(no title)
toomanyrichies | 24 days ago
Of course he's "thankful" for that, since in our "beautifully democratic and capitalistic" society, Flock can use their $658 million of VC funding [1] to wage lawfare against the have-nots with their armies of lobbyists and lawyers. [2]
1. https://websets.exa.ai/websets/directory/flock-safety-fundin...
2. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyis...
ahartmetz|24 days ago
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...
bccdee|24 days ago
When Flock decides to track people's activities, they're "following the law" and "open to reasonable debate," but when people decide they want to track Flock's activities right back, that makes them terrorists.
JKCalhoun|24 days ago
Watch out, I'm a mad man!
;-)
notyourwork|24 days ago
paxys|24 days ago
overfeed|24 days ago
otikik|24 days ago
Which also tends to lean on a political set. But poor people will be deprived of their liberties be them left or right. For those useful to power it will take just a little bit longer to notice.
tkel|24 days ago
queenkjuul|24 days ago
therobots927|24 days ago
toss1|24 days ago
False, he is forcing Flock on EVERYONE
No one has permitted themselves to be surveilled. And no, under the radar agreements with local cops and govts do NOT constitute my permission to be surveilled. If they want to go in with fully informed referendums in each community, then I'd accept it. But that is not Flock's business model.
mlyle|24 days ago
I might accept it for this specific case. But, in general, just because the majority wants to do something doesn't mean it's legitimate to force everyone to accept it.
try_the_bass|24 days ago
> No one has permitted themselves to be surveilled
As much as I dislike Flock, this is bad logic. There's no such thing as opting out of surveillance in public spaces. Public spaces are defined by being public, in that everyone (even governments/corporations!) is free to observe everyone else in that same setting.
So in reality, everyone has permitted themselves to be surveilled, purely through the act of being in public.
This idea that there's some kind of difference between me watching you in public and Flock watching you in public is, quite frankly, bogus.
markhahn|24 days ago
it's always interesting to hear the silent part out loud. in this case, he's saying "I can get what I want because I can game the courts".
ToucanLoucan|24 days ago
And really, why should they? We've learned now that there was actually a worldwide network of child rapists purchasing girls from other wealthy child traffickers in positions of power in seemingly every Western nation, and the consensus thus far is to do exactly nothing about it.
Laws are for the poors.
mullingitover|24 days ago
Probably not great for investor relations for him to be hyping up the democracy angle. They get a big chunk of their funding from Andreesen Horowitz.
direwolf20|23 days ago
NuclearPM|24 days ago
Capitalism is great… when it has limits.
Why they supported the fascist:
https://a16z.com/podcast/trump-is-about-to-change-everything...
uywykjdskn|24 days ago
[deleted]
yoyohello13|24 days ago
margalabargala|24 days ago
_DeadFred_|24 days ago
pclmulqdq|24 days ago
Too many people are focused on the criminal aspects of this (4th amendment) and government surveillance. The fact that this is a corporation may give you more options.
greenavocado|24 days ago
platevoltage|24 days ago
expedition32|24 days ago
joriJordan|24 days ago
The rich aren't the only ones who can "flood the field".
File all the lawsuits, Flock. Let's get some discovery going. Who is the CEO cozied up with?