51–60 of 80 posts
If the search was granted based on human checks for the reason given, they would not dare be flippant about this. Of course it would take more time, humans don't scale, etc. but that's kinda the point: invasive methods should be a last resort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
The reason is for audibility not prevention. Flock surfaced the officer whose not meeting quality expectations.
The reason should need to be approved. This would all be so laughably ridiculous if the consequences weren’t so serious.
Given the absurd commit messages I see, basically along the lines of “oops” “lmao” “wtf” I don’t see the issue.
Why do you think the comparison is relevant at all?
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?
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?
- The fourth amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 (evidence gained without adhering to the fourth amendment is inadmissible)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 1963 (conclusions drawn from unlawfully obtained evidence/illegal entry can be challenged or outright discarded)
- Franks v. Delaware, 1978 (the right to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement)
This cop is doing his part to get rid of flock
> 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'. lol wtf. Like, I get it, "haha quirky me", if it was a personal coding project or an informal setting, but not here!? I wouldn't believe if…
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…
If the solution to abuse is constant and careful oversight, that’s not a real solution. Any system will eventually be degraded, disbanded, or captured.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cops are not known for being well regulated individuals The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable I think you can trace both of these problems back to the police union.
>The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable Flock added the field as a requirement and logs it. It's up to the police/local government to reprimand abuse.
In this case the issue isn't 19k flock cameras, but an utter lack of repercussion for failure to justify usage. In the same way I'd be arrested and jailed if I breached/used 19K ring cameras that do not belong to me, this guy should be arrested and jailed for his misuse. Police unions are a major root cause of many issues in the USA.
Just one example: how is a journalist supposed to meet with a secret source if their locations at all times are logged?
Even if these databases are only ever searched investigating violations of laws, it’s trivial to find ways to twist that against political rivals, protesters and activists, ex girlfriends, journalists, and leakers.
Flock makes it easy to track people and where they go. For example, if you are going to a gun range, or going to a place to buy guns and ammo, Flock makes it easy to track that. This makes it easy to figure out who has weapons and allows the government to easily target them first. This would make it easy to create a digital database of known and suspected gun owners. This is something I'm sure all gun owners support.
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/dea-planned-moni...
https://www.libertynation.com/flock-cameras-vs-gun-shops-the...