That wasn't an initial safety feature. It was added after abuse had already been reported. Flock also needs to require a case number or some other method of validation for legitimate use. Presuming the continue to exist in any capacity. Otherwise we're just going to keep discovering incidents like this.
That's a fair point. The only other validation gate I can think of within our current system would be a valid warrant number. A system where the warrant automatically limits the search by time and geo-fence could be interesting.
> So Flock and the local governments are acting responsibly here. The police officer is not and should be reprimanded.
Who is responsible for ensuring that agents of the government in jurisdictions that host Flock cameras adhere to proper procedures, if not the local governments themselves? Who is designing access systems that permit random text in lieu of actual case numbers that can be verified in real time and properly gate the system? If Flock and the IT departments of local governments cannot provide proper locks against this sort of random surveillance then the cameras should be removed.
They also designed some amazing validation for that audit software:
>Data reviewed by the EFF included searches labelled 'LMAO', 'LOL', 'Hehe', 'Haha', 'idk' and 'blah'. Other entries included 'asdfg' and strings of apparently random keyboard characters. In one case, an officer entered: 'robbery I don't remember the case number leave me alone'.
Seems like they really put a lot of thought into preventing abuse
What do you mean validation? The reason field is for auditing. Auditing is not validation. And its how the public knows this officer is not meeting quality expectations.
Flock has updated the reason field to a drop down choice menu.
Now the many officers that typed in LMAO, dunno, and geafdghdstr will now choose a more realistic looking "reason" and the public will no longer know how many police are covering up stalking by entering "robbery".
You seem very keen to make shallow excuses and defend flock and the LEOs here.
Buuuullshit that the local governments made the logs public.
So many local governments charge absolutely insane amount PER MONTH for the logs. And you're happy that they are public at all? Yeah they are public because activists pay for access out of their own pocket, not because local governments actually care about people and act "responsibly"
>Flock designed their software so that the police have to state a reason.
And yet none of this stopped an individual from first accessing 19,000 cameras across 1558 cities with "LMAO" as the reason. The damage is already done and it could have been prevented.
Yes that’s why I’m not satisfied. It doesn’t actually stop the problem. It’s a legal safety net for them at best. Our data is not safe from rogue officers, which there are many of as we have seen with US policing for many years.
The reason should need to be approved. This would all be so laughably ridiculous if the consequences weren’t so serious.
Naturally I don't know how the Flock search platform operates but this implies to me that this "Reason:" field is a mere formality, after-the-fact accountability (if even that!).
If the search was granted based on human checks for the reason given, they would not dare be flippant about this. Of course it would take more time, humans don't scale, etc. but that's kinda the point: invasive methods should be a last resort.
> Data reviewed by the EFF included searches labelled 'LMAO', 'LOL', 'Hehe', 'Haha', 'idk' and 'blah'. Other entries included 'asdfg' and strings of apparently random keyboard characters. In one case, an officer entered: 'robbery I don't remember the case number leave me alone'.
lol wtf. Like, I get it, "haha quirky me", if it was a personal coding project or an informal setting, but not here!? I wouldn't believe if you told me they were older than, what, 30?
So, I've actually implemented a system like this for my work. It's completely non-shocking to me that a unchecked and unvalided "reason" field ends up with nothing but garbage in it to get past the software checks.
My 3 "words" requirement because managers wanted more than just "caus" ended up with workers simply putting in "a o k".
These systems need more validation and teeth than simply letting the officers enter whatever text allows them to search. A case number isn't enough, IMO. There needs to be an actual warrant which the system checks. But further, misuse needs to be prosecuted (I know, fat chance).
I think the “fat chance” part is why these networked license plate cameras can not be allowed to continue to exist.
If the solution to abuse is constant and careful oversight, that’s not a real solution. Any system will eventually be degraded, disbanded, or captured.
This sounds exactly what happens when you are required to fill out a reason for say a deployment to your test enrvironment in a jira ticket. After a certain point you just stop obeying cause nobody reads the ticket anyways.
I mean, if the field is required and is open text with no requirement that the text be useful, why would you bother? How many of use put stupid text into fields just to get to the download? Yeah yeah, cops are supposed to be above blah blah, but they are human.
Just because there isn't a coded requirement doesn't mean there hasn't been directions to state valid requirements. This isn't a Jira ticket, this is a tax-payer funded government official supposedly doing his job, and should 'bother' to give valid reasons.
