3 ms·
The flock cameras were clearly misused. Misuse is 100% user error.
by fluidcruft 2mo ago
The flock cameras were clearly misused. Misuse is 100% user error.
- shimman 2mo agoThen you should design systems to ensure this type of user error doesn't happen. I'm sorry but this is software and all these excuses are straight up pathetic. If you don't know how to design a system to prevent this, DON'T MAKE IT! Good grief our industry is absolutely pathetic with these excuses.
- fluidcruft 2mo agoDid you actually read the article? It's like you are demanding a car to not drive when you push the gas pedal.
- shimman 2mo agoNo it's more like demanding crumple zones, seat belts, and third brake lights. Just because you have zero standards or ethics does not make this acceptable at all. This was a purely created system that was purposely designed exactly for these outcomes. You do not have to create such a system. There can be more accountability. Have standards please. This is impacting real human lives here because you refuse to have standards.
- fluidcruft 2mo agoThe article is about how the operator of the system failed to correct the targeting after the first event so the Flock cameras found the same car a second time. If your point is that pulling her over at gunpoint is a flawed procedure that's valid. But that has nothing to do with anything Flock cameras are doing.
- _DeadFred_ 2mo agoAs sophacles put it so well: "Flock amplifies existing bugs. Sounds like Flock is the error." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49262204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49262204
- shimman 2mo agoDude the Flock cameras created this outcome. This is why the profession needs to have licensing and civilians should be able to sue said software devs for this amount of negligence.