7 ms·

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

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.

LeBit 4d ago
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.
- EgregiousCube 4d ago
  This is the disconnect. You say that politicians are allowing them - that's not right. They're directing them to be set up, they're spending citizen tax money on buying them. The blame lies entirely with government officials who sought out and purchased surveillance tech, and we should not blame the technologists who responded rationally to the incentive that local governments provided for them.
michaelt 4d ago
> 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.
diath 4d ago
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 4d ago
  What? Is that not their whole business?

LeBit 4d ago

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.

EgregiousCube 4d ago
This is the disconnect. You say that politicians are allowing them - that's not right. They're directing them to be set up, they're spending citizen tax money on buying them. The blame lies entirely with government officials who sought out and purchased surveillance tech, and we should not blame the technologists who responded rationally to the incentive that local governments provided for them.

michaelt 4d ago

> 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.

diath 4d ago

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 4d ago
What? Is that not their whole business?