this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
765 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

87550 readers
3298 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
765
Flock CEO calls for ‘compromise’ as surveillance company faces growing backlash | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com)
submitted 3 days ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
228 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
[–] 51dusty@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 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"..

[–] queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 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.

[–] 51dusty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

understood. thank you for your patience.

[–] queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

np! It was good to refresh myself on the topic as well :)