[bryant]

In fairness to flock, they just hired a CISO and are actively recruiting for a head of product security and privacy as well. So I'm not surprised they're dealing with some of this.

Edit: I'm standing by it. The person they hired for it has a good track record elsewhere. And much as I don't like what Flock is building as a company, at least they're building security in now, even if it wasn't front of mind for them in the past.

He's got his work cut out for him though.

[zzrrt]

That’s fairness to a new employee. Does the multibillion company of a widely-deployed sensitive product deserve a pass for having poor or nonexistent employees doing security previously? Not really IMO.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> And much as I don't like what Flock is building as a company, at least they're building security in now,

This phrasing implies that the "building security in now" part improves (or decreases the awfulness of) what you don't like.

If what you don't like = bulk, systemic surveillance (of people not suspected of a crime) - how does fixing broke security make that less awful?

[tptacek]

That's not how security fairness works! You have to be good from day one.

[downrightmike]

This is just the Cisco playbook

[chews]

There should be no "Fairness to Flock" they're building the panopticon. Freethinking Americans should do what they can to dismantle this overreach, lobby their city leaders with their poor track record on security and thereby safety.

[kelnos]

I'm fine giving the new employees a pass on this, but not the company as a whole. Not building security into a product like this from day one should be a criminal offense.

[SoftTalker]

A bit late in the game, considering how widely their stuff is deployed?