Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- They must really want to use this tech on us if they're willing to throw their own under the bus for using it "wrong".
Regardless, hemming and hawing about lack of access controls and rogue (i.e. not using to do their job properly) cops is implicitly saying that this system could/would/should exist if it has "proper" access controls, whatever that means. It's like seeing a slave labor gulag and saying that the prisoners need better recreation ad more frequent laundry as if that would make it not fundamentally a gulag. To say things like access controls need to be fixed or tied to warrants is advocating for turd polishing. Even with proper access controls the purpose of these systems is to create misery at the hands of the state. The turd is still a turd even if it's shiny.
- Available tech will be used. If it will be used, there will be instances when it is abused. In banking world, people often have access to data from lx, tr and other data brokers, and even though access and use is rather heavily tracked, you still have people checking things they shouldn't.
- The aristocrats have had to split their treasure with the thugs since the beginning of time and this represents a very real chance to keep huge swaths of that treasure for themselves. Finally they can automate away doing violence against anyone who threatens the social order when it used to be an unavoidable cost of doing business.
- It's not just cops.
Flock employees themselves have allegedly watched a pretty questionable stuff, for example kids' gymnastics room: https://www.gadgetreview.com/flock-safety-employees-watched-...
by subscribed - So the limit is 1.9k times? /s
- shut it down!by whateveracct
- How do people find jobs where they can spend this much time doing things that aren't part of their job?by laughing_man
- I guess I'm a heartless engineer, because I could never imagine myself loving (obsessing over) someone so much that I would feel a need to check in on them 2,000 times.by runamuck
- Anyone notice how the exact number of searches is 2048, a power of 2. Weird coincidence, I guess.by aryaveersr
- With all of the privacy concerns of Flock, at least in the interim it’s a useful honeypot for criminal law enforcement.by toomuchtodo
- I have to assume this is just the dumbest of the criminals that are getting caught. I don't know why it takes 2K cases to determine "hey, this might not be above board...".by joshstrange
- > it’s a useful honeypot for criminal law enforcement.
Only if they do it 2k times.
by hulitu - They say that themselves: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49468552by triceratops
- Completely agree that there is a possible silver lining of exposing some of these. However, even if they get fired from this department, they often just get hired later by their buddies in the neighboring county.
- LOVEINT is likely highly undernoticed.
I am unsure if I'm 100% anti-Flock, but requiring a court order or exigent circumstance to look at any Flock camera feed may be necessary.
by meowface - This is where I'm at. It's a valuable, powerful technology, but police should absolutely not be allowed to just use it for whatever they want.
Shut it all down until we build a framework for handling this kind of power responsibily.
by jackp96 - >“It’s a very effective tool and we don’t want to be judged on the poor decisions made by one officer.”
Yeah, I bet you don't.
- This is just a drop in the bucket. There have been at least 50 cops charged with using flock data to stalk ex partners and women they are interested in!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/08/02/how-pol...
- LOVEINT strikes back, eh?
Who watches the watchers?
Abuse of the privilege should be harsher as the privileges grows.
by subscribed - Is this the first time that Flock has proactively alerted a customer to abusive behavior without being asked to do so?by altairprime