Rendered at 03:01:08 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
simonw 3 hours ago [-]
Abuse by police officers and other individuals with access to these systems is the answer to the stupid but common question "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide".
tptacek 2 hours ago [-]
I never hear that question from Flock supporters. The question I hear[†] is "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?". It's a much harder one to answer than the straw man questions we set up for these things.
(To be clear: I think the current generation of ALPRs is a policy failure and that major changes need to happen inside state law enforcement systems before they can be deployed successfully. But I also think people on HN have a real problem in convincing themselves about the obvious righteousness of their anti-surveillance arguments.)
[†] I heard arguments like these because I was deeply involved in getting the cameras disabled in the inner-ring Chicago suburb in which I live, getting the first ACLU CCOPS ordinance in Illinois passed there, and helping draft what are probably the most detailed ALPR police General Orders in any municipality, or at least were at the time. Which is a long and pretentious way of saying I spent a lot of time talking to people who are not Very Online.
AdieuToLogic 2 minutes ago [-]
>> Abuse by police officers and other individuals with access to these systems is the answer to the stupid but common question "why should I worry about surveillance if I have nothing to hide".
> I never hear that question from Flock supporters. The question I hear is "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?"
These are the same Constitutional question.
In order to determine what cars are stolen, all cars must be inspected. If all cars are inspected, there is a reasonable case that the 4th amendment is being violated:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[0]
> But I also think people on HN have a real problem in convincing themselves about the obvious righteousness of their anti-surveillance arguments.
To spare you the search of his comment history, my memory is that it's roughly: the stolen car databases have tons of cars listed that weren't actually stolen, or have already been recovered, so you end up pulling over a ton of unsuspecting people just driving around.
2 hours ago [-]
unclebucknasty 1 hours ago [-]
>The question I hear is "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?". It's a much harder one to answer than the straw man questions we set up for these things.
The "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?" question is just a more specific variant of GP's "nothing to hide" question. i.e., the only people asking it are those who aren't stealing cars, thus have "nothing to hide".
Overall, the "nothing to hide" question is probably the single most pervasive rationalization among those who accept surveillance in general.
Teever 1 hours ago [-]
I see you make frequent comments on this subject and as time goes on I’m starting to have a harder and harder time following them.
I’m starting to think that you’re having a conversation with yourself and your perception of people online, not actual people and the things that they’re saying.
veec_cas_tant 10 minutes ago [-]
Maybe for some, but I honestly don't find it very persuasive. The misuse of license plate data wouldn't make my top ten list of potential powers that law enforcement might abuse. Clearly, abuse of any kind of power should not be tolerated, but potential benefits must also be considered. I think the widespread deployment of cameras at businesses and homes provides strong evidence of their benefits. The idea that a crime happens outdoors and the proper course of action is for police to knock on 100 doors to collect grainy doorbell footage is pretty inefficient, to say the least.
rmnoflock 2 hours ago [-]
There's basically 3 ways to get a council to cancel a contract. 1) Persuade them to do it because it's the right thing for the community. This is best done in private. 2) Convince them that the legal liability out weighs the public benefit. This is best done in public. 3) Run for office.
If you have the energy you can do all 3 in parallel.
Flock cameras appear to be one of the few things that can get police officers fired.
xnx 3 hours ago [-]
Silver lining! The cameras are catching criminals.
shermantanktop 2 hours ago [-]
To paraphrase Homer: the cause of, and solution to, a problem! In this case police misconduct.
It does make me wonder whether electronic evidence of police behavior will materially impact actual behavior over time. But given that the normal reaction is to deny access to evidence, I doubt it.
The people who want to be police officers tend not to be the people everyone else would want to be police officers.
parineum 1 hours ago [-]
> The people who want to be police officers tend not to be the people everyone else would want to be police officers.
It's tiring for good people when everyone they interact with thinks they're the villain.
