6 ms·

This is not something you can hide like that, people notice cameras being installed.

andix 12d ago
Sure, but they might tell people: no, it's not Flock, it's something much safer, not such a privacy invading AI camera like Flock.
dghlsakjg 12d ago
Axon, formerly known as TASER did a reputational name change. Worth mentioning that they are also a flock competitor, but they are not in the headlines anymore.
- SoftTalker 12d ago
  There have been news stories of localities canceling their Flock contracts and quietly switching to Axon.
  - Avicebron 12d ago
    I think word is spreading about Axon as well, I'm heartened by the amount of pushback surveillance and abuses of privacy are getting.
    - andix 11d ago
      I think that's why they are going to create many subsidiaries with a lot of different brand names. Until those names can't "spread" anymore, because it's too many different names and they often change.
  - aaronmdjones 12d ago
    Some of their customers have even asked them to redesign their cameras so they don't look like Flock cameras.
- debatem1 12d ago
  They did such an amazingly bad job on their PR. Their best known products literally exist to keep police from killing people or violating their rights undetected, and instead of meeting the moment and explaining why their products should become mandatory, always-on, permanent replacements for firearms or ADVOKATE-style sworn statements they just kind of... pretended that misuse of their products was WAI and ate the consequences of that.
  - MBCook 12d ago
    Well put, they had a delicate line. Those departments buy their products. If they took that angle publicly I bet many departments would suddenly been much less interested in buying/renewing. Accountability seems to be super unpopular (which says A LOT) with their customers.
    - debatem1 12d ago
      I get it, but I also just don't understand why they couldn't effectively explain to the police that they were a for-profit company. The police definitely understand that! Like, when the police were saying "we can't turn on body cameras all the time because it might violate victims rights" the correct response from axon was "we also happen to sell a very expensive victim redaction software on a separate SKU, until you buy that probably just want to let your officers use discretion wink-nod." (I am maybe unfairly assuming here that their actual intent was to make money rather than protect the public from police abuses. I'd love to hear from folks at Axon if that isn't true!)
      - MBCook 12d ago
        They could have just talked out of both sides of their mouths. Tell the public it’s to curb abuse, tell the police in private “we all know what it’s really for” wink-wink-nudge-nudge. Maybe offer up a few token cases where they caught abuse and the cop got in trouble or something changed as proof. Nope. You’re right, they ran right into that wall.
  - mitxela 12d ago
Retr0id 12d ago
The widespread opposition to flock is unfortunately an aberration. The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance, and I think a rebrand has a good chance of working. They'll give it a try either way.
- Avicebron 12d ago
  > The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance I think you would be surprised. Now, whether or not the average local politician is indifferent is not the same as the average person.
  - Retr0id 12d ago
    In a poll of "do you want to be surveilled", "do you think mass surveillance is good", sure. But in terms of revealed preferences, people will happily give up privacy for mild convenience.
    - danaris 12d ago
      "Revealed preferences" are bullshit. What's really true is that people are, 99% of the time, not actually given that choice. For "revealed preferences theory" to work, the people involved would need to consistently have a free choice between two options. And for people who have had their finances gradually stretched and stretched over the past 40 years of growing inequality, "cheaper but worse" is not a free choice.
      - jolmg 12d ago
        People can choose Facebook or to get in contact with people individually via phone, email or visits, but they prefer Facebook because it's more convenient to put a message there and count as maintenance of a group of relationships. People can choose between accepting the cameras or participating in the democracy they belong in and protest and pressure their representatives, but it's more convenient to accept. It's true there are people without choice, but most people aren't without choice, and they choose convenience.
mitxela 12d ago
No they don't. That's why nobody noticed the Motorola cameras going up in places where Flock cameras came down.

andix 12d ago

Sure, but they might tell people: no, it's not Flock, it's something much safer, not such a privacy invading AI camera like Flock.

dghlsakjg 12d ago

Axon, formerly known as TASER did a reputational name change. Worth mentioning that they are also a flock competitor, but they are not in the headlines anymore.

SoftTalker 12d ago
There have been news stories of localities canceling their Flock contracts and quietly switching to Axon.
- Avicebron 12d ago
  I think word is spreading about Axon as well, I'm heartened by the amount of pushback surveillance and abuses of privacy are getting.
  - andix 11d ago
    I think that's why they are going to create many subsidiaries with a lot of different brand names. Until those names can't "spread" anymore, because it's too many different names and they often change.
- aaronmdjones 12d ago
  Some of their customers have even asked them to redesign their cameras so they don't look like Flock cameras.
debatem1 12d ago
They did such an amazingly bad job on their PR. Their best known products literally exist to keep police from killing people or violating their rights undetected, and instead of meeting the moment and explaining why their products should become mandatory, always-on, permanent replacements for firearms or ADVOKATE-style sworn statements they just kind of... pretended that misuse of their products was WAI and ate the consequences of that.
- MBCook 12d ago
  Well put, they had a delicate line. Those departments buy their products. If they took that angle publicly I bet many departments would suddenly been much less interested in buying/renewing. Accountability seems to be super unpopular (which says A LOT) with their customers.
  - debatem1 12d ago
    I get it, but I also just don't understand why they couldn't effectively explain to the police that they were a for-profit company. The police definitely understand that! Like, when the police were saying "we can't turn on body cameras all the time because it might violate victims rights" the correct response from axon was "we also happen to sell a very expensive victim redaction software on a separate SKU, until you buy that probably just want to let your officers use discretion wink-nod." (I am maybe unfairly assuming here that their actual intent was to make money rather than protect the public from police abuses. I'd love to hear from folks at Axon if that isn't true!)
    - MBCook 12d ago
      They could have just talked out of both sides of their mouths. Tell the public it’s to curb abuse, tell the police in private “we all know what it’s really for” wink-wink-nudge-nudge. Maybe offer up a few token cases where they caught abuse and the cop got in trouble or something changed as proof. Nope. You’re right, they ran right into that wall.
- mitxela 12d ago

Retr0id 12d ago

The widespread opposition to flock is unfortunately an aberration. The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance, and I think a rebrand has a good chance of working. They'll give it a try either way.

Avicebron 12d ago
> The average person is largely indifferent to mass surveillance I think you would be surprised. Now, whether or not the average local politician is indifferent is not the same as the average person.
- Retr0id 12d ago
  In a poll of "do you want to be surveilled", "do you think mass surveillance is good", sure. But in terms of revealed preferences, people will happily give up privacy for mild convenience.
  - danaris 12d ago
    "Revealed preferences" are bullshit. What's really true is that people are, 99% of the time, not actually given that choice. For "revealed preferences theory" to work, the people involved would need to consistently have a free choice between two options. And for people who have had their finances gradually stretched and stretched over the past 40 years of growing inequality, "cheaper but worse" is not a free choice.
    - jolmg 12d ago
      People can choose Facebook or to get in contact with people individually via phone, email or visits, but they prefer Facebook because it's more convenient to put a message there and count as maintenance of a group of relationships. People can choose between accepting the cameras or participating in the democracy they belong in and protest and pressure their representatives, but it's more convenient to accept. It's true there are people without choice, but most people aren't without choice, and they choose convenience.

mitxela 12d ago

No they don't. That's why nobody noticed the Motorola cameras going up in places where Flock cameras came down.