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

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

guessingheadlights.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 249 posts

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

#71

Post by Barbing »

skinfaxi wrote: post #47
consumer451 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am currently in the countryside, outside of the USA. I speak to folks about the USA sometimes, and guns come up. We are known for that. They think they want them. I get it... they do sound cool. I try to explain that in the USA, the ratio of guns to people is far above 1:1. Therefore, if I was a police officer approaching any car, I would assume that the driver had a gun. That reality increases the chances of bad t…

> "Do you really want every speeding pull-over to become a wild-west situation? Maybe your kids are in the car!" Why would every speeding pull-over become a wild-west situation? If possessing a gun is a right, then mere possession is no reason to suspect criminality is afoot.

What if you assume 1 in 100 are going to be dangerous? Only rarely does the driver say “I’m not going back to jail!“ when they have warrants out.

If you inspect rollercoasters I figure you could probably be pretty lackadaisical on the average inspection. If you don’t take each one deadly seriously though and there’s no way of knowing when it’s important to, maybe it comes flying off the track, so you follow your checklist each and every time without exception.

(So glad I’m not employed to or in a position where I need to own weapons.)

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

#72

Post by throw0101d »

consumer451 wrote: post #36
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

I am currently in the countryside, outside of the USA. I speak to folks about the USA sometimes, and guns come up. We are known for that. They think they want them. I get it... they do sound cool. I try to explain that in the USA, the ratio of guns to people is far above 1:1. Therefore, if I was a police officer approaching any car, I would assume that the driver had a gun. That reality increases the chances of bad t…

> I try to explain that in the USA, the ratio of guns to people is far above 1:1. Therefore, if I was a police officer approaching any car, I would assume that the driver had a gun.

Except that majority of households (58%) do not have a firearm:

* https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts...

and when it comes to individuals, it is the majority (70%) that do not own one. The numbers are 'skewed' by a few individuals that own a lot of them. Statistically you'd be more correct to assume the person in the car does not have one (unless, perhaps, they're a white guy):

* https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-dem...

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

#73

Post by micromacrofoot »

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've given a bunch of people hammers and impunity for using the hammers and ask why they keep hitting people with them.

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

#75

Post by cdrnsf »

Animats wrote: post #19

That's not a Flock error. That's a law enforcement error. Flock isn't responsible for a bogus warrant in the system. The woman probably has a good case for damages from the police department for doing it twice. That's sloppy police work.

How often are police actually held accountable for anything?

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

#76

Post by andybak »

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.

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

#77

Post by giantg2 »

consumer451 wrote: post #36
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

I am currently in the countryside, outside of the USA. I speak to folks about the USA sometimes, and guns come up. We are known for that. They think they want them. I get it... they do sound cool. I try to explain that in the USA, the ratio of guns to people is far above 1:1. Therefore, if I was a police officer approaching any car, I would assume that the driver had a gun. That reality increases the chances of bad t…

"Do you really want every speeding pull-over to become a wild-west situation? Maybe your kids are in the car!"

That sort of thing depends on what is "normal". Many states in the US could have around 10% of the population carrying a firearm. Armed interactions with the police are common and the vast majority are a non-issue. The typical police response to "I have a license to carry and a firearm in the vechicle" is typically "Where is it? Just don't touch it". Happens all the time.

Now, is there a statistical difference? Maybe. It's hard to say because you would need to apply the same policing culture, legal system, and population dynamics to a lesser armed country. I don't know of any good choices for that combination.

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

#78

Post by sophacles »

RajT88 wrote: post #20
joshstrange wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If cops were successfully using this technology they'd be beating that drum loud and proud at all hours. See also anti-terrorism efforts. "Supporters" will argue they keep quiet about their successes for opsec-type reasons or to hide their methods. But we are perfectly happy to publicise blowing fishing boats out of the water so I don't believe that for a second. These people can't help but brag. No, these cameras…

I used to know some govvies who were FBI analysts. There are more foiled terrorism plots than get reported for sure. That is the word at least at the FBI as of maybe 15 years ago.

Equally likely is that your friends were trying to make themselves sound more important and made unverifiable statements and let your existing trust relationship do the lifting.

That kid in middle school didn't have a girlfriend in Canada, and the FBI (documented on multiple occasions to have fabricated and entrapped people into "terror plots") didn't quietly stop a ton of terrorist plots.

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

#79

Post by M3L0NM4N »

pkul wrote: post #65
nemomarx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should they? There's lots of things that are currently crimes that I don't believe should be crimes, so I have no reason to support policing in at least those cases.

Yeah imagine a purely efficient state that actively enforced all written laws. We would need to rescind a lot of them.

Yes, this sounds amazing. Enforce all the laws and rescind the bad ones! There are tons!

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

#80

Post by kittoes »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #49
quietsegfault wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s so dangerous, perhaps we should find a way to better control the danger of firearms.

Yes, firearms themselves present a clear and present danger by themselves. I'm sure once you make laws to control them, the firearms learn to stop being dangerous.

Why does this always have to be binary when any amount of gun control is suggested? It's simple math: if me didn't manufacture so many guns and didn't make them so readily available then there will inherently be less danger... this isn't even debatable!
Post reply on HN