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

81–90 of 250 posts

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

#81

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

kittoes wrote: post #55
M3L0NM4N wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For successful policing*. Which everyone should be for. edit: Every single thing you guys have replied with are policy/law debates, not enforcement debates. I disagree with many laws on the books today. I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.

Virtually everyone is, including those who oversimplify and go too far with words like "abolish". The problem we have right now is that "successful policing" is currently defined in such a way that there's almost zero accountability for those who enforce the law.

With the so-called justice system the US has got -- which is a mixture of inane proceduralism with senseless brutality -- I'm very much not for "successful policing." I would be, as I think that every person in the abstract would be, if there were comprehensive justice reform and tort reform.

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

#82

Post by bigyabai »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #25
VariousPrograms wrote: post #13

The inaccuracy of our omniscient AI surveillance network isn't why I'm against it. The conclusion of this article is that we need more humans in the loop for a successful police state.

For successful policing*. Which everyone should be for. edit: Every single thing you guys have replied with are policy/law debates, not enforcement debates. I disagree with many laws on the books today. I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.

> I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.

Flock does not force cops to be less arbitrary/selective any more than bodycams do.

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

#84

Post by MrToadMan »

Also worth watching John Oliver’s segment on this topic on Last Week Tonight (https://youtube.com/shorts/BAEjOAe948k?si=Lfkw6prZxHk2R-I2)

Includes an example of a Flock camera flagging a number plate that the police pulled over, a family car SUV believing it to be stolen, but the stolen vehicle was actually a motorcycle with the same plate number but a different state!

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

#85

Post by fluidcruft »

cdrnsf wrote: post #75
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?

Likely never again with this Supreme Court.

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

#86

Post by EGreg »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #66
EGreg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or else! “Sir, we are coming by today because we are concerned you are insufficiently supportive of our public servants in uniform. It has come to our attention that you have been disparaging some members of our law enforcement divisions to groups as large as 100 people! This is part of our new thought policing initiatives, we need everyone to support our policing efforts!” “Yes, I work for Flock Online. We only inde…

This is not an issue with bad policing, but bad policy.

The policy is: Everyone should be for successful policing.

We just want the enforcement of this policy to be maximally successful! What’s wrong with that :-)

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

#87

Post by M3L0NM4N »

petscoop wrote: post #48
M3L0NM4N wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For successful policing*. Which everyone should be for. edit: Every single thing you guys have replied with are policy/law debates, not enforcement debates. I disagree with many laws on the books today. I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.

Why should I be in favor of 100% successful policing? I don't accept the premise that all de facto law should be in line with de jure law. That sort of society is unprecedented

Maybe there should be less de jure law then...

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

#88

Post by platinumrad »

Razengan wrote: post #31

The real irony is how Americans still claim to be much better off than outright authoritarian states like China.

We're speedrunning all of the worst parts of China, except privatized and we're not even going to get some nice trains or cheap housing out of it.

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

#89

Post by kittoes »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #81
kittoes wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtually everyone is, including those who oversimplify and go too far with words like "abolish". The problem we have right now is that "successful policing" is currently defined in such a way that there's almost zero accountability for those who enforce the law.

With the so-called justice system the US has got -- which is a mixture of inane proceduralism with senseless brutality -- I'm very much not for "successful policing." I would be, as I think that every person in the abstract would be, if there were comprehensive justice reform and tort reform.

Yeah, so you fit in exactly the category I described. Assuming a better system then almost no one would argue against it, but our system is so tragically flawed that many conclude we don't need a justice system at all.

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

#90

Post by c22 »

bad_haircut72 wrote: post #34
Someone1234 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason why so called "Swatting" is largely a non-issue outside the US: Police in the US are trained to respond to the hilt by default, and then lower their heavy-handed response later if they warrant it. Contrast that with most other countries, where police are trained to respond and only escalate based on the findings/as the situation unfolds. This training is supposedly for "officer safety." But being a police…

Devils advocate here but your argument is that they should change their safety policy because the job has great safety statistics? What if they change tactics and danger goes up?

This would probably be both expected and preferable. The way they currently act often puts the public at huge risk in exchange for officer safety. Given the police are trained professionals who chose their own occupation any added risk should fall on them.
Post reply on HN