We can watch them, as is evidenced by the fact that he is watching them. Misrepresenting the police response as preventing his actions is clearly not true. Characterizing a polite conversation as "slavery" is disrespectful to people worldwide actually experiencing slavery.

Words have meanings

What he did was not illegal and he was not charged. Four cops came to his house to intimidate him but left when it did not work

this is not a good summary of the video

The YouTuber just forgot that they need more subscribers to unlock those perks.

You gain those at iirc 10 million or so? Even comes with a decorative plate for your wall.

Goverement has monopoly to use violence against own citizens. Legally. Why opposite is illegal?

Flock isn't "the government". This is an interesting conversation because often Flock is a circumvention to the police not being able to do these things.

Why deal with annoying oversight and restrictive governance and audits and usage monitoring when you can just offload it to a private company and stalk women without restraint?

Legal gray area is still a legal gray area...

Technically, it is home users volunteering data to a cloud provider, that then mines the disclosed data as a service for any creep.

It would be a constitutional matter, and the city would lose in court given precedent lawsuits... if police used direct surveillance to follow people around even on public property where there was no expectation of privacy. Sue, and remember to vote. =3

Cops, like everyone, have no "reasonable expectation of privacy." Until then, they are in fact treated like everyone else.

What I saw was cops making up laws and trying to intimidate people into following them. Wouldn't be the first time.