Vendors sell products to customers. Customers implement the products that the vendor sells.
Who is responsible if the customer uses the vendor product inappropriately?
When IPVM reports on Flock Safety
I don’t know if you’ve heard of a company called Flock Safety. If you haven’t, you haven’t been reading the Bredemarket blog because I’ve mentioned them a few times. Three examples:
- Privacy: What Happens When You Data Scrape FROM the Identity Vendors?
- When is a Law Enforcement Camera a Surveillance Tool?
- In Los Angeles, the Flock Flew Away.
Similarly, I don’t know if you’ve heard of a company called IPVM. They are well known within the identity industry for their non-vendor-funded reporting on numerous topics, most notably Chinese companies that cooperate with the Chinese government.
So what happens when IPVM reports on Flock Safety? Here’s an example, “Flock CEO Has Now Turned Against The Police.”
No, not the English trio that talked about the surveillance state.
Law enforcement officers who form the bulk of Flock Safety’s customers.
“For years, Flock CEO Garrett Langley was a vocal corporate ally to law enforcement, calling privacy critics “terroristic” and accusing opponents of wanting to “normalize lawlessness.” On August 13, 2026, that posture reversed….
“‘Our customers are the community. Police might pay the bills. Police might make the decisions, but our customer is the community, because that’s who actually receives the benefit of the product.'”
Or, to sum up Flock Safety’s position, if the police use our product to do bad things, it’s not our fault at all. It’s the police’s fault.
When class action lawyers consider Amazon Rekognition cases
But the “vendor is blamless” position is not universal when lawsuit money is involved. Remember my August 20 post on Amazon Rekognition?
“There’s a case in Missouri where someone spent 17 months in jail due to faulty facial recognition. The facial recognition software used? Amazon Rekognition….
“But was Amazon Rekognition used properly, and was the police department even allowed to use it?…
“But [Amazon’s] policy [to prohibit use of Rekognition in criminal cases, and to recommend only using high-quality images] didn’t stop the victim from amending his complaint to include Amazon as a defendant.”
Or, to sum up the lawyer’s position, if the police use a product to do bad things, it’s the police’s fault AND the vendor’s fault. Although each will blame the other.
What if vendors and customers are PARTNERS?
Let me suggest something that isn’t revolutionary, since salespeople say it all the time. How many times have you heard salespeople (including Bredemarket) say this to prospects?
“I personally guarantee that [COMPANY] will become your trusted partner, and will work together with you to provide your end customers with a stellar experience.”
Of course salespeople say that. But does this actually happen once the contract is signed, the salesperson goes away, and they hand you over to the regular support team?
It should happen.
But how?
For example, let’s say that a facial recognition vendor sells a product to a law enforcement agency. Put some language like this in the contract:
“VENDOR advises, and CUSTOMER agrees, that facial recognition software should only be used with facial recognition images of high quality. VENDOR commits to provide training to CUSTOMER in the proper use of the facial recognition software, including determination of sufficient image quality. CUSTOMER agrees to complete said training.
“VENDOR advises, and CUSTOMER agrees, that CUSTOMER will not use facial recognition results as the sole basis for a warrant. Facial recognition results should be used solely as an investigative lead, and no warrant should be issued unless independent evidence is gathered.
“VENDOR has designed software that ensures that the software is used with relevant laws. For example, software requires CUSTOMER to provide a warrant when law requires one to initiate a surveillance action. CUSTOMER agrees to provide such information.”
Now a bunch of people are going to object to such contract terms.
- Customers won’t agree to have vendors tell them how to do their job, because civilians are stupid and don’t understand how police work and don’t care if children die.
- Vendors won’t agree to take any responsibility for how customers misuse their software. Why should vendors provide training on stuff that customers already know? If they’re lawless, it’s not our problem.
- Lawyers on both sides won’t agree to these terms because reasons.
But you need SOMETHING to ensure that vendors and customers will work together. Otherwise you will not only continue to have cases in which software is misused, but you will get the inevitable finger-pointing after it is misused.
But along with the negative things, such as contract terms, vendors and customers alike need to take the attituide that they’re in this together. And then they need to work together to solve their problems.
Can we all get along? (Source)
Bredemarket 