Police want Axon's cameras redesigned so they don't get mistaken for Flock's

[umeng2002]

This isn't a left or right issue.

 

[SpitzBub]

Yes, there are anecdotal cases of police officers stalking girlfriends or ex's. So?

You would be singing a very different tune If you were the ex or the girlfriend of that wonderful "law" enforcement officer...

Very disingenuous to make such a flippant statement. I am surprised you didn't even blame the victim, on top of that!

 

[acrossthestars]

Yes, there are anecdotal cases of police officers stalking girlfriends or ex's. So?
This is not the police or the state monitoring you, but a guy trying to solve a personal problem in a wrong way. As catching this type of misuse is ridiculously easy and now everyone knows it, it's gone.

That's an oddly-specific way to frame this problem, as if "it's the fault of the service for providing the cop, the means to do the stalking. He would have done it anyway."

If that cop were stalking his ex and there just happened to be an actual crime in progress as he was doing so, then you'd probably be saying "actually, it was a good thing he was following her illegally. That act of spite stopped a crime, so what's the problem?"

Also, two things can be simultaneously true: this guy misused a system designed specifically for legal enforcement of the law AND the police can be monitoring you. It's not either/or. What we have here is that we have a case of an obvious abuse, a clear demonstration of "how not to use it", as opposed to the not-so-obvious abuse of "normal surveillance of the individual". The fact that this one guy unlawfully misused the system does not somehow make the regular use of it more acceptable.

 

[pnntmp]

That's an oddly-specific way to frame this problem, as if "it's the fault of the service for providing the cop, the means to do the stalking. He would have done it anyway."

If that cop were stalking his ex and there just happened to be an actual crime in progress as he was doing so, then you'd probably be saying "actually, it was a good thing he was following her illegally. That act of spite stopped a crime, so what's the problem?"

Also, two things can be simultaneously true: this guy misused a system designed specifically for legal enforcement of the law AND the police can be monitoring you. It's not either/or. What we have here is that we have a case of an obvious abuse, a clear demonstration of "how not to use it", as opposed to the not-so-obvious abuse of "normal surveillance of the individual". The fact that this one guy unlawfully misused the system does not somehow make the regular use of it more acceptable.

I don't understand the purpose of speculating what I'd probably be saying in various hypothetical scenarios. For the record, you're wrong again.

Maybe you should be reminded that people OPT-IN to have this technology installed in their communities, in order to reduce crime (which undoubtedly happens).
Neither the police nor the state is forcing them to do it. The police may or may not be granted access to the system, it depends on the people.

 

[pnntmp]

You would be singing a very different tune If you were the ex or the girlfriend of that wonderful "law" enforcement officer...

Very disingenuous to make such a flippant statement. I am surprised you didn't even blame the victim, on top of that!

Don't be ridiculous, I'm not making any statements about any victims. I'm just saying the occasional misuse of the technology can't be a reason to vilify it. You can stalk your ex from a car, does that make cars bad?

 

[JMGuy]

You don’t need it to catch actual criminals though and you don’t need it to log and save every licence plate it sees either. It’s just costly and potentially illegal warrantless searches.

How about a warrant like anything else.

Actually you require forensics to increase your chances of charging the correct person. The accuracy of it it’s 99.99% certain in DNA and yet there’s still swathes of people who get wrongfully sentenced. The accuracy of this is far below that.

It is quite literally the same as they’re not just scanning it are they.

Sorry man, but this simply shows a fundamental and basic misunderstanding of how our civics system works. We’re ultimately arguing for the same thing—accountability—but coherent arguments about how to get there do require better domain knowledge.

You’ve conflated an investigative trigger with forensic trial evidence. A license plate reader isn't DNA; it doesn't convict anyone in a courtroom. It is the modern equivalent of an officer looking at a 'stolen vehicle' list on their clipboard while watching traffic. It’s just far more effective.

If a camera flags a plate, a human officer still has to visually verify the car, pull it over, identify the driver, and establish probable cause. No one is getting 'wrongfully sentenced' by a plate reader alone, because a computer scan isn't admissible evidence of guilt. It just tells the police where to look.