AtlasBarfed 17 minutes ago [-]
In modern American penal code you are ALL felons. EVERYONE. Ok, maybe the guy in a coma. Wait, there is probably some medical fraud statute that makes him a felon if he twitches a thumb.
Gotta make a statement with the low level grunts so the citizenry think these systems have accountability.
AtlasBarfed 15 minutes ago [-]
FOR NOW. People, police states are about two classes of people: the police, and you.
What is remarkable about this story is that something happened to them. Now were they prosecuted for any of a hundred laws they probably broke?
No.
SoftTalker 2 hours ago [-]
Not true, but also not widely reported. Cops are fired all the time for a wide variety of reasons.
topspin 2 hours ago [-]
Correct. They're also rapidly rehired in neighboring jurisdictions. Public sector unions aggressively protect officers ability to migrate to new jurisdictions despite being fired for cause. Typically they end up working at less prestigious operations, and the chronically-fired ones bounce around until they're in the sticks, working as a deputy in a small county.
All of these officers will have new jobs lined up by the end of the week.
parineum 1 hours ago [-]
You think unions shouldn't be looking out for their members?
It's not on the unions, it's on the people who hired the officers.
detaro 1 hours ago [-]
even if you purely want to frame it is that: is helping to convince large parts of the public that cops are above the law and can't be trusted by covering for the bad apples "looking out for their members"?
parineum 1 hours ago [-]
Yes.
3 hours ago [-]
lokar 3 hours ago [-]
Until they negotiate protections in their next contract.
tptacek 2 hours ago [-]
Whatever protections your area police have from these kinds of firings are a matter of public record. Have you FOIA'd your local department to see what they are? You might be surprised.
The real teeth behind these disciplinary events, at least in suburban/metro areas, are that departments don't want to lose the cameras, and know that they will if abuses aren't answered.
AngryData 2 hours ago [-]
It should result in jail time. If I got access to government surveillance program and started using it for personal reasons, I would likely be charged with terrorism.
philip1209 57 minutes ago [-]
I know there are lots of reasonable concerns about unauthorized access to private information.
This is somewhat solved problem in other areas, like banking and government. Not zero, but asymptotically low.
I think we need to criminalize misuse more clearly, preferably on a federal level. We need clear justifications for each use of data. And, we should require periodic audits by an independent third party - perhaps funded in the purchase contracts as a line item and held in reserve.
This doesn’t solve the problem of legal use - which could be contentious now or in the future. But, this technology isn’t going away and good legislation to control it makes sense.
Zhenya 1 hours ago [-]
Sounds like flock should be monitoring law enforcement more than civilians…
an0malous 1 hours ago [-]
We should put up Flock cameras in every police station and make the feeds public. If they’re not doing anything illegal, they should have nothing to hide.
madhacker 3 hours ago [-]
Flock is importing China's ubiquitous surveillance in America until every habitable space is captured
roumenguha 3 hours ago [-]
I get that this comment is meant to warn about the creeping government overreach and a curtailment of free speech, by comparing the US against a society where government surveillance is already commonplace.
I wonder if it does a disservice to readers to not make that same comparison against more similar countries instead (UK, Germany, Australia to name a few examples)?
2 hours ago [-]
tremon 3 hours ago [-]
It's not that useful to single out Flock for that purpose. Google Nest and Amazon Alexa are also in that category.
edoceo 3 hours ago [-]
Maybe Ring too?
CableNinja 59 minutes ago [-]
Most definitely ring. I used to park near one of their offices, for at least 3-5 months they had one of those podium pole camera systems, with a big ring logo on the side, and ring workers occasionally tinkering with it. You know, the kind you see in Home Depot lots.
tremon 3 hours ago [-]
Certainly! And probably a multitude of other devices and phone apps as well.
brikym 2 hours ago [-]
And digital billboards in every space will tell us what to think.
Can't wait for the two to pair up and the billboards to target whoever is seen in the nearest camera. Or are they already doing it?
