4 ms·
I eagerly clicked the link but they're just looking for another vendor that does the same thing. It's like boycotting Marlboro only to buy from Camel.
by ComputerGuru 9mo ago
I eagerly clicked the link but they're just looking for another vendor that does the same thing. It's like boycotting Marlboro only to buy from Camel.
- nxobject 9mo agoAnd what are the chances of a smaller vendor being any more secure?
- fn-mote 9mo agoWith a bar this low? Pretty good.
- ryan_n 9mo agoThem being more secure would be good, but it's still mass surveillance of citizens without much justification.
- notyourwork 9mo agoDecentralized surveillance. Only mass if it’s all cohesively accessible by one entity.
- cowsandmilk 9mo agoWhich is definitely the case for flock and likely for other companies.
- mc32 9mo agoI mean, the product makes their jobs easier and cheaper (for investigations). People may debate that, but these things come down to efficiency. So, whether it's vendor A or Vendor B municipalities don't care. What they want is the capability. The municipalities have the backing of the communities -with few odd exceptions because most people in most communities want LE to "catch the perps."