[infecto]

I think it’s important to highlight that the timing of this article comes right after Tucker Carlsons monologue and podcast “Flock Cameras and the Coming Slave State”. Would wager a bet this is a paid piece for Forbes for PR damage control.

Garrett probably thought by making those statements a year ago he could get political support from the current administration and population. Looks like that was a bad bet.

I actually think the service Flock provides could be interesting but the complete lack of guardrails makes it a no go.

[cornholio]

In a society that respects and protects privacy rights by law, the service Flock provides could not exist.

There are no 'guardrails' to mass surveillance.

[tadfisher]

Sure there are, and we worked this out decades ago with telecommunications. We ought to:

- Require a judicial warrant before recording anything. Recording with a camera network is now considered a 4th amendment search, and scope must be minimized to prevent harm to the public.

- Police must articulate a probable cause for a search, and can only record locations for specified vehicle or individual traits during a specified time window as approved in the warrant.

- No BS with recording everyone and searching the existing database of every public movement whenever you want; this is a "dragnet" and is unconstitutional or highly contested in other contexts (e.g. geolocation).