And if the supplier gave it on the hard drive to Netflix, then really they should have encrypted it and given a key to use the drive by some other channel like email

Netflix should at least encrypt the content so if somebody lifts the drives it's no good outside of the machine it came from. e.g. encrypted partition / files with a key protected with TPM.

The good should not be an excuse to introduce a bunch of bad, even if the good still outweighs it. The bad should be rigorously minimized. I am not against such cameras, under certain conditions:
1) Strict limitations on what they can be used for. That also sets limits on data retention and on who has access to it (absolutely no 3rd parties)
2) Audits and oversight of how the system is being used, with real consequences for violations. The benefits of each use case to be evaluated from time to time, insufficient benefit or too much opportunity for abuse means the system will no longer be used for that particular use case.
3) Ironclad security to ensure none of this data ever gets out.
And 0) Those limitations on use should be tested against a more fundamental set of (ethical) rules, to ensure that the use is not expanded from "protect the children" to "auto-fine jaywalkers".

Only problem is that I wouldn't trust most governments to get any of these points right.

Now back in reality consumers don't give a shit and just use whatever is installed on their computers, and corporations actually have a reasonably compelling integrated product from Microsoft that has no equal in terms of a complete package. To pretend otherwise is to not understand what the Office / Azure business even is about.

Your fantasy that Microsoft is successful because people are mindless sheep is just demonstrating your own ignorance.

You wrote a lot of text asking a question that could have been answered by reading only the first half of the first sentence of the summary.

It'll still be considered property damage. If the camera is out of commission at any point you've caused damage, even if the damage solves itself. Bonus points if they send a tech out to check what is wrong, you've materially cost them time and money.

Except it's not, governments have bought private data troves of citizens for a long time now and it's so far failed to be struck down in any court case in any decisive manner. Flock is just the latest in a long history of this kind of bullshit.

This is a stupid approach. You're slapping a bandaid on the symptom while the underlying disease is running rampant. Jury nullification isn't the answer. Hell banning Flock isn't the answer. The answer is stopping the government from buying private citizens data, and passing some actual real privacy laws that prevent companies who have obtained people's data from selling it to anyone. That instantly would fix far more.

Except constitutional law agrees with the parent poster. Flock is just the latest example of a long history of governments purchasing tracking data, which historically very successfully has been used in a very wide variety of criminal proceedings.

If it were a constitutional violation then every use of Flock would result in cases getting thrown out, something which we haven't seen.

No they aren't, and if they were they are doing a poor job. This place is full of pieces of shit and if they want to make humours jokes then they should sign off their posts in ways that leaves no doubt, otherwise we're just going to have to assume they have similar views to people like DarkOx... oh wait, that's already them.

I know right? I really miss the days when I can assault people who aren't willing to be assaulted. Like just the other day my wife didn't make my sandwich right and I slapped here in the face with the good traditional family values I have and suddenly I'm the bad guy? What woke nonsense! /sarcasm

Also you're a despicable cunt.

Compile error. When one specific group has "the most fragile feelings of all" then it can't apply to both.

Are you a programmer at Microsoft by any chance?

Let me quote them : "because they're a cable network"
within a context of a specific reply about a segment from Fox News called "The View", furthermore talking about newscasting.

Let me guess, you're the kind of person who when a woman drags you into the bedroom and starts undressing in front of you while looking at her seductively says "I'm not really sure what she wants from me" right?

You'd be surprised how trivial those "layers" are to overstep for a really determined hacker.

Given how little revenue MS derives from Windows in a consumer world, and how there's zero move away from Windows in the corporate world the market is right to ignore your fantasy scenario.