FpUser 3 hours ago [-]
China is not responsible for your fuck-us, you own it
edoceo 3 hours ago [-]
No claim was made that China is responsible. Stay on point.
phoghed 57 minutes ago [-]
You’re right, it was just completely pointless China baiting.
timoxley 5 hours ago [-]
nobody saw this coming
austin-cheney 3 hours ago [-]
From reading the article it seems the problem was not surveillance in any form but unauthorized use of police systems. I am not seeing anything new here. For decades police can be investigated for any improper searches of license plates or personal IDs, which can result in criminal referrals.
sbuttgereit 54 minutes ago [-]
> For decades police can be investigated for any improper searches of license plates or personal IDs, which can result in criminal referrals.
And those same officers, even when it has been found they violated the rights of those they're sworn and paid to serve, are all too often shielded from the consequences of their actions and from their victims seeking recourse. Qualified immunity is legal doctrine which prevents victims from seeking justice in cases where there is no previous precedent for such an action being allowed. I would expect that license plate readers, mass-surveillance assisted by AI technologies, etc. are sufficiently novel that the case would have to make the U.S. supreme court to survive a motion to dismiss under qualified immunity.
So if you believe in there being legal consequences for police officers and other government officials violating the rights of the governed, I would hope to see in your next comments you standing with me and demanding the elimination of the "qualified immunity" doctrine which today goes along way to protect the guilty from the legal recourse sought by the victims of such officers. This is especially needed in those cases where the officers, bureaucracy, and politicians fail to "act true", as you might suggest that they can, to prevent injustices with these police systems.
For those curious about what "qualified immunity" is in the US, take a look at:
Out of curiosity, what are the non-surveillance uses for a license plate tracking service
jameslars 3 hours ago [-]
The estimated travel times displayed in major cities along highways are calculated by license plate sampling from what I understand
CableNinja 57 minutes ago [-]
I dont think thats everywhere. CA freeways have speed sensors every mile or two, and from that, along a given route you can estimate time
SoftTalker 2 hours ago [-]
That seems overly complicated when simple speed sensors would do the job.
voxic11 3 hours ago [-]
So you think that is the unauthorized use that the officers were fired for?
austin-cheney 3 hours ago [-]
This is called a strawman. The article was about misconduct, not technology.
phoghed 55 minutes ago [-]
It absolutely is not, and you’re not in a debate anyway.
bdangubic 39 minutes ago [-]
there is super easy solution here, anyone caught misusing the data goes to prison for life without ability for parole. mandatory sentence, no exception and no pardons.
jiveturkey 5 hours ago [-]
> weren’t authorized
this is easily solved with current technology, if they had an incentive to do so.
besides firing folks that get caught, flock themselves should be brought to court.
akerl_ 4 hours ago [-]
This feels like a weird comment on an article about how they monitored usage, identified misuse, and terminated the people involved.
There's surely plenty of entities that need better controls around usage of technology / records / etc, but this is an example of somebody having an incentive and then following through.
garbagewoman 2 hours ago [-]
its good PR for these systems that they are very keen to roll out, i would say theres a vested interest in stories like these from the exact agencies deploying them
If government entities get good PR for rolling out strong policies, practices, and tooling for the data they have, and that makes more of them very keen to do so... mission accomplished?
garbagewoman 23 minutes ago [-]
Thats a very idealistic and optimistic outlook
akerl_ 12 minutes ago [-]
Is it?
Cards on the table, I am an optimist. But this feels pretty realistic: it's basically a corollary to the idea that public outrage about bad policies, bad practices, or bad tooling is problematic for these government entities. They want to avoid it. There's plenty of examples of this, even honing to just the US. Increasingly there's even examples of this specifically in the US, for police departments, for usage of Flock.
paimapi 3 hours ago [-]
it's also possible that we're only seeing a few select departments fire their officers. there are no laws around this as far as I'm aware so enforcement is purely departmental policy. how many sheriff's offices and police departments do these audits and how many of them act on abuses?
you should need a warrant to monitor the products of mass surveillance and it should be as narrowly targeted towards a suspect as possible. or just not have any of the mass CCTV placements everywhere in the first place
akerl_ 3 hours ago [-]
I think we may be agreeing?
