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

New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

newbedfordlight.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#41

Post by Walf »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #38
Walf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funniest response I've read to this type of reasoning went something like this: a family gathering; topic of privacy came up; boomer-type trotted out the "nothing to hide" line; younger relative asked them if they enjoy a particular type of sexual intercourse with their spouse; red faces and looks of horror; the asker reminded everyone that privacy is important and it doesn't mean one is doing anything wrong.

Isn’t the easy reply here that there is no expectation of privacy in public, unlike in one’s home? There are tens, or more likely hundreds of millions of cameras recording outside in the United States.

It's not that simple. If you were in public, going about your business, but someone followed you around perpetually, noting down everything you did, you should feel stalked and harassed. That is exactly what these machines are doing. Being in public means that you're not hiding any one part of your behaviour, but nor are you telling everyone where you've been and where you're going, etc.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#42

Post by edoceo »

newsomix9xl wrote: post #4
King-Aaron wrote: post #2

It was only about an hour ago I saw yet another mindless commentator on one of these threads saying "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about".

These risks were said to be theoretical what ifs? But headlines are showing that they are quite real problems. Who watches the watchers?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a question that is roughly 2000 years old. Still no good answer.

The journalists uncovering this are doing good and necessary work. We need more transparency. Perhaps every search needs to be tied to a specific case and then made public after some time period.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#43

Post by nancyminusone »

pudgywalsh wrote: post #20
lux-lux-lux wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a difference between the abuse potential of ‘a car’ and ‘a nationwide surveillance network that tracks your location any time you’re on a public road’

If she used a GPS tracker instead of an ALPR as alleged, would you be demanding they be outlawed? As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.

If you do this as an individual, this could get you anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony in some states. If you're a cop and do it, it counts as a 4th amendment search.

Neither "make the device" illegal, but they do make using them for the designed purpose illegal. In the same way owning a sawzall is legal, but using one to cut down all flock cameras in your town is illegal. As it stands, they're about $100 on Amazon with several options to choose from.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#44

Post by infinite_spin »

At this point I think it's necessary to notify anyone who has been tracked after a fixed number of days, unless a court order is used to extend that period. An officer using this for legitimate reasons should have few problems getting that court order. This would at least give people some amount of safety net from stalking by LE.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#45

Post by [deleted] »

pudgywalsh wrote: post #27
newsomix9xl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not attacking tools or people. This article and my statements aren't attacks. The article is an (alleged) fact, and mine are opinions. I didn't bring up New Bedford. I agree trust is good. I also believe Flock has implemented some auditing tool to flag frivolous searches which is why these cases are popping up. I am not against trust, but verifying those who we trust are trustworthy is important, I think.

I'm using it as a literary device and I think you're reading my post too literally. If we assume surveillance tools will be use inappropriately, that alone is not justification to do away with it. As with nearly all tools comes great responsibility. The same argument can be made for police carrying weapons. Some places like the UK deny the police weapons but have surveillance up the ass.

[deleted]

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#46

Post by [deleted] »

pudgywalsh wrote: post #20
lux-lux-lux wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a difference between the abuse potential of ‘a car’ and ‘a nationwide surveillance network that tracks your location any time you’re on a public road’

If she used a GPS tracker instead of an ALPR as alleged, would you be demanding they be outlawed? As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.

[deleted]

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#47

Post by threatofrain »

duxup wrote: post #40
pudgywalsh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never worked for a startup where the CEO demanded administrator rights to everything just because he's CEO?

Patrol officer isn’t the equivalent of a CEO.

I've built such software for bigger police departments. I listen to what the stakeholders want and balance them against users.

If the stakeholder wants a way to bypass this or that, then that's what's going to happen. Neither users nor stakeholders will want to be handcuffed in the name of public accountability. Nobody wants to be handcuffed, really.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#48

Post by skeeter2020 »

pudgywalsh wrote: post #24
duxup wrote: post #3

I don't understand why a regular patrol officer would / should even have access to something like this without some level of extra authorization. They're not detectives running an open investigation ... In this case this officer was searching numerous networks over and over again, that alone should trigger some metrics that raise the question "uh ... why?"

You never worked for a startup where the CEO demanded administrator rights to everything just because he's CEO?

patrol officer is more like a junior QA in your analogy

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#49

Post by jauer »

infinite_spin wrote: post #44

At this point I think it's necessary to notify anyone who has been tracked after a fixed number of days, unless a court order is used to extend that period. An officer using this for legitimate reasons should have few problems getting that court order. This would at least give people some amount of safety net from stalking by LE.

I think this or similar accountability measures is where we'll need to end up with this kind of technology. It's too useful for catching vehicle theft rings and similar kinds of highly disruptive criminal networks to abandon the technology entirely.

LOVEINT has been a thing for as long as electronic surveillance has existed. We fire and/or prosecute people for it. We didn't turn out back on those capabilities.

I'd like to see someone using systems not available to the general public to to look up info on people without a legitimate purpose be treated as a kind of aggravated stalking.

Government employees should be held to a higher standard because they are in a position of public trust, but TBH people at companies like Google, Meta, Verizon, Comcast abusing internal tools for this should be similarly held accountable because they have access to resources far beyond e.g. one hobbyist logging TPMS IDs on passing vehicles.

Re: New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

#50

Post by skeeter2020 »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #38
Walf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funniest response I've read to this type of reasoning went something like this: a family gathering; topic of privacy came up; boomer-type trotted out the "nothing to hide" line; younger relative asked them if they enjoy a particular type of sexual intercourse with their spouse; red faces and looks of horror; the asker reminded everyone that privacy is important and it doesn't mean one is doing anything wrong.

Isn’t the easy reply here that there is no expectation of privacy in public, unlike in one’s home? There are tens, or more likely hundreds of millions of cameras recording outside in the United States.

it's not about privacy in the moment, courts have already said flock is equivalent to warrantless tracking; it's more about privacy in all time-based aspects of your life: where you go, when you go there and the multitude of second order details you can easily infer from this.
Post reply on HN