Flock Safety: Difference between revisions

==Consumer-impact summary==

Privacy violations are many and are obvious, the continuous tracking of the American public, the  permanent surveillance archive, the logging of "distinguishing features on vehicles", timestamps, and the searchable database all, while indeed in conjunction with the notion that privacy cannot be assumed in public spaces, violate a person's right to privacy. Traditional observation in public spaces, which doesn't violate Fourth Amendment Rights, is fundamentally different from the generation of a permanent searchable archive that is created with the flock cameras. Critics argue that the large-scale data aggregation transforms the fleeting public exposure into a detailed log of personal behavior, which can expose religious beliefs, sexual orientation, political affiliations, medical conditions, and other highly personal aspects of identity, all traditionally protected by the Fourth Amendment. The system also offers no public opt out options forcing all users of the road to have their locations tracked and logged, raising more risks of misuse, profiling, and long term monitoring. U.S. courts have traditionally held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy however some rulings do emphasize that this principle does not strip a citizen of their constitutional rights. In rulings such as Carpenter v. United States (2018)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Common Wealth v. Bell 2024 |url=https://www.richmondbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/900-CRIMINAL-Cameras-and-the-Constitution-Materials.pdf}}</ref> Judge Jamilah D. LeCruise stated that "A person doesn't surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into a public space"<ref>{{Cite web |title=CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf}}</ref> reflecting the ongoing public sentiment over the use of automated indefinite surveillance records. Furthermore, the use of flock cameras by law enforcement is a direct violations of a person's Fourth Amendment rights as the data that the police department can access are things which would traditionally need a warrant to access.  

Flock Safety operates a "surveillance as a service" model where the company owns, deploys, and maintains its cameras and sensor infrastructure then charges municipalities, law enforcement, HOAs, business and private parties recurring fees for the ability to access the surveillance network and data. This model monetizes and subsidizes mass surveillance of the American public partially with tax dollars. Unfortunately they have learned to take advantage of the American system and have lined their pockets with $300,000,000+<ref name=":0" /> per year from the mass surveillance of the American public and the erosion of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. Furthermore their infrastructure could very easily lead to the degradation of First Amendment rights (Rights to free speech) and Ninth Amendment rights (rights not explicitly stated in the constitution are still retained by the people).