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

DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired

ajc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired

#31

Post by lovich »

jareklupinski wrote: post #24
themaninthedark wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This news and the timing of it seems like it is trying to elicit your response. Flock has been getting a lot of bad press recently. The first batch of firing that happened in GA was not because of Flock safeguards, it was because an internal auditor said let's look at your new system. If they cared about privacy, they would have had such a system in place not something that is just being rolled out. Second, these peo…

i always hoped the "buddy" would be the lever that goes "no, that's crossing the line between friendship and ethics, please rethink your request" something an artificial buddy will happily do anyway when you promise that your grandmother is on the line

> i always hoped the "buddy" would be the lever that goes "no, that's crossing the line between friendship and ethics, please rethink your request"

What percent of law enforcement agents do you think would meet that bar?

Re: DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired

#32

Post by FireBeyond »

roncesvalles wrote: post #6

In a way, new companies like Flock entering such domains are a boon because they probably maintain tight audit logs and alerting mechanisms. Traditional look-up software is probably being misused by cops all the time (à la the old noir trope of a PI having "a buddy in the department" who can look up anything for him).

No.

My father worked as what would be (roughly) equivalent to the US Marshal service in Australia.

One day in 2001 one of his coworkers was fired because he saw what he thought was a cute girl in a newspaper article who had won a car in a lottery, and her new license plate was visible. He looked her up.

He didn't interact with her, communicate with her, drive by her home, call her. He looked her up out of sheer bored curiosity, and within 2 months, auditing of the warrants he was working couldn't find a correlation as to why he'd queried this license plate, and he was asked to explain, and couldn't.

Please don't conflate Flock with responsible use of technology. The CEO is on record as saying he says a false positive is better than a false negative. And Flock itself won't turn off data sharing options that are illegal in a state to an agency of that state. They'll happily give training on how to use that data sharing to that agency. They've stated that it's not their policy to tell agencies how to abide by data sharing laws.

Re: DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired

#33

Post by defrost »

lovich wrote: post #31
jareklupinski wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i always hoped the "buddy" would be the lever that goes "no, that's crossing the line between friendship and ethics, please rethink your request" something an artificial buddy will happily do anyway when you promise that your grandmother is on the line

> i always hoped the "buddy" would be the lever that goes "no, that's crossing the line between friendship and ethics, please rethink your request" What percent of law enforcement agents do you think would meet that bar?

It's going to vary by country, state, and "culture".

Here, in my locale, honest LEOs that that have strict ethics run at about 80%.

Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.

Re: DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired

#34

Post by lovich »

defrost wrote: post #33
lovich wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i always hoped the "buddy" would be the lever that goes "no, that's crossing the line between friendship and ethics, please rethink your request" What percent of law enforcement agents do you think would meet that bar?

It's going to vary by country, state, and "culture". Here, in my locale, honest LEOs that that have strict ethics run at about 80%. Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.

Is that locale in the United States as I assumed based on the conversation being around flock cameras?

If it is, and you are assuming 80% strict ethics then I have a PBA card from my grandfather to pull out to show you how incorrect that is on a statutory basis.

Also your second paragraph

> Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.

How can you assume they have strict ethics but also understand that they change their ethical stance depending on who they are dealing with. That’s not strict ethics by any definition.

Re: DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired

#35

Post by defrost »

lovich wrote: post #34
defrost wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to vary by country, state, and "culture". Here, in my locale, honest LEOs that that have strict ethics run at about 80%. Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.

Is that locale in the United States as I assumed based on the conversation being around flock cameras? If it is, and you are assuming 80% strict ethics then I have a PBA card from my grandfather to pull out to show you how incorrect that is on a statutory basis. Also your second paragraph > Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourt…

No, and Venn diagrams.

How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%?

Also, Philippine Basketball Association membership carries no weight here.

Re: DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired

#36

Post by lovich »

defrost wrote: post #35
lovich wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that locale in the United States as I assumed based on the conversation being around flock cameras? If it is, and you are assuming 80% strict ethics then I have a PBA card from my grandfather to pull out to show you how incorrect that is on a statutory basis. Also your second paragraph > Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourt…

No, and Venn diagrams. How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%? Also, Philippine Basketball Association membership carries no weight here.

PBA = Police Benevolent Association

> How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%?

Is that a real question? Having strict ethics is a higher bar than variable ethics. How can you assume that more LEO’s are strictly ethical than varying their ethics when you literally brought up

> Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.

You literally said “…strictly ethical about varies…” you are being inconsistent with terminology if you are trying to claim strict ethics can vary

If you need

Strict[1] Variable[2]

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strict

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/variable

Re: DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired

#37

Post by defrost »

lovich wrote: post #36
defrost wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, and Venn diagrams. How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%? Also, Philippine Basketball Association membership carries no weight here.

PBA = Police Benevolent Association > How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%? Is that a real question? Having strict ethics is a higher bar than variable ethics. How can you assume that more LEO’s are strictly ethical than varying their ethics when you literally brought up > Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions…

You seemed determined to get messy rather than legitimately discuss where we are not seeing eye to eye.

Yes, definitions matter. Yes, I do see difficulties in two strangers discussing this.

Yes, the behaviour of LEOs changes depending on who they interact with and yes they can be oblivious to that change.

When I say that most of our state LEO's have strict adherence to the code of ethics, I mean that. When I say those in the grey area still consider themselves to have strict adherence, I also mean that.

Part of the mess lands with where they see themselves in the state and who they see as those they serve and those that they protect others against.

Maybe get a life and stop idly throwing about dictionary definitions? Particularly one that's a fork of English.

Re: DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired

#38

Post by jagged-chisel »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #7
BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like that should be considered acceptable Not if they're married and their spouse also drives the vehicle.

Ethics aside, I don’t think there’s a legal issue with obtaining data on one’s spouse.

Replying to myself to address responses.

I didn’t express an opinion about whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea. All of you have had an immediate emotional reaction to the idea that there’s no legal “right to privacy” from your spouse. The legal question and the ethical questions (should you be aware at all time what your spouse is up to? should you dig around in their personal journal or phone to learn thing?) are separate.

Should you invade your spouse’s privacy? No. And if you’re constantly paranoid enough to be doing that, you likely have issues that are negatively affecting the relationship.

There’s not even proper protection of your privacy from strangers and companies, let alone such from a spouse.

Should there be? Of course.

The arguments against this behavior don’t even need to include spousal considerations. It shouldn’t happen, period. When it happens, it should be punished, period. But when it’s punished, “oh, it’s just my wife” isn’t a defense - not because spouses should have privacy protections, but because the system was abused.

Re: DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired

#39

Post by trogdor »

jwsteigerwalt wrote: post #27

If you want a bit of irony, look up the Flock CEO’s home address (not terribly difficult). You will see it’s blurred out on Google Maps Street View

Anyone can request their residence be blurred on Street View. I did it myself about six years ago.

Re: DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired

#40

Post by therealpygon »

I’d have a lot less heartburn with these types of systems if the system prevented mass data exfiltration by organizations (so they can’t simply retain the non-evidence themselves), and limited ALL non-anonymized data retention to the prior 30 days unless there is a signed court order. To me, that is a perfectly reasonable compromise between safety and privacy. No articulated suspicion to a judge means your data evaporates after 30 days.
Post reply on HN