Live data from Hacker News

Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

guessingheadlights.com

231–240 of 242 posts

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice you put a semicolon there. You forgot to put the rest: > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. what does "the people" mean to you?

You know, the human beings eligible to join the previously mentioned militia. The idea wasn't "everyone has the right to openly carry", the way it has been perverted recently, it was that you were individually responsible for the acquisition and maintenance of your own armaments. The militia act of 1792 was passed almost immediately after the second amendment was ratified, codifying what I just claimed.

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

are these the same people? so only the militia gets to be secure? Are you sure?

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#232
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But for" Flock Safety, this would never have happened. Similar to saying that Tesla is responsible for designing a safe AutoPilot even though there's still a driver in the loop who is responsible.

No, this is like saying that we should hold the fax machine liable for one PD faxing an APB to another one, or the concept of radio waves responsible when a PD dispatcher announcement for a a BOLO.

IMO it really isn't that similar. There's a fundamental difference between a fax machine and Flock Safety. One is a device that you can pick up off the shelf at an office store and which is used by all manner of customers for all manner of things, while the other is a bespoke system designed for and sold to meet public safety use cases.

Furthermore, it's a new evolution of technology. Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.

It was one thing when tracing a call or tapping a line required a technician to run around the electromechanical switch with a volt meter or a human to listen to your calls 24/7. It's an entirely different thing when it can be done automatically and cheaply at scale.

Before, you could hope to hide in the noise, and unless you were doing something "really bad" (or you had powerful enemies), you probably wouldn't be targeted. We're on the precipice of being technically able to have cheap, total enforcement of most laws.

Should we actually do that though? Will the societal changes be broadly good or bad? That's a question we should be asking, not just jumping in with both feet and pretending that the technology is neutral in the outcome.

For example - the introduction of radios in police cars had a huge impact on public safety and played a huge part in bringing an end to the era of the public enemies. No longer did you just need to outrun the posse chasing you and get out of town for a few weeks until the heat was off. Now you needed to slip out of the dragnet being coordinated over radio around you. That seems like it was probably broadly a good thing ... but even then, it required cost and human risk to accomplish. As we move further into the era of AI policing, we'll leave all of that behind.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flock cameras were clearly misused. Misuse is 100% user error.

Then you should design systems to ensure this type of user error doesn't happen. I'm sorry but this is software and all these excuses are straight up pathetic. If you don't know how to design a system to prevent this, DON'T MAKE IT! Good grief our industry is absolutely pathetic with these excuses.

Did you actually read the article? It's like you are demanding a car to not drive when you push the gas pedal.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s so dangerous, perhaps we should find a way to better control the danger of firearms.

Yes, firearms themselves present a clear and present danger by themselves. I'm sure once you make laws to control them, the firearms learn to stop being dangerous.

[deleted]

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you should design systems to ensure this type of user error doesn't happen. I'm sorry but this is software and all these excuses are straight up pathetic. If you don't know how to design a system to prevent this, DON'T MAKE IT! Good grief our industry is absolutely pathetic with these excuses.

Did you actually read the article? It's like you are demanding a car to not drive when you push the gas pedal.

No it's more like demanding crumple zones, seat belts, and third brake lights.

Just because you have zero standards or ethics does not make this acceptable at all.

This was a purely created system that was purposely designed exactly for these outcomes. You do not have to create such a system. There can be more accountability.

Have standards please. This is impacting real human lives here because you refuse to have standards.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s so dangerous, perhaps we should find a way to better control the danger of firearms.

Yes, firearms themselves present a clear and present danger by themselves. I'm sure once you make laws to control them, the firearms learn to stop being dangerous.

[dead]

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it comes down to it, I would prefer an officer die compared to an innocent civilian mistakenly die because a cop was scared or already had their finger on the trigger. Their job is to serve the public, accepting some level of risks is part of this. "About as risky as low paid delivery work" doesn't seem unreasonably high to me basically. Most cops die in car crashes, not being shot by potential suspects as it stan…

More police are shot and killed every year than people who were accidentally shot by police. Imagine if they didn't approach every high-risk situation with guns drawn. There would be orders of magnitude more officers killed.

[dead]

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More police are shot and killed every year than people who were accidentally shot by police. Imagine if they didn't approach every high-risk situation with guns drawn. There would be orders of magnitude more officers killed.

This is not correct. to the best of my memory, no year since the 90s has had more than 100 or 200 total officer fatalities in the line of duty. Police routinely kill 3 people a day. it's a pretty high bar to say that all three people the police kill every day were warranted. most line of duty deaths involve not wearing a seatbelt.

It’s 60-70 felonious deaths a year.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you actually read the article? It's like you are demanding a car to not drive when you push the gas pedal.

No it's more like demanding crumple zones, seat belts, and third brake lights. Just because you have zero standards or ethics does not make this acceptable at all. This was a purely created system that was purposely designed exactly for these outcomes. You do not have to create such a system. There can be more accountability. Have standards please. This is impacting real human lives here because you refuse to have st…

The article is about how the operator of the system failed to correct the targeting after the first event so the Flock cameras found the same car a second time.

If your point is that pulling her over at gunpoint is a flawed procedure that's valid. But that has nothing to do with anything Flock cameras are doing.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#240
post #76

I get tired of saying this but "got misidentified by the police" is somewhere between an annoyance and a humourous anecdote in most developed countries that aren't the USA where it appears to be justifiably regarded as a near death experience.

I dunno, this is Czech police approaching scammer on the phone, not sure why they need to throw even scammer on the ground. I would not consider this mild annoyance or humorous anecdote if pigs threw me on the ground.

Video in article - the white hoodie boy is innocent https://www.novinky.cz/clanek/krimi-policiste-se-omylem-vrhl...

Post reply on HN