I'm in favor of pushing for police departments (and really any governmental body with access to any kind of data) to have regulations around access to that data, access controls to restrict illegitimate access, and monitoring to detect improper access by people who do have legitimate access but don't follow the proper regulations.
I think you're correct that we don't tend to see the instances where improper usage occurs, tautologically because those entities aren't doing their homework on the above.
lux-lux-lux 3 hours ago [-]
Systems should be built so abuse isn’t allowed in the first place, in addition to monitoring for compliance.
akerl_ 3 hours ago [-]
There always ends up being a real world to digital interface and it always has the potential for abuse, and thus always requires some level of monitoring and validation.
The department in this article appears to be doing just that:
> Every search run through the Flock Safety platform is automatically logged — who ran it, when, and the reason they gave for doing it. SPD said they also have other safeguards in place, including mandatory training, role-based access controls and supervisory oversight.
morkalork 3 hours ago [-]
Ah but you see flock doesn't own the data so they're not responsible for misuse of it and other such legal deflections.
angry_octet 6 hours ago [-]
...andd they are now working for ICE HSI for higher pay.
smallerize 5 hours ago [-]
"The names of the fired employees aren’t being released right now." Somehow even after being fired there is no accountability.
parineum 1 hours ago [-]
Re-read that last sentence.
phoghed 53 minutes ago [-]
I guess you mean the “right now”
Good move by them, wait until nobody is paying attention anymore and they’re on to the next gig.
Tostino 3 hours ago [-]
My town's covered with them already, without much warning in the local news, at least none I saw. And they're about to add 50% more all over the county. Planning on going to the zoning meeting Tuesday to speak against them. Also had a handful of yard signs printed up and put them at major intersections around town warning about the expansion, pointing people to the zoning meeting.
Very much not okay with this surveillance state bullshit.
quacked 3 hours ago [-]
I don't believe a legal solution is possible. We need a three-tiered response to Flock's surveillance state business strategy, depending on what level of meddling each citizen is comfortable with.
1. Protest via yard signs and awareness (what you're doing)
2. Impermanent vandalism. I like the idea of hanging copies of the fourth amendment over the lenses
3. Permanent vandalism. I think we need bounties on camera destruction and public legal funds to assist in defense, bail, etc.
The police as a class/caste are not interested in the fundamental principles that America was founded on. Individual officers may be interested in civil freedom and privacy but as an entity they only ever march in the direction of total surveillance and domination of the citizenry.
edot 3 hours ago [-]
Absolutely not. Horrible advice. You give the rest of us peaceful majority a bad name. Protest legally. Your post glows.
onoesworkacct 3 hours ago [-]
Who's more effective at protesting, USA or France?
And, which country routinely sets a bunch of shit on fire when they need to?
That's right.
quacked 2 hours ago [-]
In what possible way would the broader public destroying Flock cameras on sight and allying with one another to defend those caught doing it benefit intelligence agencies?
edoceo 2 hours ago [-]
America started with an illegal protest.
crooked-v 3 hours ago [-]
Genuinely effective protests are rarely entirely legal.
assimpleaspossi 2 hours ago [-]
You'll never gain traction with your post on social internet forums like this despite the reality and truth of it. You'll be downvoted to quiet and eliminate your opinion.
CircuitSeuss 3 hours ago [-]
I would encourage you to add arrows to your signs/ stickers pointing out the cameras. More impactful when people see (and are unconsensually recorded by) the device first hand.
Good work!
assimpleaspossi 2 hours ago [-]
Please compare the number of officers doing such a thing to the number who did not. Also compare it to the number of incidents where the cameras helped capture criminals and pursue other illegal activities.
I'm betting that the number of officers who used it this way compared to the value it provides is minute to almost nil.
It would be interesting to find the number of Meta employees or Google employees who do similar activities.