What do you mean "not here"? They're looking at video footage of public places, I would not care either. I'm not happy about flock cameras but this is not like he's filling out paperwork for a charge or doing something important, these cops are looking at existing camera data of public spaces
flock isn’t going away. this feels like the 1990s web that grew into a more regulated system with safeguards. flock or a (more advanced) replacement are going to be part of policing in the us forever
Once upon a time, one of the largest companies of the USA, Bell Labratories, was declared an illegal monopoly and eradicated.
In the correct political environment, entire companies can be dismantled with one executive action. Not our current political environment, but in the 1980s one it could happen.
-----------
Oh, also, companies were literally an act of Congress when this country started. We can change the rules back and dismantle any company that refuses to work for the benefit of this country.
Remember that one time when a large global company (The Dutch East India company) got a tax break from the king, and it angered the population so much that we took a bunch of tea (a symbol of the Dutch East India Company) and threw it into the Boston Harbor?
Ahhhhh yeah. I remember. Oh right, we teach that situation a bit differently today don't we? People probably don't remember exactly how easy it used to be or how this country used to treat companies that betrayed our values.
We can go back. But lets start with understanding that we _can_ go back. Step 2 is electing people who will agree with this political message.
If we don't like a technology we can easily get rid of it in practice.
And by that, I mean that Leaded Gasoline is infeasible to be profitable anymore. So no gas station serves it any more.
And please, it will be easier to regulate all public camera companies than to regulate all independent gas stations. So don't give me any crap about difficulties. Especially when said companies are all individually being purchased by government services like police.
In this case the issue isn't 19k flock cameras, but an utter lack of repercussion for failure to justify usage. In the same way I'd be arrested and jailed if I breached/used 19K ring cameras that do not belong to me, this guy should be arrested and jailed for his misuse. Police unions are a major root cause of many issues in the USA.
It’s clear to me that these networked license plate cameras represent a fundamental impingement on freedom.
Just one example: how is a journalist supposed to meet with a secret source if their locations at all times are logged?
Even if these databases are only ever searched investigating violations of laws, it’s trivial to find ways to twist that against political rivals, protesters and activists, ex girlfriends, journalists, and leakers.
What freedom is being impinged? AFAIK we have no fundamental right to not being recorded in public, presuming it's not indecent.
And I'd reiterate what i said elsewhere:
I believe people respond to incentives. What we need are more laws governing the law makers and law enforcers. It maybe trivial to shoplift, but the laws (when enforced) make it irrational to.
Freedom of the press - by harassing or criminalizing journalists who seek to expose gov or politicians who do wrong.
Freedom of assembly - license plate readers have been used to mass collect plates from people attending political rallies for mainstream candidates.
Freedom of speech and petition - tracking and harassing people for political speech or peaceful protest.
Under the second amendment:
Right to keep and bear arms.
See feds slurping up data on gun show attendees. Doing something that is a basic right should not land you in a gov crime database.
Under the 4th: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Knowing where someone is at all times is an unreasonable search.
And of course the supreme court has ruled that there is no basic right to privacy in the constitution, when they overturned roe v wade, but i strongly disagree with that ruling and believe it was not fair or consistent with the intent of the constitution.
This is the inevitable result of having hundreds of thousands of cameras all collecting data and searchable from one point. Even if every search required a warrant, this would still be abused with cops lying on affidavits etc.
We don't need this system, we don't need to tolerate having this vector for abuse lying around.
No. The recent decades has shown that there are no laws for a sufficiently motivated entity or government. They're just words on paper, a promise. You can't expect them to keep that promise indefinitely, especially when those incentives you speak of (profit for the companies, easy repressions and surveillance for the government) point in the opposite direction. The only way to ensure this doesn't happen is to not have the tools of repression to be available at a second's notice to them. We live in a world of power, not of laws, at least as far as the most powerful are concerned.
Besides, I don't want them to have a right to track and correlate data about my location even if it's the best government ever that only ever uses this to solve the crimes that I agree are bad. No thanks.
Flock makes it easy to track people and where they go. For example, if you are going to a gun range, or going to a place to buy guns and ammo, Flock makes it easy to track that. This makes it easy to figure out who has weapons and allows the government to easily target them first. This would make it easy to create a digital database of known and suspected gun owners.
This is something I'm sure all gun owners support.
OTOH, are you in an official role with extended powers because you represent the State? A role where you can routinely infringe on the civil and human rights of the people around you?
