18 ms·
Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
- darig 3mo ago[dead]
- josefritzishere 3mo agoAs far as I can tell from the news, Flock is only used to commit crimes.
- mindslight 3mo ago[dead]
- downrightmike 3mo agoThey silently stole $46 million secretly from Canada
- willis936 3mo agoCheck your town's website for correspondence with your state's chapter of the ACLU in regards to Flock cameras. If your police chief (not an elected official) is installing them then contact your local ACLU chapter about it. These are 4th amendment violations.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoTo the contrary, little of what Flock does would be restricted by the 4th amendment. The cameras are in public, and neither the government nor individual citizens need authorization to film people in public. Many Flock cameras are also privately owned, too.
- reactordev 3mo agoAll flock cameras are privately owned, by flock. They install them at a charge per the jurisdiction that orders them and pays the subscription costs… those subscription fees allow Mr Local Law Abuser to lookup any license plate it has read, when, where, with a picture of the vehicle. https://deflock.org https://deflock.org You’d be surprised how many there are.
- __MatrixMan__ 3mo agoSo when I put a bag over the camera, it's up to flock to remove it? I haven't stuck around to find out who shows up. Sometimes it takes a week or so, other times it's next day.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoThe point is, some of flock's customers are private businesses. E.g. the Home Depot by me uses them. No amount of pressure by voters can take those cameras down.
- reactordev 3mo agoShady part is, all of flock’s customers are businesses. Municipalities that use flock do so through a contracting company, it’s always once removed…
- hilariously 3mo agohttps://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-supreme-court-digital-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-suprem... https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones There has been plenty of past rulings that indicate long term collection of data is not something that the fourth amendment had baked in.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoThe case you linked isn't about the government filming people in public, though. Carpenter vs. US was a case about the government demanding private information about users' locations from cell service providers. By comparison, the 9th circuit concluded that the plain view doctrine means electronic license plate readers are legal :https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/05/04/18-10341.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/05/04/1... An officer doesn't need a warrant to sit at a cross section and write down license plate numbers. A device doing the same thing is also legal.
- hilariously 3mo agoOf course that's a fair interpretation, I am saying there's some tension between mass surveillance and the fourth just because its "done in public" doesn't mean it automatically escapes scrutiny now or going forward.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoNo, the fact that it's recording people in public does make it escape scrutiny moving forward. In public you can be filmed by anyone - be they government or private citizens. I find a lot of people fail to realize this, both in regards to surveillance and otherwise. Recently in my city there was a big uproar about a nudist beach that was at risk of having nudity prohibited. So a bunch of nudists went out and paraded around the beach while disrobed, some of them bringing their children with them. People sailed by and photographed many of the nudists, and put their images online. Many alleged that must be a violation of some privacy law, but no, the law in Washington (and most, perhaps all, of the US) is quite clear: if you're in public, you can be filmed and photographed. If you don't want to be filmed nude, don't go walking around naked in public. Regardless, back to the topic at hand, the fact that Flock cameras a in public spaces does in fact mean that there's no requirement to get a warrant to use them.
- qmr 3mo agoWrong. See Carpenter v US.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoThat's not applicable to Flock, though. That case pertained to the government requesting that mobile service providers give historical location data on users.
- fc417fc802 3mo agoI feel like you haven't properly thought this through. Cell towers are monitoring a public broadcast from a beacon you voluntarily carry on your person. For some reason querying that dataset requires a warrant but querying a broadly analogous dataset from the operator of a network of cameras doesn't? More generally you're confidently making wild extrapolations from the current very limited case law without regard for either its limitations or the general temperature that can be inferred from the full opinions.
- Manuel_D 3mo ago> Cell towers are monitoring a public broadcast from a beacon you voluntarily carry on your person. It's an encrypted broadcast, not a public broadcast. This is why the police needed to ask the mobile service providers for this data. It is not public. > For some reason querying that dataset requires a warrant but querying a broadly analogous dataset from the operator of a network of cameras doesn't? The data is not broadly analogous. One is encrypted radio traffic. The other is unencrypted, and you can record it yourself with a pen, paper, and the Mk I eyeball. This is why the "plain view" doctrine applies. Again, the courts have already ruled on the use of ALPRs. The defense tried to use US vs Carpenter in US vs Yang, and the courts did not accept that argument that ALPRs are analogous to cell phone location data.
