Because they want to manufacture whatever stance they can to make themselves look like the poor victim of some “unhinged” vigilante to turn the public against heroes like this. News stations have been hammering this point on stories like this. “Oh, poor children in our city are going to go hungry now because we have to use this money to replace the cameras. Also 30 murderers and 50 rapists got away because our system was down.”
Because of the nature of the data they are gathering, collating, and storing they are unconstitutional, not just illegal. Unfortunately the judicial branch tends to be reactionary not proactive.
Well done. These cameras should be illegal.
Why is it up to the city to foot the bill for the losses of a private company?
Because they want to manufacture whatever stance they can to make themselves look like the poor victim of some “unhinged” vigilante to turn the public against heroes like this. News stations have been hammering this point on stories like this. “Oh, poor children in our city are going to go hungry now because we have to use this money to replace the cameras. Also 30 murderers and 50 rapists got away because our system was down.”
Probably in the contract. Hard to say without seeing it.
Omfg?! Someone that understands contract law?!
You beautiful genius.
Brilliant, pay for the hardware, and then pay for the fully automated service it provides! 🤡
Why do you think they have so many “convenience fees”
That’s called a service. Just like your mother used to provide.
Because of the nature of the data they are gathering, collating, and storing they are unconstitutional, not just illegal. Unfortunately the judicial branch tends to be reactionary not proactive.
I’m not a lawyer, but this guy is.
https://youtu.be/TOfK-w6mSnw
But how else will cops stalk ex girlfriends?
Because the city/PD wants it. That’s why they’re paying for it, and why they’ll probably pay for the new ones.
The message needs to be sent: Getting in bed with Flock costs cities way more money than it’s worth.