AdieuToLogic 2 hours ago [-]
> Please compare the number of officers doing such a thing to the number who did not.
Please compare the number of people who committed burglary at a location to the number who did not.
The act of violating laws has nothing to do with the number of those whom do not. Furthermore:
SPD’s administrative investigation determined the employees
violated department policies governing the authorized use
of law enforcement technology and departmental resources.
Investigators found that employees were running searches on
personal acquaintances and family members. One officer was
found to have given someone from an outside law enforcement
agency access to SPD’s Flock Safety system, which they
weren’t authorized to do.[0]
> Also compare it to the number of incidents where the cameras helped capture criminals and pursue other illegal activities.
Non sequitur and irrelevant to the abuse documented.
> I'm betting that the number of officers who used it this way compared to the value it provides is minute to almost nil.
This is a variant of the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" fallacy. Or a nihilistic perspective of "the ends justify the means."
> It would be interesting to find the number of Meta employees or Google employees who do similar activities.
Again, non sequitur, irrelevant, and an assertion which can only be interpreted as a quintessential strawman[1].
If the answer is more than 1, that is too much. Cops shouldn't have access to surveillance cameras or data at all.
kylecazar 1 hours ago [-]
Yep. Reminds me of Blackstone's ratio... It's not a simple cost-benefit situation, it's wrong on principle.
The challenge is to find ways to catch criminals without trampling all over individual rights. This isn't that solution. It's too readily abused.
assimpleaspossi 1 hours ago [-]
This isn't an answer to the question. Why do you (apparently) refuse to answer the question?
phoghed 47 minutes ago [-]
It would be more effective for you to answer the question yourself rather than copy/paste this across like 5 comments.
assimpleaspossi 1 hours ago [-]
This isn't an answer to the question. Why do you (apparently) refuse to answer the question?
AngryData 1 hours ago [-]
What question? I don't see any question marks.
assimpleaspossi 1 hours ago [-]
This is not an answer to the question.
kelnos 2 hours ago [-]
Meta and Google employees can't legally kill me or deprive me of my freedom. So they are completely irrelevant as a comparison.
assimpleaspossi 1 hours ago [-]
So you are refusing to answer the question?
hyperhopper 2 hours ago [-]
If you think the average Google employee has as much access to PII or sensitive information as a cop, you're deeply mistaken.
assimpleaspossi 2 hours ago [-]
If you think some Google employees doesn't have MORE access than a cop, you are WILDLY mistaken.
fragmede 10 minutes ago [-]
Do you have any, like, evidence or something? There are enough other past and current Google employees here that know just how much you can't just go into log files and databases to look at PII without filling out forms that will get you fired if you're snooping on your ex-girlfriend. People have been fired over this, at both Google and Meta.
AdieuToLogic 1 hours ago [-]
> If you think some Google employees doesn't have MORE access than a cop, you are WILDLY mistaken.
This is a conspiratorial position at best. If you can cite from a reputable source similar abuse attributed to those organizations, then do so. Otherwise, the position you are championing lacks both fact and reason.
Additionally, as others in this thread have made clear, both Google and Meta are not police departments authorized to inflict lethal force.
So there's that.
assimpleaspossi 60 minutes ago [-]
Please have everyone cite their sources and I will cite mine. So far no one has and no one ever does.
That Google and Meta employees are not law enforcement completely misses the point I'm making but I never expect people on liberal social media sites to see that
AdieuToLogic 46 minutes ago [-]
> Please have everyone cite their sources and I will cite mine.
I did not ask "everyone." I asked you to do so.
> That Google and Meta employees are not law enforcement completely misses the point I'm making but I never expect people on liberal social media sites to see that
You wrote, and I quote:
If you think some Google employees doesn't have MORE access
than a cop, you are WILDLY mistaken.
That you chose to invoke the trope "people on liberal social media sites" speaks not to a sound position so much as an intrinsic bias evident to all.