As for 'requiring a warrant like anything else'—that is simply not how constitutional law works. Multiple courts have repeatedly ruled that you have zero expectation of privacy for a government-issued identifier displayed in plain view on the outside of your car on a public street. Police don't need a warrant to look at your car with their eyes, and they don't need a warrant to look at it with a camera. On its own, that simply is nothing near an overreach of any kind.

I’m completely supportive of debating data retention limits, stricter audit logs, and access limits to prevent rogue actors. But completely axing a tool that finds stolen vehicles, rescue-alert targets, and people wanted in connection with serious crimes because it requires policy guardrails is an unrealistic, one-dimensional solution.

It’s clear we’re not going to agree. This horse is dead.

 

[LordVile95]

Sorry man, but this simply shows a fundamental and basic misunderstanding of how our civics system works. We’re ultimately arguing for the same thing—accountability—but coherent arguments about how to get there do require better domain knowledge.

You’ve conflated an investigative trigger with forensic trial evidence. A license plate reader isn't DNA; it doesn't convict anyone in a courtroom. It is the modern equivalent of an officer looking at a 'stolen vehicle' list on their clipboard while watching traffic. It’s just far more effective.

If a camera flags a plate, a human officer still has to visually verify the car, pull it over, identify the driver, and establish probable cause. No one is getting 'wrongfully sentenced' by a plate reader alone, because a computer scan isn't admissible evidence of guilt. It just tells the police where to look.

As for 'requiring a warrant like anything else'—that is simply not how constitutional law works. Multiple courts have repeatedly ruled that you have zero expectation of privacy for a government-issued identifier displayed in plain view on the outside of your car on a public street. Police don't need a warrant to look at your car with their eyes, and they don't need a warrant to look at it with a camera. On its own, that simply is nothing near an overreach of any kind.

I’m completely supportive of debating data retention limits, stricter audit logs, and access limits to prevent rogue actors. But completely axing a tool that finds stolen vehicles, rescue-alert targets, and people wanted in connection with serious crimes because it requires policy guardrails is an unrealistic, one-dimensional solution.

It’s clear we’re not going to agree. This horse is dead.

You really don’t understand how evidence works do you.

 

[acrossthestars]

Maybe you should be reminded that people OPT-IN to have this technology installed in their communities, in order to reduce crime (which undoubtedly happens).

I'm aware of that, but consider this: if it were possible to segregate communities, so that only people who voluntarily choose to be "spied on" were subjects of recording time, then there would be no problem. In other words, opt-in would be absolute: if you do not "opt-in" to this dragnet, then it does not affect you and the law would be on the side of the "opt-out-er". Any other measure is a breach of the idea of "voluntary compliance".

Obviously, that is not how any of this works, but that would be the most definite way to grant people "freedom of movement and autonomy": only those who want "safety" get it. Everyone else has to fend for themselves or call for assistance after a crime has already occurred.

OR―bare with me―we just become a better people and don't need any of this techno-tyrannical surveillance at all. That last one is pure fantasy; there's too many bad actors in society, at this point (at least, in the United States), and useful ***** sock puppets in the general population, for that to be viable. But, one can dream.

 

[pnntmp]

I'm aware of that, but consider this: if it were possible to segregate communities, so that only people who voluntarily choose to be "spied on" were subjects of recording time, then there would be no problem. In other words, opt-in would be absolute: if you do not "opt-in" to this dragnet, then it does not affect you and the law would be on the side of the "opt-out-er". Any other measure is a breach of the idea of "voluntary compliance".

Obviously, that is not how any of this works, but that would be the most definite way to grant people "freedom of movement and autonomy": only those who want "safety" get it. Everyone else has to fend for themselves or call for assistance after a crime has already occurred.

OR―bare with me―we just become a better people and don't need any of this techno-tyrannical surveillance at all. That last one is pure fantasy; there's too many bad actors in society, at this point (at least, in the United States), and useful ***** sock puppets in the general population, for that to be viable. But, one can dream.

Consider if the force of gravity were repulsive .. what's the point in considering such things?
If following the common rules were optional, having rules makes no sense at all - everyone would want to be an exception. The first to opt-out would be the criminals.
What if we segregate communities in such a way that only those who voted for the current mayor/governor/president/whatever elected body have to comply to their decisions, and everybody else is exempt because that's a breach of the idea of "voluntary compliance"?
I hope you understand the consequences.