Why do you think the comparison is relevant at all?
Too bad they haven't named/shamed the actual officers. Lack of details is effectively giving the police carte blanche to continue doing this shit. "Oh, we'll tell the officer to cut that out (fingers crossed behind back)"
A higher standard would not let such a mass surveillance network exist, even less give the possibility of such a large look up in it without single use accreditation by a judge or some tierce relevant to keep in check citizens right for privacy.
Any large enough population will also include people failing at doing the-right-thing™ (when such a thing could at least reach some societal consensus) at least sometimes in their life. Expecting anything else is dooming the standard at the lowest possible floor level.
I work in a field where privacy of customer information is protected by law and we all take this very seriously. So, no, I would not do this, and I think that police (who have vastly much more power over people's lives than I do) should not either.
That's great. Now put yourself in the same situation the cops are working with and not your arbitrarily applied restrictions. The cops clearly do not have these restrictions, so why are you applying something artificial like this?
Flock records public events. None of these apply. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space and the courts have been quite clear on this. Actual legislation would need to be passed to restrict what can be recorded in public settings. A redefinition of "public", basically. And what about the public? Would they also be barred from making their own recordings of public events? Would they be barred from sharing them with law enforcement?
Not necessarily. One could argue my cell phone's signal is in the public when I use it (home or otherwise; it is rather omnidirectional), and the records thereof aren't subject to it the same way as say a search of my phone or my home.
However, in Carpenter v. United States, government entities were found to be in violation of the fourth when accessing historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant (at least over a period of 7 days or more, if I understood it right). Previously, it was considered fair game under the basis of records technically turned over to a 3rd party.
Then there's United States v. Jones (2012), where it was established a GPS tracking device was attached to a car constitutes a search.
It remains to be seen how Flock will ultimately hold up in court. Although a few cases have popped up, I think it's too early to tell.
The police officer is not standing on the street corner, observing public events. They are searching a privately-held database of sensitive information whose use is governed by certain restrictions, which are being violated by the police officer. Whether or not those violations rise to the level of crime does not erase the fact that they unethical, and likely against both Flock's terms of service and the department's policy.
Pardon, but I think that someone who carries a gun (and is allowed to use it) as part of their work uniform requires stronger, not weaker ethical guidelines than someone who pushes code.
I hold myself to all sorts of standards that are not enforced by anyone outside of me. There are plenty of things I choose not do do despite a complete lack of consequence if I do them.
It's a called integrity and morality. Clearly another thing cops and their sycophants don't have.
I would assume, if I'm reviewing the cameras for a valid reason, that it may end up in court. If it ends up in court, I'd want my logs to show I atleast did the bare minimum, yes.
The point is not that police are bad and we aren't. You're right that everyone can be tempted to terrible action by access and permission to terrible things.
The very clear point here is that cops are in practice misusing this system without a meaningful safeguard in place to ensure searches are legal. Which is especially worrisome in this country given that 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.
Like, the constitution isn't unclear on this at all.
This cop is doing his part to get rid of flock
Yeah but they changed it to a dropdown now so others won't be able to follow in his footsteps.
[dead]
[flagged]
That wasn't an initial safety feature. It was added after abuse had already been reported. Flock also needs to require a case number or some other method of validation for legitimate use. Presuming the continue to exist in any capacity. Otherwise we're just going to keep discovering incidents like this.
They'll just keep a random old case number on a notepad to put in.
That's a fair point. The only other validation gate I can think of within our current system would be a valid warrant number. A system where the warrant automatically limits the search by time and geo-fence could be interesting.
> So Flock and the local governments are acting responsibly here. The police officer is not and should be reprimanded.
Who is responsible for ensuring that agents of the government in jurisdictions that host Flock cameras adhere to proper procedures, if not the local governments themselves? Who is designing access systems that permit random text in lieu of actual case numbers that can be verified in real time and properly gate the system? If Flock and the IT departments of local governments cannot provide proper locks against this sort of random surveillance then the cameras should be removed.
They also designed some amazing validation for that audit software:
>Data reviewed by the EFF included searches labelled 'LMAO', 'LOL', 'Hehe', 'Haha', 'idk' and 'blah'. Other entries included 'asdfg' and strings of apparently random keyboard characters. In one case, an officer entered: 'robbery I don't remember the case number leave me alone'.
