I don't think this is reasonable or principled.
The evidence here is that Flock can be used maliciously, I don't think anyone doubts that, the question is it a tool that is inherently bad in it's normal functioning, and I don't think so.
Like ... 'pepper spray' can be used maliciously by cops, since it's 'less apparently extreme' they can get away with more shenanigans. But it's not 'inherently' bad tool, and perpetual use won't change policing.
If you see a story where cops use pepper spray maliciously, and it harms someone ... that's evidence of an incident, not of a bad tool.
The 'evil' of flock is the surveillance state, not in bad apple cops.
That’s an uncharitable strawman.
We have checks against police abuse in place. Probably not enough in the US, but they exist. There’s no meaningful oversight in the US of Flock camera usage, though. And frankly, meaningful oversight will kill Flock’s business model - which it should. Nothing Flock is doing should be allowed in a democracy, in its current form.
That's exactly what Flock is doing. It's just the latest variation on "power corrupts".