[dabinat]

> Following a comprehensive review, we determined the planned Flock Safety integration would require significantly more time and resources than anticipated.

That doesn’t sound like “we’re cancelling this because our customers let us know loud and clear that they were ethically against this”. If the only thing keeping them from doing this is time and money, what guarantee do we have that they won’t do it again if time and money allow?

[idle_zealot]

You seem to be taking the company's words at face value and assuming good faith. I would caution against doing that.

[AlecSchueler]

I took it more as holding them to their actual words and highlighting how they weaseled on the obvious ethical concerns and fear over backlash.

[riversflow]

Amazing how often people do that. Corporations have very little incentive to be truthful and often have good reason to be dishonest. I notice it particularly wrt video games, gamers are always taking studio’s messaging as gospel and not corporate comms.

[SecretDreams]

Look, Amazon has our best interest at heart, alright? Surely they're not working on this still in the background.

[pseudohadamard]

In particular, they can publicly walk back their position now and then quietly reintroduce it later when the fuss has died down.

[chmod775]

They're saying that because saying what they actually mean would paint flock in a negative light, which they likely want to avoid for various reasons.

[stalfosknight]

So they'd rather lie in their press release.

[nerdponx]

It's saving face. It lets them bail out without actually badmouthing Flock or any related companies, which, yes, lets them do it again later.

[kotaKat]

"The integration never launched, so no Ring customer videos were ever sent to Flock Safety"

Certainly sounds like "We have the integration and we successfully funneled test videos off of internal Ring cameras to Flock".

[BrenBarn]

We would never have any guarantee of that no matter what they said.

[dv_dt]

That public statement could easily be an open negotiation tactic saying they'll do it, but want more money to do it. Especially if it is gov't money which would be paying for that feed.

[nijave]

>more time and resources than anticipated

It doesn't say for whom. That could easily be the legal and marketing department to cover the backlash

[nomercy400]

That also sounds like the client came with list of additional requirements.

The ethical part you mentioned is still true.