- mingus88 3mo agoThe year is 2026 and the 4th amendment only means what the currently sitting justices say that it means, and the executive branch was literally given a pass to violate any law on the books that they want.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoThe 9th circuit upheld that the police do not need warrants to operate and access data from license plate readers. The 9th Circuit isn't exactly a conservative stronghold.
- mingus88 3mo agoThat’s really beside the point. It doesn’t matter what the 9th circuit or any other court says. Our country is no longer a country of laws. Laws are only as good as they are enforced. The SCOTUS, the DOJ, the FBI, and congress have openly abdicated any constitutional responsibility to provide checks and balances to reign in the abuses we see posted to HN every day.
- Hnrobert42 3mo agoI believe they would all argue that they haven't. They would argue that the current administration is operating within the law towards ends supported, repeatedly, by their constituents. I disagree with them, but that isn't relevant.
- mingus88 3mo agoWhen scotus rules that the president can break any law he sees fit, that argument is circular.
- devindotcom 3mo agoit's not about filming in public. it's about systematic data collection by law enforcement, using private infrastructure present by its nature in public. that's why the Carpenter decision is relevant.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoThe Carpenter decision was about the US government compelling mobile data providers to hand over private use information. It's really not relevant to flock. That's why the 9th Circuit decided that automated license plate readers don't need a warrant. A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant. A device can do the same.
- filup 3mo ago>A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant. I dont believe you think the police force could replicate the injest of information these systems allow do you?
- Manuel_D 3mo agoIf the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. The point is, the plain view doctrine means the police don't need a warrant to record observation that are in plain view. The licence plates of cars on the street are in plain view. I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles.
- filup 3mo ago>If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. If the precedent was set based on this idea. It will fall apart with further scrutiny. >I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles. I don't think that is where the crux of the issue lay.
- downrightmike 3mo agoThe government may not purchase services for acts it is not allowed to do itself: Pinkerton Act.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoBut the government is allowed to track people's license plates. There's nothing against the law for a police officer to stand at an intersection writing down all passing car's license plates with a pen and paper. Flock is the same thing, just much more cost efficient.
- downrightmike 3mo agoThis is not that
- Manuel_D 3mo agoIt is exactly that. These cameras are only recording cars on public roads (and sometimes e.g in the parking lot of Home Depot, but those areas are still in plain view).
- assimpleaspossi 3mo agoYes. Let's restrict police and take away every possible tool they can use to solve and fight crime. Not all criminals are bad criminals. They don't use Flock to spy on their ex-girlfriends but every cop in America has done it. At least according to the internet which knows everything.
- willis936 3mo agoDon't misrepresent what others say. The 4th amendment should not be violated. I can only interpret your response as "the 4th amendment should be violated".
- assimpleaspossi 3mo agoThen you would be wrong. I'm pointing out the internet's liberal obsession with anti-police and, seemingly, pro-criminal activity. The internet likes to find fault with the police while dismissing or ignoring criminal activity. It's a horror I cannot understand. It's pure insanity.
- willis936 3mo agoOkay, then pontificate that as a top level comment. Responding to someone saying the 4th amendment should not be circumvented with a refute is a statement about the 4th amendment, not some imagined counter party.
- assimpleaspossi 3mo agoThis whole thread represents the imaginary of the internet and it makes me sick. I have to get off the internet. I've spent too much time with it lately.
- bobthebob 3mo agoI’m right here with you. This is a genuinely cool useful technology that helps solve crimes and all we get is pearl clutching. Most people don’t give AF
- qmr 3mo agoSo glad we got them kicked out of Mountain View.
- richwater 3mo ago[flagged]
- throwaway85825 3mo agoWhen flock data was FOIAd the state just exempted the data from FOIA.
- Avshalom 3mo ago>>Flock and law enforcement regularly cite documented cases where LPR helped solve violent crimes, recover stolen vehicles, and locate missing persons. Those outcomes are real. My opposition wouldn't change regardless but are those outcomes real?
