41–50 of 80 posts
This is something I'm sure all gun owners support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in a field where privacy of customer information is protected by law and we all take this very seriously. So, no, I would not do this, and I think that police (who have vastly much more power over people's lives than I do) should not either.
That's great. Now put yourself in the same situation the cops are working with and not your arbitrarily applied restrictions. The cops clearly do not have these restrictions, so why are you applying something artificial like this?
It's a called integrity and morality. Clearly another thing cops and their sycophants don't have.
> July 2025, an officer with the Lake County, Indiana, Sheriff's Department Do they not know the name of this officer, or are they not reporting it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>Flock designed their software so that the police have to state a reason. And yet none of this stopped an individual from first accessing 19,000 cameras across 1558 cities with "LMAO" as the reason. The damage is already done and it could have been prevented.
Would you have not? Don't lie.
We're supposed to hold police officers to a much higher standard. Whether I would or not is irrelevant.
Any large enough population will also include people failing at doing the-right-thing™ (when such a thing could at least reach some societal consensus) at least sometimes in their life. Expecting anything else is dooming the standard at the lowest possible floor level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
They also designed some amazing validation for that audit software: >Data reviewed by the EFF included searches labelled 'LMAO', 'LOL', 'Hehe', 'Haha', 'idk' and 'blah'. Other entries included 'asdfg' and strings of apparently random keyboard characters. In one case, an officer entered: 'robbery I don't remember the case number leave me alone'. Seems like they really put a lot of thought into preventing abuse >Networ…
Given the absurd commit messages I see, basically along the lines of “oops” “lmao” “wtf” I don’t see the issue.
This cop is doing his part to get rid of flock
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, I've actually implemented a system like this for my work. It's completely non-shocking to me that a unchecked and unvalided "reason" field ends up with nothing but garbage in it to get past the software checks. My 3 "words" requirement because managers wanted more than just "caus" ended up with workers simply putting in "a o k". These systems need more validation and teeth than simply letting the officers enter w…
The reason field is not to gate the search feature. It's for accountability. This officer should be reprimanded.