> How would something be regulated without doing the work of actually passing the regulation

I think the point GP was making is that the cameras should not be deployed until the legal regulations around how the data is used and such is hashed out

Instead what is happening with many of these projects is a "move fast and break things" attitude. Cameras being deployed before the regulatory environment can catch up, leading to the busted situation we have now where people are lashing out and cutting cameras down

If there was any due diligence upfront with regulating this before the cameras were installed, then maybe we wouldn't be here

Who's responsible for doing the diligence up front? Who's responsible for doing it now?

This isn't a new topic.

Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) have been in use and legal since the 90s.

Facial recognition scanners have been in use in public spaces and legal since the early 2000s.

How long should one wait for regulations to catch up?

At least to me, this seems like a situation where public sentiment rapidly shifted, and now people are much more angry about the legal status that they were either okay or ignorant of a one or two years ago.

It doesn't really strike me as a move fast and break things situation. Flock itself is 10 years old at this point.

Situations change, and people can absolutely change their mind about the technology, for example if they don't trust the current Administration. That said, it seems like there's a lot of revisionist history and FUD going around.

There's a lot of people that have been having their face scanned every time they go to a concert or get on a plane who who are up and arms. People have been using a license plate readers to pay their toll on the way to work everyday are suddenly advocating for cutting down cameras.