Seems like they really put a lot of thought into preventing abuse
>Network Size and ReachTotal Count: Flock Safety reports having over 120,000 active cameras.Community Spread: These cameras are placed in more than 6,000 communities.Data Collection: The system records roughly 20 billion vehicle scans every single month. [1] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/09/14/trump-e...), [2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flock_Safety)
He searched ~1/5 of the cameras available in America..
What do you mean validation? The reason field is for auditing. Auditing is not validation. And its how the public knows this officer is not meeting quality expectations.
Not anymore.
Flock has updated the reason field to a drop down choice menu.
Now the many officers that typed in LMAO, dunno, and geafdghdstr will now choose a more realistic looking "reason" and the public will no longer know how many police are covering up stalking by entering "robbery".
You seem very keen to make shallow excuses and defend flock and the LEOs here.
Buuuullshit that the local governments made the logs public. So many local governments charge absolutely insane amount PER MONTH for the logs. And you're happy that they are public at all? Yeah they are public because activists pay for access out of their own pocket, not because local governments actually care about people and act "responsibly"
>... and should be reprimanded.
L O fucking L
The point is: whose to blame if they aren't reprimanded? It's not flock.
why is flock good?
>Flock designed their software so that the police have to state a reason.
And yet none of this stopped an individual from first accessing 19,000 cameras across 1558 cities with "LMAO" as the reason. The damage is already done and it could have been prevented.
The reason is for audibility not prevention. Flock surfaced the officer whose not meeting quality expectations.
Yes that’s why I’m not satisfied. It doesn’t actually stop the problem. It’s a legal safety net for them at best. Our data is not safe from rogue officers, which there are many of as we have seen with US policing for many years.
The reason should need to be approved. This would all be so laughably ridiculous if the consequences weren’t so serious.
> July 2025, an officer with the Lake County, Indiana, Sheriff's Department
Do they not know the name of this officer, or are they not reporting it?
It's public. It's in the dataset that was released containing "LMAO".
Naturally I don't know how the Flock search platform operates but this implies to me that this "Reason:" field is a mere formality, after-the-fact accountability (if even that!).
If the search was granted based on human checks for the reason given, they would not dare be flippant about this. Of course it would take more time, humans don't scale, etc. but that's kinda the point: invasive methods should be a last resort.
> Data reviewed by the EFF included searches labelled 'LMAO', 'LOL', 'Hehe', 'Haha', 'idk' and 'blah'. Other entries included 'asdfg' and strings of apparently random keyboard characters. In one case, an officer entered: 'robbery I don't remember the case number leave me alone'.
lol wtf. Like, I get it, "haha quirky me", if it was a personal coding project or an informal setting, but not here!? I wouldn't believe if you told me they were older than, what, 30?
On second thought, that's absolutely possible.
So, I've actually implemented a system like this for my work. It's completely non-shocking to me that a unchecked and unvalided "reason" field ends up with nothing but garbage in it to get past the software checks.
My 3 "words" requirement because managers wanted more than just "caus" ended up with workers simply putting in "a o k".
These systems need more validation and teeth than simply letting the officers enter whatever text allows them to search. A case number isn't enough, IMO. There needs to be an actual warrant which the system checks. But further, misuse needs to be prosecuted (I know, fat chance).
The reason field is not to gate the search feature. It's for accountability. This officer should be reprimanded.
I think the “fat chance” part is why these networked license plate cameras can not be allowed to continue to exist.
If the solution to abuse is constant and careful oversight, that’s not a real solution. Any system will eventually be degraded, disbanded, or captured.
Your last paragraph could pertain to the use of Flock cameras on the population in general.
Hopefully!
This sounds exactly what happens when you are required to fill out a reason for say a deployment to your test enrvironment in a jira ticket. After a certain point you just stop obeying cause nobody reads the ticket anyways.
Commit messages
That's why we should also replace cops with LLMs and AI. Oh, wait.
I mean, if the field is required and is open text with no requirement that the text be useful, why would you bother? How many of use put stupid text into fields just to get to the download? Yeah yeah, cops are supposed to be above blah blah, but they are human.
Just because there isn't a coded requirement doesn't mean there hasn't been directions to state valid requirements. This isn't a Jira ticket, this is a tax-payer funded government official supposedly doing his job, and should 'bother' to give valid reasons.
What do you mean "not here"? They're looking at video footage of public places, I would not care either. I'm not happy about flock cameras but this is not like he's filling out paperwork for a charge or doing something important, these cops are looking at existing camera data of public spaces
Cops are not known for being well regulated individuals
The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable
I think you can trace both of these problems back to the police union.
