3 ms·

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 13d ago
There have been news stories of localities canceling their Flock contracts and quietly switching to Axon.
- Avicebron 13d 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 12d 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 13d ago
  Some of their customers have even asked them to redesign their cameras so they don't look like Flock cameras.
debatem1 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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
  WAI?
  - debatem1 12d ago
    Working As Intended

SoftTalker 13d ago

There have been news stories of localities canceling their Flock contracts and quietly switching to Axon.

Avicebron 13d 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 12d 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 13d ago
Some of their customers have even asked them to redesign their cameras so they don't look like Flock cameras.

debatem1 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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
WAI?
- debatem1 12d ago
  Working As Intended