Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police Have Used License Plate Readers at Least 14x to Stalk Romantic Interests

ij.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 114 posts

Re: Police Have Used License Plate Readers at Least 14x to Stalk Romantic Interests

#21

Post by danaw »

infecto wrote: post #14
virgil_disgr4ce wrote: post #10

Is there a framework—any framework, however hypothetical—that actually makes police accountable and subject to the laws they supposedly enforce?

I have always gravitated towards a market model. Force police, like doctors, to have malpractice insurance. Let for-profit insurance companies model what that risk looks like. Now cities have to make a financial decision when hiring cops that is directionally accurate to the risk of said cop. Imperfect but I don’t believe perfect systems exist. But this goes back to government agencies never thinking about budgets. M…

yeah market models are working so great everywhere else...

Re: Police Have Used License Plate Readers at Least 14x to Stalk Romantic Interests

#22

Post by jasonlotito »

busterarm wrote: post #9
loteck wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data set IJ is providing here is situations where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted. Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public.

> Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public. "could" is doing a lot of work here... > where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted. No, that's not what IJ said. From the article: "Nearly all of these officers were criminally charged and lost their jobs, either by resigning or getting fired." So not all 14 of these were "reported/suspected…

For those following along, this was the original comment:

> Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public. > "could" is doing a lot of work here...

I'd be careful replying to someone commenting and editing with such large diffs without calling it out. Fairly deceptive.

Re: Police Have Used License Plate Readers at Least 14x to Stalk Romantic Interests

#23

Post by assimpleaspossi »

goolz wrote: post #16
hk1337 wrote: post #12

I wouldn't say I am a huge proponent of Flock, especially considering their lack luster security for the individual cameras at least in my area, but the title makes it sound like it's an institutional procedure that the department stalking their romantic interests instead of individual officers that need to be properly reprimanded.

Police abuse of power in the US is a systemic problem. Your opinion is akin to thinking the Catholic church bears no burden for all the diddling they neglected to observe.

Isn't that your opinion also?

Re: Police Have Used License Plate Readers at Least 14x to Stalk Romantic Interests

#24

Post by wahnfrieden »

tfrancisl wrote: post #7
loteck wrote: post #5

In my town, we have Flock. I request the audit logs that show how police are searching the Flock system. In November 2025 and prior, the logs were listed by USERID and I could independently correlate quantity of searches by USERID to detect unusual search behavior. This same methodology has been used to catch police stalking in at least one other city. In December 2025, Flock decided to "improve" its system. All sear…

I would guess the only way to make this data available long term is by regulation. Then again, I would hope Flock is subject to FOIA already if they are collaborating with state or local law enforcement...

YC CEO funded Flock and is involved in politics to remove police regulations

To quote him responding to criticism against Flock: "You're thinking Chinese surveillance. US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims."

Re: Police Have Used License Plate Readers at Least 14x to Stalk Romantic Interests

#25

Post by busterarm »

snickerbockers wrote: post #20
busterarm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Is there something about their dataset and/or methodology that you can identify as deficient that would indicate that the rate is much higher than what was published? I agree with the sentiment, but if you want anyone to do anything about it we need evidence and not vibes. I'm trying to help you make your case. So far the only comments in this thread are the most low-effort reactions that don't say anything subs…

LOVEINT.

This term was coined at the NSA where roughly 1 case is reported per year and overwhelmingly through self-reporting during polygraph exams.

That's quite different from this situation.

Re: Police Have Used License Plate Readers at Least 14x to Stalk Romantic Interests

#26

Post by stickfigure »

busterarm wrote: post #9
loteck wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data set IJ is providing here is situations where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted. Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public.

> Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public. "could" is doing a lot of work here... > where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted. No, that's not what IJ said. From the article: "Nearly all of these officers were criminally charged and lost their jobs, either by resigning or getting fired." So not all 14 of these were "reported/suspected…

You're asking us to believe that, absent evidence to the contrary, 100% of stalking cases were publicized enough to make this list.

Your Bayesian priors desperately need an update.

Re: Police Have Used License Plate Readers at Least 14x to Stalk Romantic Interests

#27

Post by busterarm »

jasonlotito wrote: post #18
busterarm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Is there something about their dataset and/or methodology that you can identify as deficient that would indicate that the rate is much higher than what was published? I agree with the sentiment, but if you want anyone to do anything about it we need evidence and not vibes. I'm trying to help you make your case. So far the only comments in this thread are the most low-effort reactions that don't say anything subs…

> Why? FTA: The 14 cases listed below are almost certainly an undercount. I feel that supports the original comment, considering it's all subjective. Now, you are going to be tempted to start arguing that "almost certainly an undercount" doesn't support the original comment. But remember, it's subjective, and any reasonable person reading that comment and the article could see how "at least" could be seen as doing a…

"almost certainly an undercount." isn't the same thing as "prevalent", which was the accusation by the comment I was responding to.

Re: Police Have Used License Plate Readers at Least 14x to Stalk Romantic Interests

#28

Post by fitblipper »

busterarm wrote: post #9
loteck wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data set IJ is providing here is situations where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted. Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public.

> Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public. "could" is doing a lot of work here... > where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted. No, that's not what IJ said. From the article: "Nearly all of these officers were criminally charged and lost their jobs, either by resigning or getting fired." So not all 14 of these were "reported/suspected…

I don't think "could" is doing a lot of work here at all. It seems logical that if cases where the misuse of flock systems were discovered only when the same officers misbehaved in other, more visible situations then there are officers that avoid the more visible situations and continue to use the system that does not expose their bad behavior (flock).

Re: Police Have Used License Plate Readers at Least 14x to Stalk Romantic Interests

#30

Post by infecto »

danaw wrote: post #21
infecto wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always gravitated towards a market model. Force police, like doctors, to have malpractice insurance. Let for-profit insurance companies model what that risk looks like. Now cities have to make a financial decision when hiring cops that is directionally accurate to the risk of said cop. Imperfect but I don’t believe perfect systems exist. But this goes back to government agencies never thinking about budgets. M…

yeah market models are working so great everywhere else...

Instead of being hyperbolic why don’t you share your idea then?

Markets are not perfect but on average they do a decent job of finding equilibrium.

“Democracy is the worst form of government—except for all the others that have been tried.”

Post reply on HN