>The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable
Flock added the field as a requirement and logs it. It's up to the police/local government to reprimand abuse.
We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.
Take that up with the police and local government
No. I’d prefer to take that up with the state and federal governments. Some states have passed bans on these invasive cameras. All should.
flock isn’t going away. this feels like the 1990s web that grew into a more regulated system with safeguards. flock or a (more advanced) replacement are going to be part of policing in the us forever
Once upon a time, one of the largest companies of the USA, Bell Labratories, was declared an illegal monopoly and eradicated.
In the correct political environment, entire companies can be dismantled with one executive action. Not our current political environment, but in the 1980s one it could happen.
-----------
Oh, also, companies were literally an act of Congress when this country started. We can change the rules back and dismantle any company that refuses to work for the benefit of this country.
Remember that one time when a large global company (The Dutch East India company) got a tax break from the king, and it angered the population so much that we took a bunch of tea (a symbol of the Dutch East India Company) and threw it into the Boston Harbor?
Ahhhhh yeah. I remember. Oh right, we teach that situation a bit differently today don't we? People probably don't remember exactly how easy it used to be or how this country used to treat companies that betrayed our values.
We can go back. But lets start with understanding that we _can_ go back. Step 2 is electing people who will agree with this political message.
bell went away, the technology they were the monopoly over didn’t
Leaded Gasoline.
If we don't like a technology we can easily get rid of it in practice.
And by that, I mean that Leaded Gasoline is infeasible to be profitable anymore. So no gas station serves it any more.
And please, it will be easier to regulate all public camera companies than to regulate all independent gas stations. So don't give me any crap about difficulties. Especially when said companies are all individually being purchased by government services like police.
My commit messages when no one is looking, and the reason I hardly ever open source stuff...
In this case the issue isn't 19k flock cameras, but an utter lack of repercussion for failure to justify usage. In the same way I'd be arrested and jailed if I breached/used 19K ring cameras that do not belong to me, this guy should be arrested and jailed for his misuse. Police unions are a major root cause of many issues in the USA.
It’s clear to me that these networked license plate cameras represent a fundamental impingement on freedom.
Just one example: how is a journalist supposed to meet with a secret source if their locations at all times are logged?
Even if these databases are only ever searched investigating violations of laws, it’s trivial to find ways to twist that against political rivals, protesters and activists, ex girlfriends, journalists, and leakers.
What freedom is being impinged? AFAIK we have no fundamental right to not being recorded in public, presuming it's not indecent.
And I'd reiterate what i said elsewhere:
I believe people respond to incentives. What we need are more laws governing the law makers and law enforcers. It maybe trivial to shoplift, but the laws (when enforced) make it irrational to.
> What freedom is being impinged?
Freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment:
Freedom of the press - by harassing or criminalizing journalists who seek to expose gov or politicians who do wrong.
Freedom of assembly - license plate readers have been used to mass collect plates from people attending political rallies for mainstream candidates.
Freedom of speech and petition - tracking and harassing people for political speech or peaceful protest.
Under the second amendment:
Right to keep and bear arms.
See feds slurping up data on gun show attendees. Doing something that is a basic right should not land you in a gov crime database.
Under the 4th: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Knowing where someone is at all times is an unreasonable search.
And of course the supreme court has ruled that there is no basic right to privacy in the constitution, when they overturned roe v wade, but i strongly disagree with that ruling and believe it was not fair or consistent with the intent of the constitution.
This is the inevitable result of having hundreds of thousands of cameras all collecting data and searchable from one point. Even if every search required a warrant, this would still be abused with cops lying on affidavits etc.
We don't need this system, we don't need to tolerate having this vector for abuse lying around.
I believe people respond to incentives. What we need are more laws governing the law makers and law enforcers.
No. The recent decades has shown that there are no laws for a sufficiently motivated entity or government. They're just words on paper, a promise. You can't expect them to keep that promise indefinitely, especially when those incentives you speak of (profit for the companies, easy repressions and surveillance for the government) point in the opposite direction. The only way to ensure this doesn't happen is to not have the tools of repression to be available at a second's notice to them. We live in a world of power, not of laws, at least as far as the most powerful are concerned.