 

[LordVile95]

Consider if the force of gravity were repulsive .. what's the point in considering such things?
If following the common rules were optional, having rules makes no sense at all - everyone would want to be an exception. The first to opt-out would be the criminals.
What if we segregate communities in such a way that only those who voted for the current mayor/governor/president/whatever elected body have to comply to their decisions, and everybody else is exempt because that's a breach of the idea of "voluntary compliance"?
I hope you understand the consequences.

I don’t think you know how the world works

 

[pnntmp]

I don’t think you know how the world works

Why would anyone care what you don't think?

 

[LordVile95]

Why would anyone care what you don't think?

I have a feeling it’s the prevailing opinion in the matter

 

[pnntmp]

I have a feeling it’s the prevailing opinion in the matter

What exactly is the prevailing opinion, and in what matter?

 

[LordVile95]

What exactly is the prevailing opinion, and in what matter?

The one you replied to

 

[pnntmp]

The one you replied to

We're discussing you not thinking .. if you claim that's the prevailing opinion, I see no reason to disagree.

 

[LordVile95]

We're discussing you not thinking .. if you claim that's the prevailing opinion, I see no reason to disagree.

I think you need to go back to school and learn how to read.

 

[acrossthestars]

Consider if the force of gravity were repulsive .. what's the point in considering such things?
If following the common rules were optional, having rules makes no sense at all - everyone would want to be an exception. The first to opt-out would be the criminals.
What if we segregate communities in such a way that only those who voted for the current mayor/governor/president/whatever elected body have to comply to their decisions, and everybody else is exempt because that's a breach of the idea of "voluntary compliance"?
I hope you understand the consequences.

I do, indeed, understand the concept of second- and third-order effects. It would create a dis-aggregated society, where rules are not universal, but granted by proximity to others who hold them. Ostensibly, it would create a more 19th century implementation of law and order, which some people might say is preferable to the nanny state we have now.

This issue with this approach is that the Internet doesn't make sense in this model: a system of interconnected machines, spanning the globe, that grants instant or near-instant communication to anywhere on earth. The Internet would not be "open" in this model, because every single jurisdiction would have its own set of rules and there is not a guaranteed overlap of value propositions. Therefore, you would have to submit to each individual sites rules, agreements and consequences. Far more inconvenient that what we have now, but it would also force people to assess what they are okay with.

The primary reason this entire situation doesn't make sense, is that it requires that all members participate equally, in good faith. I'm basically describing the Non-Aggression Principle, which is a libertarian stance, and the problem is that anyone who can easily lie, deceive and/or manipulate their way through society is automatically granted access everywhere, because they can be anyone to anyone. In order words, being sociopath or a psychopath is still a superpower: a snake that changes their colors and adapts flawlessly to their environment, only to pounce when opportunity presents itself, is difficult to sus out by a people not conditioned to notice deception.

 

[acrossthestars]

Flock simply collects data and puts it in a database, following the rules established by their customers.

pnntmp, let me ask you a pointed question: where are you located, on the political compass? Every claim you make affirms a desire for authoritarian control, which authors an understanding of the world in the direction of "security over autonomy". Your main argument in favor of Flock is "they are just doing a job that people want" and that job is "making sure that crime doesn't happen".

Obviously, we ALL want less crime, but it's the way in which it occurs that matters. The ontology of Flock's business model is "pre-crime": preventing crime before it occurs. Because simply capturing evidence of a crime in-progress and then using that footage to catch the ne'er-do-well after the fact would be standard-issue police investigating. What Flock is doing is profiling people, in order to predict movements and behavior. The only reason this a good thing, is because it allows police to intercept problems in real time, but it also negates any ability for people to engage in activities that the state doesn't know about.

You don't seem to be bothered by this premise; in fact, you are in completely in favor of it. You seem to find the idea of "freedom" a bit outdated, or at the very least, you presume bad-faith on the part of the vast majority of your fellow man/woman/people. Otherwise, you would find everything surrounding Flock and the idea of the police using subterfuge to avoid a Flock competitor being "found out" unconscionable―which is the point of this article. In your mind, the public are the problem and restricting their movement and desires is a net positive.

 

[LordVile95]

pnntmp, let me ask you a pointed question: where are you located, on the political compass? Every claim you make affirms a desire for authoritarian control, which authors an understanding of the world in the direction of "security over autonomy". Your main argument in favor of Flock is "they are just doing a job that people want" and that job is "making sure that crime doesn't happen".

