Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search • Hacker News Board

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#211

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 3:30 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #162

segmondy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone that is innocent is going to get killed soon because flock flagged them incorrectly. I recall reading the auto journalist that got flagged for a stolen car while test driving a car. We have seen how often pull over/arrests can derail when a stupid cop that is aggressive pulls out their weapon first, fires fast and then investigates last. An innocent person that reacts wrongly is eventually going to make the n…

> We have seen how often pull over/arrests can derail when a stupid cop that is aggressive pulls out their weapon first I'll bite. I'm sure it has happened. But how often?

Well, I'll bite. How often would it need to happen for you to find it outrageous?

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#212

Post by bluegatty » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 10:42 PM UTC

queenkjuul wrote: post #197

bluegatty wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there's nothing specific or inherent about Flock that is specifically helping cops bad bad. This is not like something that helps them cover their tracks, or hide behind some tool. I don't like Flock, but it's the 'surveillance state' part of it that is bad. In terms of 'cops being bad cops' - that's a separate thing. Also - Flock for sure should not be allowed to be used in this kind of speculative kind of thing…

So "this kind of speculative thing" isn't cops being bad cops? What about when they stalk and pull over women they're infatuated with? That's not being a bad cop? You know they do that, right? This literally does help them hide behind some tool. They can get away with all sorts of rights violations by the nature of "we didn't collect the data, we bought it" in the first place.

Yes, I litereally indicated they should not be able to use the tool that way.

Just like cops should not be able to ram their cars into people , or pepper spray peole in the face just because someone refused to show their id?

Like - you people have any sense at all of the difference between laws, policy, training, tools, rules of engagement etc?

Some tools are more amenable to abuse than others.

Some tools are far more dangerous (guns) than others.

Some tools are more easily abused without repercussion.

Some tools (Flock) can have audit trails aka information access - and also therefore limitations - like 'warrant' and 'court order', and 'access history' etc..

The moment the system has access registry, and the law says 'can only be used for such and such' - then defense lawyers can request access to logs to show unlawful access.

That's a great feature, and it will aboslutely curb lazy or bad cops from doing bad things.

That doesn't mean flock is good or bad, it's characterizing.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#213

Post by preg_match » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 1:37 AM UTC

bko wrote: post #88

preg_match wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone agrees. Where the disagreement lies is if this is how the technology is actually used, and the answer seems to be: no. Regardless, even if the technology was used currently purely for good, when you’re “pro surveillance” you’re actually arguing it will always be used for good, even in some hypothetical future with hypothetical politics. That’s a very hard sell.

I'm pro technology. Being pro something does not mean I'm arguing it will always be used for good. What kind of standard is that?

I'm pro technology too, but being pro surveillance is orthogonal to being pro technology. Surveillance is an application of technology, not technology itself. It's the difference between being pro-science and being pro-dropping-the-atomic-bomb. The atomic bomb suffers the same problem, too. It only works if used for "good", which... I mean, let's be real.

People don't appreciate the actual argument against surveillance. It's not that it's bad, or evil. It's that it's fundamentally infrastructure which will be used against innocent people.

We have seen surveillance employed to the maximum degree in every totalitarian society which has ever existed. If we're going based purely off the track record, it doesn't look good. Ultimately it's all risk analysis.

Is preventing, like, a car theft or something worth the risk of Nazi Germany x10? Probably not I'd say. And you might say, well, that's hyperbolic. But given a long enough timescale, I don't think it is. I mean, imagine how many more Jews could have been killed had Hitler had access to Flock. And yes, Hitler was an anomaly. But anomalies happen if you wait long enough. We'd have to be foolish to think there won't be a second Hitler. Not that we even need one - we're already seeing citizens crushed under the surveillance apparatus in the US. Today. Right now. With our "just a little bit" authoritarian government.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#214

Post by dataflow » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 4:07 AM UTC

rglover wrote: post #201

dataflow wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The pretext is that his travel to another state was assumed to be to buy weed. [...] > Unless they have direct evidence [...] it's a pre-crime judgment. But how does it being pre-crime judgment etc. imply it is a pretext too? Just look up the definition: - A pretext is "a false reason given to hide the real motivation behind an action." [1] - A pretextual stop is "pull(ing) people over for minor rule violations [..…

As far as I understand, the real motivation was to catch him for a warrant but using the presumption (false until proven with evidence beyond his car traveling between states) of him buying weed and transporting it across state lines as their pretext.

Are you saying they already had a warrant for his arrest but needed an excuse other than a warrant to pull him over? That makes... no sense? Or are you saying they wanted to catch him and then use whatever they found as a warrant to search him, in which case... where does it say that, and why are you saying they would have wanted to do that if the weed itself wasn't the reason? Or are you saying something else entirely? I'm not seeing anything indicating such in the article...