Your question is what is not decided yet. The merger of surveillance capitalism and the federal government is something warned about decades ago and now it's here. It takes years for this stuff to make it's way through courts and up to SCOTUS (assuming it will get there).

Your point makes sense because a ruling against flock could also impact the tech companies that have been doing invasive tracking, arguably even more invasive, for decades. What makes flock different though are the direct contracts with governments.

There is a recent case that may support all this being illegal. SCOTUS recently ruled governments using geofencing data does constituent a search and therefore 4th amendment protections.

The data processing isn't after the fact, its happening in real time and your examples of tech companies tracking you are things you can opt out of but you can't opt out of being tracked by these cameras posted around your city on government property funded by your own tax dollars.

Police arent allowed to perform a stakeout on a citizen and track all their movements 24/7 without a warrant, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to have some AI do it without a warrant instead.

However it gets muddy when you're hiring flock to violate your 4th amendment on behalf of the government as a buffer? Can they also hire a company to discriminate against you due to your speech as well?

I thought I was pretty clear in my original comment. Can the government hire a company to violate your rights? Even if filming in public is legal otherwise, maybe it should be illegal when hired by the government to do warrantless surveillance of every citizen.

Are you arguing that this is fine, or acceptable?