3 ms·

The police decided she was the perpetrator because of the Flock cameras flagging her. The doorbell footage was not conclusive, so the police ran a search again

The police decided she was the perpetrator because of the Flock cameras flagging her. The doorbell footage was not conclusive, so the police ran a search against Flock, and it incorrectly reported her car in the area during that time. Flock installations comprise dozens or hundreds of cameras, and the police search for "vehicles at this place during this time" and the Flock servers use AI to report results. In this case, it reported incorrect results. But instead of building any kind of real evidence, the police just took the Flock system's word and charged her with a crime. So, this story is about Flock peripherally, and a miscarriage of justice using their tools specifically.

FireBeyond 1y ago
Not only that, but Flock actively uses AI to proactively report to police departments "vehicle movements that appear to be suspicious".
- JohnFen 1y ago
  I wonder what their system considers to be suspicious movements. I routinely choose my driving routes to avoid being spotted by these spy devices, but there are times that it's impossible to avoid being caught by one or two, which could make it pretty clear I'm trying to avoid being seen by these things. Would that be considered "suspicious"?
JuniperMesos 1y ago
From the article, it seems like the woman had in fact driven her car to the town where the theft happened at roughly the same time for unrelated reasons, which isn't surprising because it's a neighboring town, and there was additional non-Flock camera footage of what she was doing there. It doesn't seem like any camera system mentioned here was actually recording anything inaccurate - the cops just claimed that the (non-Flock) camera footage from the package theft victim was evidence that the woman stole the package, and that's the camera footage the cop refused to show her at the time of delivering the summons. It also seems like this is exactly the footage that the woman later found online and used to exonerate herself, although that's not 100% clear from the article. It really doesn't seem like any surveillance camera system, Flock or otherwise, did anything wrong here. Flock (accurately) suggested her car was in the general area when the theft happened, a non-flock camera did record a person stealing the package who was apparently not her, and have no idea how reasonable it was for the cops to think that footage justified charging her (although the fact that they would not show her the footage is very suspicious). It doesn't seem like there's any particular policy on use of surveillance cameras that would've prevented this false accusation, and this is purely about the cops (or maybe just this one cop) charging someone based on bad evidence; which is problem in and of itself and isn't directly related to Flock or any other brand of surveillance cameras in particular.
sidewndr46 1y ago
I mean, this isn't really any different than anything else police do. Police do not understand how breathalyzers, field drug testing kits, vehicle speed sensors, or anything else work for that matter. Thing X says person A did Y. Therefore, it happened.

FireBeyond 1y ago

Not only that, but Flock actively uses AI to proactively report to police departments "vehicle movements that appear to be suspicious".

JohnFen 1y ago
I wonder what their system considers to be suspicious movements. I routinely choose my driving routes to avoid being spotted by these spy devices, but there are times that it's impossible to avoid being caught by one or two, which could make it pretty clear I'm trying to avoid being seen by these things. Would that be considered "suspicious"?

JuniperMesos 1y ago

From the article, it seems like the woman had in fact driven her car to the town where the theft happened at roughly the same time for unrelated reasons, which isn't surprising because it's a neighboring town, and there was additional non-Flock camera footage of what she was doing there. It doesn't seem like any camera system mentioned here was actually recording anything inaccurate - the cops just claimed that the (non-Flock) camera footage from the package theft victim was evidence that the woman stole the package, and that's the camera footage the cop refused to show her at the time of delivering the summons. It also seems like this is exactly the footage that the woman later found online and used to exonerate herself, although that's not 100% clear from the article. It really doesn't seem like any surveillance camera system, Flock or otherwise, did anything wrong here. Flock (accurately) suggested her car was in the general area when the theft happened, a non-flock camera did record a person stealing the package who was apparently not her, and have no idea how reasonable it was for the cops to think that footage justified charging her (although the fact that they would not show her the footage is very suspicious). It doesn't seem like there's any particular policy on use of surveillance cameras that would've prevented this false accusation, and this is purely about the cops (or maybe just this one cop) charging someone based on bad evidence; which is problem in and of itself and isn't directly related to Flock or any other brand of surveillance cameras in particular.

sidewndr46 1y ago

I mean, this isn't really any different than anything else police do. Police do not understand how breathalyzers, field drug testing kits, vehicle speed sensors, or anything else work for that matter. Thing X says person A did Y. Therefore, it happened.