- apothegm 3mo agoThe AI slop in that quote sure is real.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoIn Seattle at least, the majority of homicide cases are solved with the assistance of surveillance cameras (though what % of said cameras are specifically Flock, I'm not sure): https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2026/03/05/new-analysis-rtcc-triples-the-odds-that-a-victim-receives-justice/ https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2026/03/05/new-analysis-rtcc-...
- asveikau 3mo agoCops can politely ask owners of private cameras for access for things like murder investigation. If the polite answer is no (most people will say yes), they can go to court for a subpoena. This has happened for a long time. This is how it should work. If the cops are too lazy or chicken to ask a judge while investigating a murder, they don't deserve the footage.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoRight and what if lots of crime happens in a place where there are not many businesses? Hardly an implausible scenario given that crime is bad for business. The city can set up its own camera for its own use. Is that really that wild of a proposal?
- asveikau 3mo agoWhat if what if what if? That whole premise of "what if lots of crime happens" -- already false. Did you know that most places in America are at historically low crime rates in most of our lifetimes? It is garbage to say this needs deep societal focus right now. I don't give a shit about the hypothetical hurt feelings of small town cops whining that they don't have always-on spy equipment.
- cdrnsf 3mo agoRegular reminder that their CEO called Deflock a terrorist organization. I hope they go out of business and their cameras end up as e-waste.
- Ancapistani 3mo agoIf I'm a terrorist, I've not been a very good one to this point.
- npunt 3mo ago> Important subject > Uses slop AI art Fastest way to make something into a farce.
- pixel_popping 3mo agoIt's genuinely triggering rage to see this on a "serious" article.
- zhivota 3mo agoIt's not even that hard to make AI output images that don't look like AI slop either, just have to use some "in the style of" or "as if it was taken with a film camera" types of modifiers. This is what confuses me about AI slop, not only did you use the lowest effort method, you didn't even put a minimal amount of effort into making it work well.
- hiccuphippo 3mo agoSure but use a real photo and someone will come with a copyright claim. The AI photo is the safest option.
- xigoi 3mo agoHow about not using a photo at all if it’s not relevant to the article?
- testertester00 3mo ago[dead]
- arjie 3mo agoUltimately, there’s a sort of homeostasis in people’s tolerance for crime. If you need video evidence for prosecution, those who want it prosecuted will produce video cameras. If you make warrants impossible to produce in a timely manner, the camera search will be warrant exempted. Attempts to damage state power to ensure crime isn’t prosecuted will be likely met with methods that are immune to them. Given the constraints we operate under, the ideal number of unsolved crimes is not zero and the ideal number of crimes committed using state apparatus is also not zero. So being informed that either is non-zero is not of use to decision making in my opinion.
- lazyasciiart 3mo agoAnd if you need confessions, confessions will be made.
- arjie 3mo agoPrecisely! Illustrates the problem perfectly.
- pinkmuffinere 3mo ago> the ideal number of unsolved crimes is not zero and the ideal number of crimes committed using state apparatus is also not zero I feel this is an _extremely_ good point, the kind that seems obvious only once you hear it. But i feel there’s an implication that could be made explicit here — we should be looking at the distribution of both apparatus-enabled-crimes and unsolved-crimes when we’re discussing this sort of thing. And if those metrics aren’t tabulated for easy access, they probably should be.
- arjie 3mo ago> And if those metrics aren’t tabulated for easy access, they probably should be. I couldn't agree more. They're two different error rates for our society and measuring them accurately would help us go to where we should be on the curve.
- 3mo ago
- gattr 3mo agoRemember that scene from "Men in Black" where K watches surveillance video feed of his ex? In the movie it was meant to be wistful and cute, I guess. Now that such systems are getting closer to reality, you realize the potential for abuse in enormous.
- Ancapistani 3mo agoMore like his widow than his ex - he was unable to ever contact her, which is what made it cute rather than creepy.
- usrnm 3mo agoSomeone stalking you is not cute even if they don't try to talk to you
- dspillett 3mo agoPlease explain that to the ad-tech industry… Cancel that, they do try to talk to me every damn chance they get!
- kelipso 3mo agoAll about perspective! Plenty of romance stories that start out with stalking. (Though I guess from a social normative conversation pov, you would want to keep up the kayfabe).
