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

Post by jjav » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 8:15 AM UTC

lukan wrote: post #96

shimman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No this is bad logic. Flock is absolutely responsible and they should not be releasing or selling products that are this poorly made. Saying that the responsibility is only on the user is extremely myopic. It's also dismissing the role Flock has in how they make and design their software. If they can't handle this maybe they should be disbanded as a company or nationalized for better public control.

"Flock is absolutely responsible and they should not be releasing or selling products that are this poorly made." I am not a fan of flock, nor police surveillance state, but what could they have done better here? "Milwaukee police later admitted the alert should have been cleared out of the system days earlier, but an employee simply forgot to remove it. " The system seemed to work as intended - that numberplate was…

Post by kittoes » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 2:03 PM UTC

genewitch wrote: post #231

kittoes wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by _DeadFred_ » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

fluidcruft wrote: post #239

shimman wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by shimman » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

fluidcruft wrote: post #239

shimman wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.