Was he cut out of the grift?
There’s other companies popping up in its place like Axon. So they save face for midterms stating they condemn Flock but are probably getting Axon that does the same thing in secret thinking the people are too focused on one hand to not know what the other hand is doing.
The people are watching all strats played during this campaign for their party’s survival.
Indeed. He’s secretive and staunchly anti-transparency.
He’s firmly in the pocket of corporatism.
Greg Abbott is going the same route and is halting Flock funding, but is also not speaking on other active surveillance tech.
It’s the same as speaking out against Facebook or TikTok practices but not supporting consumer protection.
It’s lip service! They don’t actually disagree with anything that Flock is doing. They’re hoping that dumb voters will confuse their concerns with Flock (getting caught) for their actual positions (dystopian surveillance state), something grossly unpopular if people actually voted.
I personally know plenty who are dumb enough to believe that these people have their interests at heart. It works, and that’s why they do it. Politicians see Flock as a sinking ship. They see an opportunity to deflect and distract from their own nefarious goals. Flock goes down in the medium-term while they wait with open arms for the next generation of tools that they will use to crush dissent and make you afraid to leave your own house.
They’ve seen the midterm polling.
There has to be a lot of money for dishonest politicians to .make here.
Maybe they’re worried about the midterms.
Maybe they are worried these surveillance networks will be gathering evidence on their crimes and unethical deeds.
“I don’t want to be in a situation where these tech companies, a handful of tech companies, know everything about you and know where you’re going,” he said. “And I know they collect a lot as it is, but I think it’s going to get a lot worse unless we have some protections for the people in Florida.”
As expected, he’s redirecting public anger away from root problem (police overreach) towards the strawman issue of ‘tech companies’ (tech company data collection is an entirely separate issue). Restrictions on what Flock can or can’t do don’t mean anything if police departments aren’t stopped from putting up dozens and dozens of interconnected, AI-powered cameras in their cities that by design collect data on every individual that passes by.
tech company data collection is an entirely separate issue
This is a really important point I wish more people appreciated.
It’s not a matter of one is worse so the other is not bad.
After the Nazi occupation, France, the Netherlands, and reconstructed Germany itself all either removed sensitive data from state databases, or dismantled & federated the databases themselves. The State needs information about the population in order to be useful.
Much like with private companies, the State should be given the minimum power/info necessary to do its job. Many of the hoops that make it less efficient, also make it less easy to abuse.
But not in a good way.
A right to concern
Politicians realizing they’ll be the first targets of the military-state and have set themselves up to have no place to hide from said military-state
No he’s just riding the outrage wave. He’ll do nothing about the company that takes flocks place.
They were nearly nonexistent in St. Louis until the child rapist administration that the Florida governor supports took power and now there are thousands here.
