Posting this because of the recent discussion about Flock technology.
> It’s bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state.
0: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2009/07/technology_...
Based on another incident [0] I feel Flock's explanation for their actions boils down to:
1. "We are familiar with the customer the person claimed to be an agent for."
2. "We didn't know whether the person was doing something illegal with the data... And we don't want to know, and we don't try to find out."
3. "They didn't force us. They gave us money! We like money!"
As you might guess, I don't find these points especially compelling or exculpating. Certainly nothing that would/should stand up against state or local laws that prohibit the data being shared this way.
_____________
[0] >>45382434
Here you go: https://theappeal.org/suicide-attempt-gun-charges-incarcerat...
https://projects.csgjusticecenter.org/tools-for-states-to-ad...
You shouldn't.
When a company spies on everyone as much as possible and hordes that data on their servers, it is subject to warrant demands from any local, state, or Federal agency.
> Avondale Man Sues After Google Data Leads to Wrongful Arrest for Murder
Police had arrested the wrong man based on location data obtained from Google and the fact that a white Honda was spotted at the crime scene. The case against Molina quickly fell apart, and he was released from jail six days later. Prosecutors never pursued charges against Molina, yet the highly publicized arrest cost him his job, his car, and his reputation.
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/google-geofence-locatio...
The more data you collect, the more dangerous you are.
I would rather trust companies making a legitimate effort not to collect and store unnecessary data in the first place
(disclaimer, I'm one of the authors)
That's all as may be, but you're ignoring the fact that governments are buying[0][1][2][3] the data being collected by those corporations. That's not "friction" in my book, rather it's a commercial transaction.
As such, giving corporations a pass seems kind of silly, as they're profiting from selling that data to those with a monopoly on violence.
So, by all means, give the corporations the "benefit of the doubt" on this, as they certainly have no idea that they're selling this information to governments (well, to pretty much anyone willing to pay -- including domestic abusers and stalkers too), they're only acting as agents maximizing corporate profits for their shareholders. Which is the only important thing, right? Anything else is antithetical to free-market orthodoxy.
People suffer and/or die? Just the cost of doing business right?
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/us-government-buys-dat...
[1] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/when-the-government-buy...
[2] https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116192/documents/...
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/28/government...
> but you're ignoring the fact that governments are buying the data being collected by those corporations
>> Even if the government can get the data from those companies there's at least a speed bump. Even if a speed bump isn't hard to get over are we going to pretend that some friction is no different from no friction?
> giving corporations a pass seems kind of silly
>> This doesn't make surveillance capitalism good and I absolutely hate those comparisons because they make the assumption that harm is binary. That there's no degree of harm. That two things can't be bad at the same time and that just because one is worse that means the other is okay.
The reason I hate this is because it makes discussion impossible. You treat people like they belong to some tribe that they do not even wish to be apart of. We're on the same side here buddy. Maybe stop purity testing and try working together. All you're doing is enabling the very system you claim to hate. You really should reconsider your strategy. We don't have to agree on the nuances, but if you can't see that we agree more than we disagree then you are indistinguishable from someone who just pretends to care. Nor do you become distinguishable from an infiltrating saboteur[0].
Stop making everything binary. Just because I'm not in your small club does not mean I'm in the tribe of big corp or big gov. How can you do anything meaningful if you stand around all day trying to figure out who is a true Scottsman or not?
[0] See Sections 11 and 12. https://ia601309.us.archive.org/14/items/Simplesabotage/Simp...