> So if they no longer have a contract, how is it legal for Flock to continue to use the allocated resources?

They've even been caught putting them back up or re-enabling them in places where the contract has been canceled. How is that legal? I thought you had to be city-approved to install equipment like that. One would think that no contract = no approval?

Maybe they need to set up a "sting" operation at one of the disabled units and start makin' some arrests/fines for unapproved equipment installation/construction on public property? See if that changes some minds over at Flock about what they can and cannot get away with?

The article doesn't really tell us what the contract terms are, though. Just because the city voted to cancel the contract doesn't mean it ends immediately and Flock has to come remove all the cameras upon request. It's very likely the contract has a fixed term, and cancellation really just means they're not going to renew it at the end of the term. If that's the case, you can't charge them with crimes for using infrastructure that the contract permits them to use.

Still terrible that Flock isn't responding to them, and of course even if they intend to hold the city to the contract in terms of expecting to be paid for the full duration, they should still honor the request to shut off service.

That's what confuses me too. If they aren't making money any longer, they're basically saying "fuck you" to their own target customers?

What's the aim? ~~Bribing~~ Lobbying someone else in the government with the data they are gathering anyways in the hopes of cementing this?

So what this is telling me is if I don't like the way the government or public services is doing something, I should just plow ahead without any care and just force it and then be immune because I said so?

> So if they no longer have a contract, how is it legal for Flock to continue to use the allocated resources? Why not hit them with theft of service for continuing to draw power and use public infrastructure?

Well we don't know what was in this contract was that they had with Flock in the first place, but usually a contract termination like this would have some requirement to give a reasonable notice to allow Flock to disconnect cameras etc, and a week probably isn't reasonable notice.

> Why not hit them with theft of service for continuing to draw power and use public infrastructure?

Not an alpr apologist but aren't they almost always solar with lithium storage?

flock cameras aren't powered from the power grid, they have their own solar panels and batteries (which is what allows them to be deployed to quickly and widely) so I presume the article just meant unplugging those.

If I had to guess their processes for handling sudden contract changes differs and lags behind the processes behind installing them.

They're just following the Uber business model. Consequences for thee, not for me.

American laws don't apply to billionaires or corporations.