I got no more time for this. We're clearly not going to move each other.

WTFâ½

Of course Flock doesn't have warrants.

No, they turned it into a nationwide surveillance system with none of the checks and balances the law imposes on police departments.

Want none of it. Nunavut.

No.

Not "any solution".

Flock built a system that allows someone to make a mistake in one jurisdiction, send it out nationwide, doesn't give the downstream departments the ability to correct the other jurisdiction's mistake.

Neither were there nationwide referenda, comments, hearings, regulation, laws that regulated this technology before it was imposed on the nation.

An independent company built it, and police walked around the Constitution to take in warrantless surveillance on all Americans extrajudicially.

Flock promoted this to the police.

Flock urged police to keep their use of the system quiet.

Flock has build a dangerous turnkey national surveillance system that lives outside of the Constitutional protections that Americans rely on.

It must be destroyed.

Suppose instead Flock is an energy storage company. They have a potential energy battery that hauls a gigantic boulder up the mountain next to town in times of surplus, and lets it generate power as it is pulled down the hill when needed.

Some townsperson, acting in an official capacity pulls the wrong lever, releases the boulder, which rolls down the hill and crushes people, houses, kids in a school, millions of dollars in damages.

Flock, who placed the boulder system there says "Well, we could foresee mistakes would happen. We're so sorry the town's employee pulled that lever, but it's not our fault".

Do you really think that Flock is not at fault for designing and building a system they knew might fail that put the entire town at risk?

Do you likewise think Flock is not at fault for designing and building a system they knew might fail that puts our entire nation at risk?

Can they be asked to destroy it? No? What other remedy for this thing?

If a corporation is a "person", then there ought to be jail or a death sentence or for things like this.

This should not be allowed to happen.

Sue Flock out of existence.

One time is a mistake, and an outrage.

Twice is well beyond outrage, and given police's documented problem with itchy trigger fingers, this woman and her family have every reason to be scared.

This couldn't have happened without Flock's involvement, and it demonstrates the risk to the public.

This is a lot like saying: "the car goes as fast as a car" (or with a nod to The Simpsons: "Fun toys are fun!").

The data is not moving at the speed of light in a vacuum, because the light is not in a vacuum.

The data, transmitted on light, moves at the speed of light through a fiber optic cable.

Which won't leave you any wiser.

Too much hand-waving.

"We're not going to change humans, and humans make bad decisions," Langley said. "What we can do is make sure that they know if you use this tool, you will be held accountable...."

Wow he's right,

So maybe what we could do instead is to outlaw mass surveillance and warrantless surveillance, whether government-owned or corporate, across the country.

We could even have a constitutional amendment! Let's call it #4. The OLD 4th amendment doesn't seem to be doing anything; we can call this one '4th-Prime'.

Sure, but with that clowny '100 mile' border zone, roughly 2/3 of Americans live "at the border", allowing the Feds to abrogate the Constitution whenever they feel like it.

So if some laws do not apply, why don't all laws not apply?

Understand, I'd come down on the side of the 4th Amendment, not on the side of the right to rob, rape and pillage within 100 miles of the border.

I don't think the Feds should be able to have it both ways at once.

That authority derives from a finding that until someone is admitted into the US, they're "outside the border" and thus the Constitution's 4th Amendment protections do not apply.

"Outside the border" has laughably been imagined to be "within 100 miles of an International border", which Hartsfield, the world's busiest International airport, is.

So if you're "outside the border", how can American laws against wiping your phone apply?

Search for Contraband is not called out in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights.

And speech is not contraband anyway.

--
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Couple things:

1. I carry a Chromebook for international travel, because I can wipe it to bare metal BEFORE I cross a border.

2. If this guy is not in the US for the purpose of applying the constitution, why is he in the US for the purpose of charging him with a crime for wiping his phone?

Late to update this, but my Parallels VM (VM environment for Mac - in competition with VMWare Fusion) has in Device Manager:

"Generic Monitor (Parallels Vu)"

So the LG hardware isn't exposed to Win 11 via Parallels, and LG crapware won't download for it.

No telling how VMWare Fusion or VirtualBox handle this.

It probably works this way under Parallels because Parallels allows your VM screen to be resized on the monitor, and because it allows "seamless" integration of Windows and Mac apps on one screen. It might HAVE to emulate a monitor.

YMMV.

Maybe corrected.

3-to-9 errors are common when using keypads: phone and computer keypads are inverted one to the other: 3 on one is 9 on the other, and vice versa. If you're not paying attention, it's really easy to do.