The funny thing is you did the exact same thing in this comment as the last one! No arguments to be seen, just "I did all this stuff." Maybe we should call this sunken cost rather than muddying the waters?
It was a statement that you're muddying the waters without implying whether bad faith or just a weak argument. And it was followed by the reasoning: that on a topic where the arguments against pervasive surveillance can be considered obvious, you aren't even hinting at an argument why anyone should not be against this in your dissenting opinion. Just an appeal to authority, "I am super experienced and say it's fine".
After repeated requests also from others you're still just waltzing around this, pretending you're not answering because you didn't get the question worded the right way.
If you think that's what good faith looks like I've got news for you.
I think my response to this would be to say that other ALPR operators are just as susceptible to extrajudicial pressure as Flock, and it would be foolish indeed to salve yourself by saying your ALPRs are OK because they're operated by Motorola instead of Flock.
I really don't think the "rhetorical" thing is going to work with me. I have the impression I might be the one person on this thread who has actually done any policy with with ALPRs.
And discussions of ALPRs and the issues around them are absolutely important.
My point was that the City of Evanston required their contractor (Flock) to remove their equipment from city infrastructure. Flock did so and then promptly reinstalled that equipment on city-owned infrastructure, flouting the will of the legitimate civil authority -- because they wanted to get paid by another government agency, against the express orders of said civil authority.
I don't know where you come from, but that sort of behavior just reeks of bad faith to me.
Feel free to disagree. And if you do, given your significant policy experience why Flock acted in good faith in Evanston. I'd be quite interested in your thoughts.
>I really don't think the "rhetorical" thing is going to work with me.
Huh? a rhetorical question[0] is (often) one that isn't actually trying to elicit information. My question, on the other hand, was specifically attempting to ascertain whether or not you think Flock is acting in good faith given their history.
So no, I wasn't trying to "gotcha" you (as in "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of thing), I genuinely wanted your take. But that doesn't seem to be forthcoming, so I'll back off. Have a good day.