Besides, I don't want them to have a right to track and correlate data about my location even if it's the best government ever that only ever uses this to solve the crimes that I agree are bad. No thanks.
https://ij.org/the-ij-database-of-alpr-abuse/
[dead]
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49699493
Flock makes it easy to track people and where they go. For example, if you are going to a gun range, or going to a place to buy guns and ammo, Flock makes it easy to track that. This makes it easy to figure out who has weapons and allows the government to easily target them first. This would make it easy to create a digital database of known and suspected gun owners.
This is something I'm sure all gun owners support.
The government would never do that! /s
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/dea-planned-moni...
https://www.libertynation.com/flock-cameras-vs-gun-shops-the...
Policy officers are mis-using this powerful, hugely invasive massive surveillance tool? I am utterly shocked!
[dead]
Given the absurd commit messages I see, basically along the lines of “oops” “lmao” “wtf” I don’t see the issue.
OTOH, are you in an official role with extended powers because you represent the State? A role where you can routinely infringe on the civil and human rights of the people around you?
Why do you think the comparison is relevant at all?
I'm guessing that often you find yourself surrounded by people and issues that just don't make sense to you.
Too bad they haven't named/shamed the actual officers. Lack of details is effectively giving the police carte blanche to continue doing this shit. "Oh, we'll tell the officer to cut that out (fingers crossed behind back)"
Would you have not? Don't lie.
We're supposed to hold police officers to a much higher standard. Whether I would or not is irrelevant.
A higher standard would not let such a mass surveillance network exist, even less give the possibility of such a large look up in it without single use accreditation by a judge or some tierce relevant to keep in check citizens right for privacy.
Any large enough population will also include people failing at doing the-right-thing™ (when such a thing could at least reach some societal consensus) at least sometimes in their life. Expecting anything else is dooming the standard at the lowest possible floor level.
I work in a field where privacy of customer information is protected by law and we all take this very seriously. So, no, I would not do this, and I think that police (who have vastly much more power over people's lives than I do) should not either.
That's great. Now put yourself in the same situation the cops are working with and not your arbitrarily applied restrictions. The cops clearly do not have these restrictions, so why are you applying something artificial like this?
Since the context here is the U.S., there are plenty of restrictions they are legally bound by. Here's a small sample:
- The fourth amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 (evidence gained without adhering to the fourth amendment is inadmissible)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 1963 (conclusions drawn from unlawfully obtained evidence/illegal entry can be challenged or outright discarded)
- Franks v. Delaware, 1978 (the right to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement)
Flock records public events. None of these apply. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space and the courts have been quite clear on this. Actual legislation would need to be passed to restrict what can be recorded in public settings. A redefinition of "public", basically. And what about the public? Would they also be barred from making their own recordings of public events? Would they be barred from sharing them with law enforcement?
Not necessarily. One could argue my cell phone's signal is in the public when I use it (home or otherwise; it is rather omnidirectional), and the records thereof aren't subject to it the same way as say a search of my phone or my home.
However, in Carpenter v. United States, government entities were found to be in violation of the fourth when accessing historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant (at least over a period of 7 days or more, if I understood it right). Previously, it was considered fair game under the basis of records technically turned over to a 3rd party.
Then there's United States v. Jones (2012), where it was established a GPS tracking device was attached to a car constitutes a search.
It remains to be seen how Flock will ultimately hold up in court. Although a few cases have popped up, I think it's too early to tell.
The police officer is not standing on the street corner, observing public events. They are searching a privately-held database of sensitive information whose use is governed by certain restrictions, which are being violated by the police officer. Whether or not those violations rise to the level of crime does not erase the fact that they unethical, and likely against both Flock's terms of service and the department's policy.
Pardon, but I think that someone who carries a gun (and is allowed to use it) as part of their work uniform requires stronger, not weaker ethical guidelines than someone who pushes code.
I hold myself to all sorts of standards that are not enforced by anyone outside of me. There are plenty of things I choose not do do despite a complete lack of consequence if I do them.
It's a called integrity and morality. Clearly another thing cops and their sycophants don't have.
I would assume, if I'm reviewing the cameras for a valid reason, that it may end up in court. If it ends up in court, I'd want my logs to show I atleast did the bare minimum, yes.
Exactly. So this shouldn't be possible.
The point is not that police are bad and we aren't. You're right that everyone can be tempted to terrible action by access and permission to terrible things.
The very clear point here is that cops are in practice misusing this system without a meaningful safeguard in place to ensure searches are legal. Which is especially worrisome in this country given that 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.
Like, the constitution isn't unclear on this at all.
No because I'm not a cunt.