zlacker

>>locopa+(OP)
Flock really does have a huge amount of potential for abuse. It's a fair point that private companies (e.g. Google, etc) have way more surveillance on us than the government does, but the US and local governments having this level of surveillance should also worry folks. There's massive potential for abuse. And frankly, I don't trust most local police departments to not have someone that would use this to stalk their ex or use it in other abusive ways. I weirdly actually trust Google's interests in surveillance (i.e. marketing) more than I trust the government's legitimate need to monitor in some cases to track crimes. Things get scary quick when mass surveillance is combined with (often selective) prosecution.

>>jofer+Y8
The thing is though, cops harass people, cops abuse their power, courts prosecute who they want, with or without Flock. This is a valid concern, but the root of the issue, I think what we should focus on first or primarily, is that the justice system isn't necessarily accountable for mistakes or corruption. As long as qualified immunity exists, as long as things like the "Kids for Cash" scandal (which didn't need Flock) go on, it doesn't really matter what tools they have, or not.