There is a certain degree of irony in entirely misrepresenting my point by asserting it's somehow "bad faith."
I don't think it's fair to say that trying to understand if something is legal is a "dance in the ivory tower." Isn't a pretty important part in enacting change understand WHAT needs to change?
My point is this: Flock does not provide access to ICE, if using another person's login is a legal loophole around this then it needs to be specifically addressed and closed.
In no way am I justifying mass surveillance by arguing "if it's legal, it's fine."
I don't think it's fair to say that trying to understand if something is legal is a "dance in the ivory tower." Isn't a pretty important part in enacting change understand WHAT needs to change?
My point is this: Flock does not provide access to ICE, if using another person's login is a legal loophole around this then it needs to be specifically addressed and closed.
In no way am I justifying mass surveillance by arguing "if it's legal, it's fine."