zlacker

>>ptk+(OP)
Even though it's become commonplace in the last 20 years, I'm still shocked to see how companies can pretty much ignore the law, do whatever they want, and have everyone involved shielded from any kind of significant consequences.

In situations like this, I think the person at the top of the chain that told employees to perform the illegal installations should be arrested and charged. On top of that, the company should be fined into bankruptcy. If the directors knew about it any companies they're involved with shouldn't be allowed to conduct future business in the municipality (or state).

>>donmcr+G8
Well, if we consider it fine for people to commit crimes like shoplift, rob, or assault people it seems fairly normal to permit groups of people to violate the law too.

Lots of fans of Luigi Mangione and this hasn't directly killed anyone yet.

I'd say it's just a general tolerance to the idea that the rules we have are baroque and anything goes when trying to reach your aims. This seems fairly cross politically unifying.

Those who want the law obeyed are kind of rare. Most are happy to have the law violated to hurt their political opponents. Then they feel surprisingly aggrieved to have same strategy played against them.

>>renewi+Bn
The difference is that people are fans of Luigi Mangione because he enforced a punishment for what people feel should be illegal. You're trying to paint vigilante justice with the same brush as lawlessness, when in fact it's the opposite.

One is breaking the law to punish someone that the law failed to, the other is breaking the law to avoid punishment.

The CEO caused vast death and suffering with the policies he enacted in the name of profit, yet the law didn't touch him. Enforcing what the people think should be enforced isn't the same as enforcing what the people think shouldn't be enforced (mass surveillance). It is, in fact, the opposite.

>>stavro+R81
The Flock guys are breaking the law to reactivate their cameras so that they can catch people doing things that are illegal or that they think should be illegal. Seems to be an exact match actually.

You have to apply some Theory of Mind. Just like you think you're doing the right thing so do they.

>>renewi+Sp1
They'll be reporting them to the police, you reckon?

>>stavro+Vt1
The entire problem here is that these cities don't want ICE to have the camera data from Flock and Flock providing that to ICE over their express wishes so yes, they will be reporting targets to federal law enforcement.

>>renewi+4v1
And do you think it's the city here that's expressing the will of the majority of city inhabitants, or the federal government?

>>stavro+Xv1
I think that just like Luigi Mangione acted against the law to do a thing that he wanted and lots of people think that's fine; you should be unsurprised that Flock is acting against the law to a do a thing that they want.

If you condone violation of the law, it will become commonplace. Acting like your violations of the law are fine but others' violations of the law aren't fine is a position you can take but considering that you're in the minority on both, I don't think it's going to result in anything. Sleep with the dogs, wake up with fleas.

EDIT: And I'll add some facts here and an example to my last statement here:

Luigi Mangione's act is a minority approved act actually https://archive.is/hXNhj

So about 18% approve of his act.

And no, in the US the will of the majority is not sufficient. There are damping influences on time-localized desires by design. A typical example might be that California's Proposition 8 banned gay marriage but was nonetheless struck down by the California Supreme Court. The will of the majority is not irrelevant but it is not paramount.

>>renewi+7B1
The law isn't a thing that was handed down from the heavens on stone tablets, it should reflect the will of the majority. What Mangione did is something that the majority wanted, or at least was fine with. What Flock did wasn't. It's as simple as that.