3 ms·
Correct. Flock sells cameras and platform access, but gives data from their shared, nationwide surveillance utility to ICE and law enforcement. https://www.acl
by CharlesW 1y ago
Correct. Flock sells cameras and platform access, but gives data from their shared, nationwide surveillance utility to ICE and law enforcement.
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachus...
https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-...
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-com...
- tptacek 1y agoI don't like that this is the case, but you understand that a pretty huge fraction of the country doesn't share your set of political premises that providing data for immigration enforcement is unethical, right? (I do, but that shouldn't matter for the analysis.) It seems weird to me to hyperfocus on Flock's role here rather than the role your own local municipalities play in deciding how to configure these things. Not sharing with ICE is apparently quite doable? At least to the point of requiring a court order to get access to the data, which is a vulnerability all online cameras share. Later s/company/country, thanks for the correction!
- akerl_ 1y agoDid you mean country?
- potato3732842 1y ago>but gives data from their shared, nationwide surveillance utility to ICE and law enforcement I don't think anyone with a network like that can not "give" the contents to the feds for very long without drawing ire.
- queenkjuul 1y agoAh yeah the poor businessmen, god forbid they draw ire. Much better to just act unethically.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]