- FireBeyond 3mo agoI mean at least in that situation, K was forbidden from ever making contact with his ex, with far greater consequences.
- shaftway 3mo agoYou mean the ex that he actually did make contact with? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czp6cXAsHj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czp6cXAsHj8
- gigel82 3mo agoCan I set up my own camera on the side of the road (in a public place) to scan people's faces and license plates, link them up to one of the many data brokers (or leaks) and use a big display to show the drivers' pictures and something like "Hey Rick Larsen, it's the 24th time we've seen you this week. We'll let our clients know there's no one home at 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Everett most weekdays between 8 and 4!", and then place them somewhere like oh, I don't know, in close proximity to a capitol building? We can pay the regular fees that advertisers pay to have billboards up. And if we're not allowed to do that, why is Flock?
- etchalon 3mo agoYou can probably do that, so long as you're doing it on property you own.
- Manuel_D 3mo agoYes, you are allowed to set up a camera, as long as you own the land you're putting the camera on or you have permission from the landowner. Again, I'm surprised by how many people don't realize that it's legal to film people in public.
- assimpleaspossi 3mo agoNo one has the right to privacy in a public setting. That's why street photographers can roam around and take photos of anyone and publish them. Whether you can publish personally identifiable information based on that, I don't know.
- ckrusk 3mo agofirst - yes, as others have noted, very easy to set this up and I encourage you to try! you could have a mini flock set up for your neighborhood or apartment in no time (not to mention ring cameras - look up the super bowl ad that went south quick). second - five eyes (i think?) treaties allow tons of mass surveillance, the only rule is that you can't spy on your own country, but trading the data is above board
- xigoi 3mo agoSince when is Flock publicizing private information obtained through data leaks?
- connort459 3mo agoThe fact police can go in and just look at camera footage without warrant proves your point precisely, officers have used it to stalk family members, etc.
- jimt1234 3mo agoThis type of thing is definitely real. A friend of mine went on a date with an NYPD cop back in the 90s. She refused a second date, and the stalking began. It wasn't 'tech stalking', like today, but the cop started asking interrogating questions to her landlord and co-workers; she started getting weird/false parking tickets, etc. The only way she made it stop was that her cousin was a veteran with NYPD, and well, he had a little chat with the young, stalking cop. But who knows where it all would've ended up if her cousin wasn't also a cop???
- connort459 3mo agoYeah what in the world, now imagine that nowadays with FLOCK cameras. I see that going nowhere good
- BLKNSLVR 3mo agoYoung stalking cop should have been charged and kicked off the force. Already proved they're incapable of handling even basic adult responsibilities, so police powers should be kept well it off such a person's reach. I doubt any of that happened though.
- picofarad 3mo agoImagine what would happen if the NYC attorney actually prosecuted cops that stalked.
- assimpleaspossi 3mo ago[flagged]
- ckrusk 3mo agoIs this much different than a doctor/sw/nurse/admin looking up patient records? I know that doctors are not the government, so no 4th amendment rights, but folks in the medical community have the basically the same level of access to much more sensitive information. also, since there has been a lot of talk of warrantless searches, 4th a, etc.... is there an expectation to privacy when out in public when one would be captured on a flock camera? like red light cameras already exist and some non-sworn pd admin is looking through your file to send you a ticket...
- throwaway74628 3mo agoNit: the police chief was also stalking and harassing at least one man
- assimpleaspossi 3mo ago[flagged]
- xigoi 3mo agoBut crimes against men don’t matter because by being a man, he is responsible for all crimes committed by men. /s
- kittikitti 3mo agoRandom people at your workplace likely know others with access and use it to spy on their own coworkers. I know of cases where they report the smallest details to Human Resources.
- xnx 3mo agoThis problem is 99% cops and 1% flock.
- parl_match 3mo agoverkada (a building access systems company), had multiple incidents of stalking of employees by other employees, using their own installation in their own hq none of them were cops
- orthecreedence 3mo agoNo? A mass surveillance apparatus is a pretty enormous problem.
- justin66 3mo agoIt's sort of 50/50.
