> "Some locals have taken matters into their own hands by dismantling Flock cameras and covering them with trash bags"
This techcrunch article incorrectly characterizes this need and required behavior as something done by random citizens. But it is actually the cities themselves having to resort to it, totally officially and legally, because of Flock behaving badly.
The problem with Flock is not who owns the data, it's the potential for abuse.
Same basic reason I'd rather have the cops after me than have the environmental/zoning/whatever civil enforcement jerks after me.
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/local-rural/maintenance-sign...
The profession attracts individuals who are willing to abuse power for their own purposes. That's not to say that every cop is in the job to abuse power, but many are, and we have to build our law enforcement structures in a way that directly acknowledges and addresses this fact.
It requires better access controls.
Even invasive ideas like automated license plate scanning city-wide can have its data only accessible to an API to eg, track a stolen car across the city to avoid a dangerous high-speed chase in populated areas.
I think to throw the baby out with the bathwater around networked security cameras is failure around designing robust and secure APIs and systems (including audit trails).
Nationally, I trust a system where the data are split up between siloes more than a single, privately-owned database.
forks•1h ago