Obviously, we ALL want less crime, but it's the way in which it occurs that matters. The ontology of Flock's business model is "pre-crime": preventing crime before it occurs. Because simply capturing evidence of a crime in-progress and then using that footage to catch the ne'er-do-well after the fact would be standard-issue police investigating. What Flock is doing is profiling people, in order to predict movements and behavior. The only reason this a good thing, is because it allows police to intercept problems in real time, but it also negates any ability for people to engage in activities that the state doesn't know about.

You don't seem to be bothered by this premise; in fact, you are in completely in favor of it. You seem to find the idea of "freedom" a bit outdated, or at the very least, you presume bad-faith on the part of the vast majority of your fellow man/woman/people. Otherwise, you would find everything surrounding Flock and the idea of the police using subterfuge to avoid a Flock competitor being "found out" unconscionable―which is the point of this article. In your mind, the public are the problem and restricting their movement and desires is a net positive.

Typically they’re all for freedom as long as it doesn’t impact them.

Wonder if they think euthanising half the population would be a positive because it would reduce crime

 

[acrossthestars]

Typically they’re all for freedom as long as it doesn’t impact them.

Wonder if they think euthanising half the population would be a positive because it would reduce crime

Honestly, that's not even a joke anymore. Hasn't been for a long time; it's just now becoming fashionable to say the quiet part out loud.

We were supposed to have ascended past the tribal stage of "in-group vs out-group" civilization infighting generations ago, but it's pretty damn clear that our collective consciousness is still stuck in the Stone Age. The lizard brain part of our anatomy is hard to overcome―and that's only for those of us with a brain in our heads, as oppose to empty space and 10 years of cultural indoctrination. I don't remember where I read it from from, but the vast majority of people today are functionally illiterate. We're lucky if even 50% of our fellow citizens, in any given city, municipality or jurisdiction, can understand concepts above a 5th grade level of reading comprehension. We're expecting these same people to be able to parse the difference between "universal maxims" and "anecdotal anomalies", burdened by need to be right at all costs and landing on the "smug 'academic prowess' of a Reddit mod trying to hit 'em with the "[citation needed]" gotcha" side of the Dunning-Kruger distribution scale, when confronted with something as mundane as "people breathe air."

 

[pnntmp]

I think you need to go back to school and learn how to read.

I already asked that and you didn't reply ... so once again, why would anyone care what you think?

 

[LordVile95]

I already asked that and you didn't reply ... so once again, why would anyone care what you think?

I think you need to go back and reread the comment. There’s a reason why you’ve gone off topic

 

[pnntmp]

I think you need to go back and reread the comment. There’s a reason why you’ve gone off topic

I'm telling you I don't care what you think, and you're asking me to reread your comments? Seriously?

 

[LordVile95]

I'm telling you I don't care what you think, and you're asking me to reread your comments? Seriously?

It’s not just me. Then stay ignorant, if you don’t want to learn people can’t make you, almost like it’s a theme with MAGA.

 

[acrossthestars]

@pnntmp @LordVile95 Both of you need to stop. If bickering like this actually solved anything, then screaming matches would be considered a professional sport. It isn't and it doesn't.

Let's stick the facts at hand: on the one hand, LordVile95 and myself hold the opinion that Flock's system is obtrusive, invasive far beyond reasonable measure (bordering on state paranoia) and presumes a striking level of distrust on the part of law enforcement―some of it earned, some of it merely bad-faith advice between citizenry and civil servant―that frames the use of Flock cameras as an extension of "inhuman brutality", whereby the public cannot even be trusted to have autonomy and they must be "coaxed" into compliance, like ill-behaved children who need a time out.

On the other hand, pnntmp holds the opinion that this is false. Law enforcement is merely using Flock cameras to maintain law and order, as demanded by many communities around the country...or so we are led to believe. Apparently, we are, in fact, those ill-behaved children I mentioned before―not because we dislike being watched, but because we've been unruly little sh*ts and now our parents don't trust our judgement. The cameras and their tracking systems, therefore, are not an immoral tool of agency suppression, but a punishment for being disobedient miscreants who need to learn their lesson. It's not about surveillance as a weapon of psychological warfare, it's about accountability.

Argue your side productively, please.