- largbae 3mo agoYes this is how freedoms are restored. Next we need a story of flock tracking a reporter or political figure. Put that 4th amendment into sharp focus.
- nkrisc 3mo ago> He characterizes the behavior as rare. He simultaneously identifies it as the most common form of abuse. The tension between those two statements is the problem Flock has left unaddressed. I don’t see how there’s any tension between these statements. The overall occurrence of abuse can be rare while the most common form of the abuse that does occur is of officers tracking people they know.
- rose-knuckle17 3mo agoThe tension is that the abuse is far more likely than any value these cameras bring. And what is commonly rare in a country of 342 million? Prairie Grove, Illinois has 1930 people and he did this to at least 3 people according to the report. .15% of the population. If you extrapolate that out to the national population, its roughly 520k people. Or, the entire population of Sacramento, Ca, being victimized by law enforcement with a surveillance power they should never have been allowed to have.
- mc32 3mo agoIn a community of 20 people you have one person who commits robbery, that's 5% of the pop being a robbers. One _could_ extrapolate that but we'd fall victim to the law of small numbers.
- orthecreedence 3mo agoEither way, I support a world where exactly 0/1 Flock corporations exist.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- nkrisc 3mo agoI agree but I don’t think that was the point, or I’ve misunderstood the statement about the tension between those other two statements.
- makeitdouble 3mo ago
- rose-knuckle17 3mo agoImagine what Musk can do with all the SSA and Tax data he stole in the most blatant and underreported data heist in history.
- normalaccess 3mo ago"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu Privacy protects personal dignity, not just illicit behavior. We close bathroom doors, keep journals, and have intimate conversations not because we are breaking the law, but because we value personal modesty and boundaries. We are quickly approaching a time when we are all guilty until proven innocent by voyeuristic power-hungry psychopathic megalomaniacs who cry the old cry of "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
- SapporoChris 3mo agoI do not disagree with the intentions of the quote, however it is disputed. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu#Disputed https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu#Disputed
- xigoi 3mo agoNobody is installing surveillance cameras in you bathroom.
- tencentshill 3mo agoThey would really, really like to. Kids at school vape in there, people do drugs in public ones.
- normalaccess 3mo agoNobody is installing surveillance cameras in you bathroom yet.
- aussieguy1234 3mo agoStatistically, police officers are much more likely than your average person to be a perpetrator of domestic abuse
- TZubiri 3mo agoBig fan of court ordered warrants as a way to limit law enforcement here. That said, warrants protect law enforcement like searching someone's house. It seems that some less intrusive powers like running someone's plate has been given to the police with lower controls. And it makes sense right? If every judge needed to approve every potential plate check, it might be too much for daily operations. So option A, push towards everything being protected under warrants. Sure, option B, how about protection mechanisms that sit somewhere in the middle? For example, what if some powers were audited (sounds like they are logged already) on a probabilistic basis. What if judges could inspect some fraction of searches after the fact, and ask for justification afterwards. Of course this would have no effect on the actual search, but it would have long term effects on future searches. Even if 1% of lesser searches are audited, I'm sure most policemen would be much more weary about using them for personal matters like stalking women.
- BrenBarn 3mo agoThere are other options. One is to allow them to be audited not just by judges but by various "watchdog" groups which themselves go through some kind of vetting process. If you think police would be wary if they knew judges were watching 1% of their videos, imagine how they'd feel if they knew the ACLU had the option of watching every single one. The other side of it, though, is enforcement, and to me this seems like what's mostly lacking. It remains to be seen what will happen with this case but the article mentions a variety of actions over a period of time 1. he tracked six separate people 2. he ran license plates for these people 140 times 2. he searched the database while off duty 3. he called the ex-boyfriend 4. he said "This is the only time I'm going to be nice about this" which pretty clearly is threatening statement For this he was charged with. . . two Illinois class-3 felonies, which from what I see online means each charge can get you 2-5 years in prison. So he's looking at 10 years max, if he gets convicted with the charges as they stand. What each individual misuse of the tracking was charged as a separate offense? What if the standard of proof for officer misconduct was drastically lowered, so that, for instance, they could be fired or incur significant financial penalties with a much quicker process? And if the full criminal process does go through, as far as I'm concerned, a police officer who misuses their position in this manner should probably be wearing an ankle monitor for the rest of their life and/or have to register in a manner similar to sex offenders. We are way too lenient with the punishments for misuse of authority.