I wish you well in your path in life.
phoghed 46 minutes ago [-]
Brother you started the comment thread and every assertion about numbers was by you to begin with lmao
(To be clear: I think the current generation of ALPRs is a policy failure and that major changes need to happen inside state law enforcement systems before they can be deployed successfully. But I also think people on HN have a real problem in convincing themselves about the obvious righteousness of their anti-surveillance arguments.)
[†] I heard arguments like these because I was deeply involved in getting the cameras disabled in the inner-ring Chicago suburb in which I live, getting the first ACLU CCOPS ordinance in Illinois passed there, and helping draft what are probably the most detailed ALPR police General Orders in any municipality, or at least were at the time. Which is a long and pretentious way of saying I spent a lot of time talking to people who are not Very Online.
> I never hear that question from Flock supporters. The question I hear is "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?"
These are the same Constitutional question.
In order to determine what cars are stolen, all cars must be inspected. If all cars are inspected, there is a reasonable case that the 4th amendment is being violated:
> But I also think people on HN have a real problem in convincing themselves about the obvious righteousness of their anti-surveillance arguments.See above.
0 - https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/
The "why shouldn't we be pulling over stolen cars?" question is just a more specific variant of GP's "nothing to hide" question. i.e., the only people asking it are those who aren't stealing cars, thus have "nothing to hide".
Overall, the "nothing to hide" question is probably the single most pervasive rationalization among those who accept surveillance in general.
I’m starting to think that you’re having a conversation with yourself and your perception of people online, not actual people and the things that they’re saying.
If you have the energy you can do all 3 in parallel.
Here's my attempt at 2: https://rmnoflock.com/2026/07/29/rolling-meadows-flock-camer...
Does anyone have advice or experience with 2?
It does make me wonder whether electronic evidence of police behavior will materially impact actual behavior over time. But given that the normal reaction is to deny access to evidence, I doubt it.
The people who want to be police officers tend not to be the people everyone else would want to be police officers.
It's tiring for good people when everyone they interact with thinks they're the villain.
Gotta make a statement with the low level grunts so the citizenry think these systems have accountability.
What is remarkable about this story is that something happened to them. Now were they prosecuted for any of a hundred laws they probably broke?
No.
All of these officers will have new jobs lined up by the end of the week.
It's not on the unions, it's on the people who hired the officers.
The real teeth behind these disciplinary events, at least in suburban/metro areas, are that departments don't want to lose the cameras, and know that they will if abuses aren't answered.
This is somewhat solved problem in other areas, like banking and government. Not zero, but asymptotically low.
I think we need to criminalize misuse more clearly, preferably on a federal level. We need clear justifications for each use of data. And, we should require periodic audits by an independent third party - perhaps funded in the purchase contracts as a line item and held in reserve.
This doesn’t solve the problem of legal use - which could be contentious now or in the future. But, this technology isn’t going away and good legislation to control it makes sense.
I wonder if it does a disservice to readers to not make that same comparison against more similar countries instead (UK, Germany, Australia to name a few examples)?
And those same officers, even when it has been found they violated the rights of those they're sworn and paid to serve, are all too often shielded from the consequences of their actions and from their victims seeking recourse. Qualified immunity is legal doctrine which prevents victims from seeking justice in cases where there is no previous precedent for such an action being allowed. I would expect that license plate readers, mass-surveillance assisted by AI technologies, etc. are sufficiently novel that the case would have to make the U.S. supreme court to survive a motion to dismiss under qualified immunity.
So if you believe in there being legal consequences for police officers and other government officials violating the rights of the governed, I would hope to see in your next comments you standing with me and demanding the elimination of the "qualified immunity" doctrine which today goes along way to protect the guilty from the legal recourse sought by the victims of such officers. This is especially needed in those cases where the officers, bureaucracy, and politicians fail to "act true", as you might suggest that they can, to prevent injustices with these police systems.
For those curious about what "qualified immunity" is in the US, take a look at:
https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability...
and
https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability...
