• Drusas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    2 days ago

    The fact that Flock is regularly doing this as, apparently, standard operating procedure makes me wonder if they have some orders from/agreement with the federal government to do so.

    • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 days ago

      I can’t imagine what agreement would allow for a private company to place equipment on city-owned property just because the federal government say’s its okay.

      • flilare@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Agreement to pardon anything that might stick in exchange for a full surveillance network.

        • TipRing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 days ago

          The feds have no power to absolve the company of state crimes. Though I think it’s just littering in this case. The city is within its rights to just take the cameras down.

          • Mirshe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            While that’s partially true, the DOJ has a LOT of leverage, especially with how closely this version is tied to the executive branch. It wouldn’t take much to simply lean on a state legislature or even a local one and say “hey you either cut our guy loose or bad things might happen.”

            Welcome to the Mafia oligarchy.

          • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I’m sure you could make an argument for destruction of government property for disturbing the ground they install them on. Almost surely won’t stick, but might until thing start getting charged and in the system, nothing will happen.