- Jzush 3mo agoNot sure how much warrants are going to help when a judge will see a stack of requests from a police chief and just rubber stamp them all without looking. This is already a problem in places where warrants are required.
- chaps 3mo agoWith a search warrant, I can submit FOIA requests or go to the courthouse. With flock searches, I (usually) can't because Illinois law exempts ALPR records. Here's the most egregious example I've seen: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/waukegan-11153/flock-safety-alpr-audits-2025-197426/ https://www.muckrock.com/foi/waukegan-11153/flock-safety-alp...
- alexpotato 3mo agoScott Adams' had a great line: "Whenever people have the opportunity to commit fraud and there is no monitoring, you can assume they are committing fraud."
- btrettel 3mo agoAre you loosely paraphrasing here? The closest thing I could find by Scott Adams was "Whenever you have a lot of money in play, combined with the ability to hide misbehavior behind complexity, you should expect widespread fraud to happen." https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10213582-whenever-you-have-a-lot-of-money-in-play-combined https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10213582-whenever-you-have-... (I didn't check the book, though.)
- ZeroGravitas 3mo agoI sometimes think of this from the other direction. Don't put people in situations of great temptation, like access to company cash with no oversight. They'll often fall for the temptation and ruin their lives in the process. It's a slightly different framing from the "evil people will take advantage and get away with it" but they both lead to putting some kind of process in place to prevent abuse.
- AndrewOMartin 3mo agoThis is like when store-bought locks are able to be picked by a novice, or broken with a hammer, or bypassed with a magnet. The phrase used is "it keeps good people honest", rather than "it keeps absolutely all bad guys out".
- roysting 3mo agoThe irony here being that we are so beyond healthy that the vast majority of people are well beyond even realizing or recognizing that the very need for locks everywhere is self-evident of an unhealthy society. Imagining a condition where you had to lock away your valuables in your own home out of concern for them being taken by people in your own home probably makes it a bit more apparent to some people who can mentally model alternatives. If you were ever to go to places where the rich are in what are effectively little oasis, kind of like “green zones” where they hide away from the chaos and misery they cause the wider society, no one locks their doors even though the homes are all full of stuff that is worth more than the average person will ever even earn in their whole lifetime and they walk around with jewelry and clothing multiple times more expensive than the average house price. They literally, by various mechanisms and methods “keep absolute all bad guys out”, effectively, without locks on every door. What we’ve long lost was systematic secure systems architecture and we replaced it with extremely costly, expensive and risky brute force, hard coded illusion of saver of the kind you refer to that is ironically not even necessary in most cases either. Locks don’t keep good people out at all, good people aren’t emoted and wouldn’t enter a place that isn’t locked without permission in the first place; hence my above point of locks being a good indicator of the health of a society and the failure of a government, i.e., the cluster and quality of the people left in control of things.
- nullc 3mo agoNo it shows why mass surveillance systems should be outlawed.
- boring_twenties 3mo agoThis shouldn't be hard to understand. Don't talk to the police, without your attorney present, under any circumstances whatsoever. Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle that I can only wonder what, if anything, those people are thinking. Anyway, the key takeaway seems to don't date anyone who dates the police. Firstly, because it directly puts your own safety at risk, as this article exemplifies. Secondly, because it demonstrates terrible judgment; it seems reasonable to assume they are likely to make other terrible decisions in the future.
- ultrarunner 3mo ago> Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle There are still quite a few people who think the police are the friendly government-provided customer service agents of life, although I've watched this viewpoint decline markedly over the last twenty years at least. Locally, a woman went on a hiking date with a Phoenix cop and wound up dead [0]. Notably, the woman was from New England, while the cop was local and absolutely should have known better how dangerous conditions would be. The police, of course, investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong. [0] https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/hiker-recalls-seeing-woman-who-died-hiking-with-off-duty-phoenix-officer-on-camelback-mountain https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/hiker-recalls-seeing-woman...