All part of the Institute for Justice's work on immunity and accountability:
https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability...
this is easily solved with current technology, if they had an incentive to do so.
besides firing folks that get caught, flock themselves should be brought to court.
There's surely plenty of entities that need better controls around usage of technology / records / etc, but this is an example of somebody having an incentive and then following through.
If government entities get good PR for rolling out strong policies, practices, and tooling for the data they have, and that makes more of them very keen to do so... mission accomplished?
Cards on the table, I am an optimist. But this feels pretty realistic: it's basically a corollary to the idea that public outrage about bad policies, bad practices, or bad tooling is problematic for these government entities. They want to avoid it. There's plenty of examples of this, even honing to just the US. Increasingly there's even examples of this specifically in the US, for police departments, for usage of Flock.
you should need a warrant to monitor the products of mass surveillance and it should be as narrowly targeted towards a suspect as possible. or just not have any of the mass CCTV placements everywhere in the first place
I'm in favor of pushing for police departments (and really any governmental body with access to any kind of data) to have regulations around access to that data, access controls to restrict illegitimate access, and monitoring to detect improper access by people who do have legitimate access but don't follow the proper regulations.
I think you're correct that we don't tend to see the instances where improper usage occurs, tautologically because those entities aren't doing their homework on the above.
The department in this article appears to be doing just that:
> Every search run through the Flock Safety platform is automatically logged — who ran it, when, and the reason they gave for doing it. SPD said they also have other safeguards in place, including mandatory training, role-based access controls and supervisory oversight.
Good move by them, wait until nobody is paying attention anymore and they’re on to the next gig.
Very much not okay with this surveillance state bullshit.
1. Protest via yard signs and awareness (what you're doing)
2. Impermanent vandalism. I like the idea of hanging copies of the fourth amendment over the lenses
3. Permanent vandalism. I think we need bounties on camera destruction and public legal funds to assist in defense, bail, etc.
The police as a class/caste are not interested in the fundamental principles that America was founded on. Individual officers may be interested in civil freedom and privacy but as an entity they only ever march in the direction of total surveillance and domination of the citizenry.
And, which country routinely sets a bunch of shit on fire when they need to?
That's right.
Good work!
I'm betting that the number of officers who used it this way compared to the value it provides is minute to almost nil.
It would be interesting to find the number of Meta employees or Google employees who do similar activities.
Please compare the number of people who committed burglary at a location to the number who did not.
The act of violating laws has nothing to do with the number of those whom do not. Furthermore:
> Also compare it to the number of incidents where the cameras helped capture criminals and pursue other illegal activities.Non sequitur and irrelevant to the abuse documented.
> I'm betting that the number of officers who used it this way compared to the value it provides is minute to almost nil.
This is a variant of the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" fallacy. Or a nihilistic perspective of "the ends justify the means."
> It would be interesting to find the number of Meta employees or Google employees who do similar activities.
Again, non sequitur, irrelevant, and an assertion which can only be interpreted as a quintessential strawman[1].
0 - https://www.wtoc.com/2026/08/07/savannah-police-department-f...
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Assuming the question you are referencing is:
I addressed same as being irrelevant as well as a strawman[0] argument.0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The challenge is to find ways to catch criminals without trampling all over individual rights. This isn't that solution. It's too readily abused.
This is a conspiratorial position at best. If you can cite from a reputable source similar abuse attributed to those organizations, then do so. Otherwise, the position you are championing lacks both fact and reason.
Additionally, as others in this thread have made clear, both Google and Meta are not police departments authorized to inflict lethal force.
So there's that.
That Google and Meta employees are not law enforcement completely misses the point I'm making but I never expect people on liberal social media sites to see that
I did not ask "everyone." I asked you to do so.
> That Google and Meta employees are not law enforcement completely misses the point I'm making but I never expect people on liberal social media sites to see that
You wrote, and I quote:
That you chose to invoke the trope "people on liberal social media sites" speaks not to a sound position so much as an intrinsic bias evident to all.I wish you well in your path in life.