It's irresponsible to even write that headline. The reporter knew it was false and had an ethical obligation to do better.

Sigh.

Since this was posted he had his house removed from Google Maps

Benn Jordan and Tommy G tried this. It didn't take long before police were called to remove them from the public road next to Flock HQ.

This is the thing that I don't get about the legality of this shit. If I set up a camera aimed at my neighbor's driveway and intentionally logged every coming and going of he, his wife, his kids... I could justiably be charged with stalking. But so long as I set up a network of cameras and track my neighbor's every whereabouts with this network and sell access to this data to anyone interested... that's not stalking. That's just good American business.

That is without the added layer of law enforcement involvement, tax dollar support, and absolutely no public say in the matters, etc.

This is a horrific example. It's very legal to do what is described above.

The history of the US is filled with "nah, capital can do what it wants".

Nothing will change while power is consolidated in the hands of the few.

I do wonder about who works at flock. Surely they have options to resist and sabotage from the inside.

did he say why they "must compromise"?

It's illegal for you to do that because you're not a billionaire.

Flock CEO must "compromise" on his oxygen consumption.

The irony, of course, is if you want to beat whatever charges they throw at you, you'll also have to be filming yourself the entire time.

The YouTubes are awash with auditors who set up a camera in a public place and have the cops make up all sorts of stories about them to fabricate or threaten an arrest.

Check your state laws about filming private residences, though, that might get squirrely.

Punchable face. They always have a face that wants to be punched. Why?

Or track ones private jets takeoffs and landings

How about he lead by example, and have a fleet of drones follow him providing a 24/7 publicly available feed.

The answer is, he is an individual, and Flock cameras are not targeting any one individual, at least not in theory.

Also, I see the argument he's making. The argument is, if it were your child who was kidnapped, would you not want your neighbors to give up some of their privacy in order to turn cameras on every corner toward getting your child home safely? But the problem with that is, Flock cameras are not bringing kidnapped kids home. Neither are Ring doorbells, which are just as bad. What they are doing is making life worse for people of colour and anyone else They want to target. So that's the problem. The parent can't blame their neighbours (particularly their dark-skinned neighbours) for wanting their privacy when a child's safety is on the line, because the Flock cameras are not bringing any children home. That's not what they're for, and pretending they are is bullshit and everybody on both sides knows it. We COULD use all this tech for good. But the people who run it don't want to. They've proven this time and again. So no, they do not get the benefit of the doubt. No, they do not get to take the high road, even hypothetically.