I think it’s a valid argument. For example, if someone wants to read Shakespeare but they aren’t a strong reader, you could provide a simpler version, while acknowledging it isn’t as originally intended. It allows for accessibility for a larger audience while not changing the experience for others. You wouldn’t tell someone to read a different story genre instead. This isn’t tools, where we have to bend the laws of physics, it’s changing some numbers in a database, and something already done for higher level difficulty settings, so just allow a version that is easier. No one is forcing anyone to play it that way.

Sounds like we might find out how the courts will view it.

Doesn’t matter what his reasons were to wipe the device, that’s the point of privacy, not to hide criminal activities.

Flock cameras are not LPR cameras. They are regular security cameras, with server-based AI. They even show demos to potential customers showing how the their product can search for specific people based on clothes, animal types, children/babies, strollers, carts, etc. across the entire country from one web-based interface. It’s all very Orwellian and I don’t think this issue either starts nor stops with Flock as a company. This type of surveillance is going to be ubiquitous regardless of what company(s) show up for making money from it.