Private corporations shouldn't set or interpret the law. They can sell technology but that's up to the jurisdiction to set policies. What a dystopian vision you have where corporate ceos start telling police what's legal and illegal
If there is precedent set saying selling $ITEM is illegal in a given jurisdiction , should a company be selling it?
Is it dystopian if a company doesn’t sell fentanyl to a police precinct because it’s up to the police to decide and the company should just give them whatever they ask for?
edit: lol at your response that’s flagged before I could reply. No consistency in morals, just sweeping for destruction of the rule of law.
In a paraphrase of your own words, it’s just some criticism bro.
Not for nothing, but I actually worked for Flock. The whole point is to bypass those policies, which is why you have Flock selling to agencies in a state that disallows sharing of data with certain federal agencies and -Flock- being the one to enable that data sharing.
But to you, "it's not up to them to know the law".
"Sorry, Officer, I'm reselling my prescription medications, but only because it's not up to me to interpret the law that says I can't."
Dystopian visions are what Flock is selling, in as many words: "A world where there is no crime, thanks to Flock." Garrett: "A false positive is a better result, because a false negative doesn't contribute to our mission." Meanwhile you're worried that your libertarian fever dream is being pissed on by expecting corporations not to break the laws that they acknowledge they know.
