Deflock the US. If you work for that company you are scum.
Flock employees feel that they should have a right to privacy even though they are in full view of a public area where everyone can see them. And yet…
“Ultimately, I would argue that the whole community is our customer,” Flock Safety chief communications officer Josh Thomas told Atlanta News First.
“Why can’t I opt out? Why can’t the spouse or ex-spouse of a police officer opt out of this kind of data collection on their movements?” asked Keefe.
“Why can’t a person opt out?” repeated Thomas. “It’s because if your car gets stolen, if something were to happen, moreover the government requires you to have a license plate.”
“It’s plain viewing information,” Thomas continued, missing the bitter irony of the situation. “Why can’t you opt out? You can, if you want to opt out of society.”
Amazing. Simply amazing.
“Ultimately, I would argue that the whole community is our customer,” Flock Safety chief communications officer Josh Thomas told Atlanta News First.
I love how they cut that statement right behind showing the email from their PR manager saying that the sales conference is a “customer event and not open to the media.” If everyone is your customer, shouldn’t everyone be invited?
This is minor compared to the mass surveillance issue, but I can’t resist pointing it out:
the employee said in a 911 call obtained by the local news network.
So it seems they didn’t just call the police, but called Emergency Services for this non-emergency.
Why do they care about being filmed if they have nothing to hide 👀
yeah seems suspicious.
If you don’t want to be harassed, don’t work at the harassment factory.
It’s even more ridiculous than that: harassment is by definition unwanted, repeated disruptive conduct.
Filming someone from a respectable distance in public does not meet that standard, but more importantly, the flock employee did absolutely nothing explicit whatsoever to express to the reporter that his conduct was unwanted.
This is a false police report, clear and simple.
Filming people in public absolutely can rise to harassment, even without “explicit” actions expressing that it is unwanted.
Which leads me to 2 things- the flock creep did take that action… they called the cops. Which if you think about is better than letting flock creeps directly confront people.
Secondly, all of this is the reporters entire point. flock is breaking the law. They’re stalking us, and generally harassing us. If it’s wrong for the reporter to do it to them, it’s wrong for them to do it to millions of people daily.
Which if you think about is better than letting flock creeps directly confront people.
I’m not at all sure about that. If one were to lay a hand on me, the outcome might be highly amusing if filmed.
Or they come out and confront you with a gun and you die.
Or you carry and kill them and go to jail because a jury decided you provoked the confrontation and therefore it would not have been self defense.
I’d agree with that if we’re discussing a persistent nuisance or aggressively filming in someone’s face, certainly. In the context of the article, I’m not seeing much that justifies the allegation.
It seems Flock recording everyone is ok as it isn’t harassment using this definition however every Tom, Dick and Harry has access to the data and people are definitely being harassed. So Flock employees should be expecting to be recorded in a public place. An interesting discussion given how much people don’t like pervert glasses and don’t like Flock.
If it’s wrong for the reporter to do it to them, it’s wrong for them to do it to millions of people daily.
Wrong one person, it’s a police report. Violate countless people at once, it becomes policy.
Enablers are guilty too
Flock employees…eew
Hypocrite.
