Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by aftbit » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:27 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #32

nemomarx wrote: post #9

Why did they need to have guns drawn and that many cops, even if the flag had been correct? A car involved in a homicide investigation doesn't mean it's even being driven by the suspect. It's not a positive ID at all

We don't the details of the flag. In general cops err on the side of protecting themselves from danger and I can't fault them for that. How would you approach a car whose driver is suspected of homicide? Obviously someone made a mistake here but I'm not sure this has anything to do with Flock. The car had an "APB" out. We want cops to pull over "wanted" cars, right?

If I were going to approach a vehicle whose driver was suspected of homicide, I would do so in a very obvious, slow, and non-threatening manner, probably without obviously being a cop. The last thing I would want to do if someone is potentially a hair trigger threat is give them a surprise and cause them to start shooting.

Police could solve a ton of these issues if they investigated before they tried to apprehend. If we're going to live in a surveillance state, use the damn surveillance for situational awareness. Right now, the cops just get a hit like "APB - Homicide" with no retrospective analysis or attempt to verify. It's essentially an unverified tip - they should use some expertise and tools to try to validate it before they commit.

But they don't, because there's no cost or penalty to them for overreacting, and there's a risk if they underreact. It's really an incentives problem. I don't know if the right spot to address it is with the individual officers or the department, but someone should have some huge liability for this mistake.

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

#122

Post by lux-lux-lux » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:27 PM UTC

bad_haircut72 wrote: post #34

Someone1234 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason why so called "Swatting" is largely a non-issue outside the US: Police in the US are trained to respond to the hilt by default, and then lower their heavy-handed response later if they warrant it. Contrast that with most other countries, where police are trained to respond and only escalate based on the findings/as the situation unfolds. This training is supposedly for "officer safety." But being a police…

Devils advocate here but your argument is that they should change their safety policy because the job has great safety statistics? What if they change tactics and danger goes up?

Then that danger is going to have to be balanced against the reduced danger to the general public

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

#123

Post by M3L0NM4N » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:27 PM UTC

nemomarx wrote: post #70

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer less people die, actually.

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.

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

#124

Post by convolvatron » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:27 PM UTC

Xirdus wrote: post #102

jvanderbot wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. A perfect surveillance state is still wrong by design. If you dont accept this, consider the perfect surveillance state under president N, used by president N+1 given the inevitable flipflop in party control.

Unfortunately, the Trump presidency has conclusively proved the "imagine if your opponent was in power" argument doesn't work. Everybody says Trump should be impeached, nobody says the office of the president should be deprived of the powers Trump used to do the things he should be impeached for.

that's strictly not true. at least one person doesn't believe in absolute presidential power. a lot of us believe that the president should really be an administrative head, and very limited ability to effect policy directly at all.

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

#125

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:27 PM UTC

Barbing wrote: post #107

skullone wrote: post #41

Add the flock CEOs license plate to the system, lets see how he likes it

He’d love a chance to have a reason to start marketing bodycams on sticks you strap over and above your back. He gets pulled over, links the cops to his timestamped cloud-attested footage from his 24/7 third-person view cam proving his innocence, and drives to the office to promote how constantly recording everyone including ourselves just makes everything safer.

There are probably thousands of easily searchable videos showing police lying about circumstances and facing no consequence. The CEO of Flock does not need to convince people to record things for proof of their point of view, the judicial system provides plenty of motivation.

There are also plenty of videos of drivers scamming others by cutting in front of them and suddenly stopping. All the way up to organized crime. Obviously, you are going to want to spend a couple hundred dollars on cameras and memory cards to prevent yourself from being a victim.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/20/the-car-crash-...

Another common one is for dog owners to be able to prove someone else’s dog attacked theirs, so there might be a chance of recouping veterinary costs.

Finally, I don’t see why all daycares should not have cameras. As a parent, I want to know that the employees handling my kids are being monitored, at least by management, if not the parents. The kids cannot speak up for themselves, why would we not want to ensure there is proof of abuse or neglect if it happened?

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

#126

Post by WillAdams » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:28 PM UTC

petscoop wrote: post #48

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For successful policing*. Which everyone should be for. edit: Every single thing you guys have replied with are policy/law debates, not enforcement debates. I disagree with many laws on the books today. I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.

Why should I be in favor of 100% successful policing? I don't accept the premise that all de facto law should be in line with de jure law. That sort of society is unprecedented

The one official statement I have ever seen on that was when a new Base Commander was being interviewed and was asked, "Will there be a quota on the number of speeding tickets issued by the Security Police on base?" and his response was, "Absolutely, and it will be 100% --- I expect all instances of speeding and other traffic violations which endanger public safety to caught and ticketed --- such disregard of regulations and safety is incompatible with the standards of the Air Force."

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

#127

Post by stickfigure » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:28 PM UTC

AlotOfReading wrote: post #108

stickfigure wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't the details of the flag. In general cops err on the side of protecting themselves from danger and I can't fault them for that. How would you approach a car whose driver is suspected of homicide? Obviously someone made a mistake here but I'm not sure this has anything to do with Flock. The car had an "APB" out. We want cops to pull over "wanted" cars, right?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If police treat every situation as a potentially dangerous engagement, they're actually actually increasing the likelihood that dangerous engagements occur.

I agree, but "this car was used in a homicide" is pretty unambiguously a high-risk stop.

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

#128

Post by NewJazz » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:28 PM UTC

paimapi wrote: post #104

andybak wrote: 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.

a significant portion of police training literally teaches them to fear your regular citizen. they're taught that anybody may be armed and they face the chance of death at every traffic stop and are shown dashcam footage of the worst incidents where this did happen without the probabilistic context see https://revealnews.org/podcast/what-cops-arent-learning/

To touch on the probabilities, they're probably more likely to die getting side swiped by a car, than getting shot by the person they're stopping.

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

#129

Post by Barbing » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:29 PM UTC

nemomarx wrote: post #53

Barbing wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and in the meantime, respond with all available resources? (pretending my parents, wife, children are police officers and posting from that perspective, but do not like taste of boot nor Flock - just thinking logical on the ground procedure accounting for broken larger system)

Try pretending your wife and children are in a car being pulled over for a drug inspection and think from that perspective. Or to have their papers checked to make sure they're not illegal aliens, whichever you prefer.

Great point, not fair for them to need a lifetime of therapy. So there’s a happy medium.

I don’t know why the first thing that comes to mind is calling in for backup and having a cop in a mascot costume get out, with body armor and a completely concealed weapon at the ready underneath. They cheerfully chat up the adult driver, say hi to the kid & give a sticker, and once they assess it’s safe they can move onto the next call while the uniformed officer comes to discuss the situation. Doesn’t help the adult much though I guess, we’d know about the concealed weapon. … btw maybe sending a drone or a robot actually came to mind first, but those solutions are uncomfortable - OK w/a million caveats maybe

(Instead of posting something so stupid I could’ve left it at I hope there’s a happy medium!)

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

#130

Post by actionfromafar » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:29 PM UTC

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #25

VariousPrograms wrote: post #13

The inaccuracy of our omniscient AI surveillance network isn't why I'm against it. The conclusion of this article is that we need more humans in the loop for a successful police state.

For successful policing*. Which everyone should be for. edit: Every single thing you guys have replied with are policy/law debates, not enforcement debates. I disagree with many laws on the books today. I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.

Perfekt enforcement never existed and our current laws were written for a reality where that was an impossibility. Not considering second order effects is reckless IMHO.