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?<p>They will never change their behavior when there are no consequences for their actions.
> So if they no longer have a contract, how is it legal for Flock to continue to use the allocated resources?<p>They've even been caught putting them back up or re-enabling them in places where the contract has been canceled. How is <i>that</i> legal? I thought you had to be city-approved to install equipment like that. One would think that no contract = no approval?<p>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.<p>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.
American laws don't apply to billionaires or corporations.
They're just following the Uber business model. Consequences for thee, not for me.