Thanks for your clarification, as I should have been more clear. Law enforcement is a “government agency”, and Flock technically obtains permissions from them. There’s not much sense in installing cameras before securing some kind of contract.
Flock tends to get contracts from law enforcement agencies, but then runs afoul of other regulatory agencies who are not notified before the equipment is installed. City councils, transportation authorities, public safety departments, constituents, and even State lawmakers are often not included in negotiations or even notified. This is the problem with Flock’s business practices that results in removal disputes.
Once the cameras are in, they become difficult to dislodge and it takes regulatory force (and more money) to remove their privately owned equipment. Flock is not incentivized to remove their cameras or seek the proper approvals, and they know their product is popular with police and unpopular with the populace. So, that’s who they target for sales and permissions. Once the equipment is installed, they fight any regulatory removal process. As they garner more negative attention, their excuses and ploys become more odious. For example:
In North Carolina in November 2023, a judge enjoined Flock staff from installing new cameras after a division of the state’s Department of Public Safety sought an injunction against it arguing the company had been operating without the required license. Flock disputed the complaint, claiming it did not need any sort of clearance from the North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing Board because it “is not in the alarm system business”; the statute applies to any device used to detect illegal activity. Thomas said Flock has since been permitted to have a third party install its devices.
A company like Flock should be fully expected to know that this excuse is absurd and that this law applied to them, But Flock chose to litigate it anyways, and did so because they expected to be allowed to continue, which they were.
I reiterate my point that Flock is not in the public safety business because they don’t willingly work with public safety organizations. Flock is in the business of monetizing dragnet surveillance for law enforcement because that’s all they do.
Thanks for your clarification, as I should have been more clear. Law enforcement is a “government agency”, and Flock technically obtains permissions from them. There’s not much sense in installing cameras before securing some kind of contract.
Flock tends to get contracts from law enforcement agencies, but then runs afoul of other regulatory agencies who are not notified before the equipment is installed. City councils, transportation authorities, public safety departments, constituents, and even State lawmakers are often not included in negotiations or even notified. This is the problem with Flock’s business practices that results in removal disputes.
Once the cameras are in, they become difficult to dislodge and it takes regulatory force (and more money) to remove their privately owned equipment. Flock is not incentivized to remove their cameras or seek the proper approvals, and they know their product is popular with police and unpopular with the populace. So, that’s who they target for sales and permissions. Once the equipment is installed, they fight any regulatory removal process. As they garner more negative attention, their excuses and ploys become more odious. For example:
A company like Flock should be fully expected to know that this excuse is absurd and that this law applied to them, But Flock chose to litigate it anyways, and did so because they expected to be allowed to continue, which they were.
I reiterate my point that Flock is not in the public safety business because they don’t willingly work with public safety organizations. Flock is in the business of monetizing dragnet surveillance for law enforcement because that’s all they do.