774
Flock CEO calls for ‘compromise’ as surveillance company faces growing backlash | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
233 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The country needs to find a “compromise” between privacy and safety, according to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley.

“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

wouldn't a law against murder also be punishing a specific individual or group?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    If a law punished a specific murderer or group of murderers it would be, but not if it punished an entire defined class of murderers equally. Lawmakers generally describe the qualifications of a crime (e.g. "anyone who knowingly and willfully causes the death of another person") and prescribe a punishment for anyone convicted of it, and then the courts determine whether or not individuals are guilty by whether they meet the qualifications laid out in the law. Bills of attainder are laws that define individuals or specific groups as guilty by identity, not qualification, which means they don't get a trial and the judiciary doesn't get to act as a check on the legislature.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I guess that is my confusion.

    why would "legislation to be passed that criminalized the usage of personal data for surveillance" fall under this attainer scenario? seems very similar to "legislation passed that criminalized murder"..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    I don't think it would. Congress could criminalize the behavior of corporate surveillance, then prosecutors could charge any individual or company that engages in that behavior. It'd only be a bill of attainder if it was selective by identity (e.g. a bill that proclaims "the CEO of Flock is guilty of criminal surveillance and should be arrested") rather than a defined criminal standard that applies to everyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •