to see a driving game, perhaps using Google maps, where you try to get from point A to point B and not pass any Flock cameras.
If Flock wants to be used by public services, it should be subject to maximum transparency. If you don't want your camera locations public, don't offer them to the public for their use.
Could the map's creator be held liable if Flock can demonstrate this map in particular was used to destroy cameras?
In my uninformed opinion that would be a dangerous precedent if there is no proven collusion or conspiracy to act together. I anal though so I'll wait for people who know the law to respond.
https://archive.ph/nEHf5