This seems like some sort of bait style "news" that hurts the very real awareness of issues with flock. It is not only normal but standard practice for a company to try to get users to evangelize its products.
City councils represent all the people of the community, not just the police department or a private company. The problem will solve itself in one election cycle as people vote out the candidates that Flock swayed.
'Users' here are not a neutral, non-aligned set of private customers expressing their opinion about proposed regulation. They're public officials being trained to shape policy before the public has a chance to weigh in.
The agencies that fare best aren't the ones with the best set of talking points after the fact. They're the ones who walked into city council meeting chambers first, before there was anything to react to, and said 'here's what we're using, here's why we're using it, and here's how to hold us accountable.
- Chris Colwell, SVP of customer experience at Flock, quoted on page 4 of the document
In other words, they're advising public officials (the police) to pre-empt the public approval process and then shut down potential objections by claiming that regulatory mechanisms already in place. There's a name for this: regulatory or institutional capture. The 'users' of the technology are not private individuals who are free to go off and make their own buying decisions about what works best for them.
Remember when all the republicans told us we needed to let school shootings happen because the second ammendment was so important because it would protect us from stuff like this?
With all due respect, have you taken a moment to see where these cameras are being destroyed by the public? It’s generally not in Democrat strongholds.
Where I am, deep in “Red State” territory, they’ve not started talking openly about it yet, but there are at least three separate people I’m aware of personally that are interfering with or destroying them.
6 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 10.8 ms ] threadI am not pro FLOCK.
The agencies that fare best aren't the ones with the best set of talking points after the fact. They're the ones who walked into city council meeting chambers first, before there was anything to react to, and said 'here's what we're using, here's why we're using it, and here's how to hold us accountable.
- Chris Colwell, SVP of customer experience at Flock, quoted on page 4 of the document
In other words, they're advising public officials (the police) to pre-empt the public approval process and then shut down potential objections by claiming that regulatory mechanisms already in place. There's a name for this: regulatory or institutional capture. The 'users' of the technology are not private individuals who are free to go off and make their own buying decisions about what works best for them.
There’s at least one case of a Tennessee congressional candidate shooting multiple cameras: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/tennessee-congr...
Where I am, deep in “Red State” territory, they’ve not started talking openly about it yet, but there are at least three separate people I’m aware of personally that are interfering with or destroying them.
What more would you have them do at this point?