- s1artibartfast 3mo ago[flagged]
- wahnfrieden 3mo agoNo, it is just one HNer's random comment
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoWell yeah, that is the evidence one random thinks is compelling. It gives insight into how some people think, and like I said I feel third-party embarrassment for them. A cop could literally be a Jeffrey Dahmer copycat, and it wouldnt be generalizable. In this specific case there is zero evidence of criminal wrongdoing
- jillesvangurp 3mo agoWarrants are needed, and much more transparency. These platforms should be monitored and policed aggressively to keep everybody honest. There's a precedent for this with for example body cam footage means it's now much easier to audit police conduct. Surveillance technology potentially enables a lot of abuse if used without checks and balances. But the same technology also enables monitoring for abuse. Use of surveillance technology should be actively monitored and supervised. There should be auditable logs, footage, etc. with very long retention periods and active spot checks. In case of conflicts/abuse, there should be ample evidence.
- Gud 3mo agoThese platforms shouldn't exist to begin with... "land of the free" LOL!
- INTPenis 3mo agoIt should go without saying that all humans are flawed, regardless of their training, their uniform, their position in society. The local pedohunters group dumpen.se in Sweden actually caught a cop trying to meet a fictional 14 year old, and the cop used his access to public CCTV to check the meeting point before going there.
- zombot 3mo agoUbiquitous surveillance + no oversight: What could possibly go wrong.
- raxxorraxor 3mo agoNo, it shows that we have a destructive, trust undermining security industry that sells abusive surveillance software that by spirit of the law would be clearly illegal in any country that pretends to be a free and open society and has a constitution in the direction.
- tiahura 3mo agoFreedom to take pictures of public spaces?
- KyleTheDev 3mo agoFreedom to use a network of cameras to take pictures of random people and track their behaviors and location without their consent?
- tiahura 3mo agoThankfully the founders of my country set up a system where we are allowed to watch whatever we want in public.
- raxxorraxor 3mo agoI don't think "public" would qualify in this case. Or at least it would be severely in dispute.
- carljungslabtek 3mo agoIn the USA you can film whatever you want in public but if you target and follow someone while filming them you open yourself up to harassment or stalking charges. The flock network does something similar and this article is literally about police officers using it to stalk exes. Even flock’s own employees (including the VP) accessed cameras stationed at a children’s gymnasium. They claim it was for a sales pitch but who knows. The names of the cameras imply they’re inside the facility, not on the street corner. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/flock-safety-employees-watched-kids-181539475.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/flock-safety-employees-w...
- tiahura 3mo agoNo, it shows that cities need to do a better job of policing their police.
- economistbob 3mo agoA warrant being required for a GPS tracker but not for nationwide direct visual monitoring seems absurd.
- nativeit 3mo agoIt was not that long ago that i was watching Top Gear UK talk about how much they admired the US for its libertarian ideals, and how Americans don’t tolerate things like speed cameras on a cultural level. Within a decade, we ushered in CCTV and automated plate readers to a degree that would make the CCP blush.
- gradientsrneat 3mo agoMisogyny in government is a bellwether for authoritarianism. If a man doesn't respect women, you can bet they won't respect men or minorities either, although they may be less inclined to admit such in public.
- mapotofu 3mo agoWould love to see the same attitude extended to everyone, e.g. “respect all people”, but I guess if we don’t put the pussy on a pedestal we’re all authoritarians. If you keep pushing that narrative, you will be disappointed in what happens.
- KyleTheDev 3mo agoI'm not sure you understood the parent comment? At least, not in the way that they mean. What they're saying is, those who are likely to not respect women are also likely to not respect other groups. But, they are less likely to voice their lack of respect for other groups because doing so would incur more pushback. The sexist undertones of your response aside, you seem to have very poor reading comprehension.
- bingoMen 3mo agoAny man with that kind of power (would) do the same. Not just the police. The problem with patriarchy is that no one even considers the possibility that women and children might be harassed through technology. Because that perspective is missing. Google or Apple lenses, AI (Grok in particular), satellites, etc., etc., there’s no oversight or verification to ensure that this technology isn’t also being abused by men for personal desires, revenge, or whatever else. Maybe because it’s desired that there be no oversight.