6 ms·

New Bedford police officer accused of using Flock cameras to track ex-partner

205 points by newsomix9xl 2mo ago

King-Aaron 2mo ago
It was only about an hour ago I saw yet another mindless commentator on one of these threads saying "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about".
- newsomix9xl 2mo ago
  These risks were said to be theoretical what ifs? But headlines are showing that they are quite real problems. Who watches the watchers?
  - edoceo 2mo ago
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a question that is roughly 2000 years old. Still no good answer. The journalists uncovering this are doing good and necessary work. We need more transparency. Perhaps every search needs to be tied to a specific case and then made public after some time period.
    - richardfey 2mo ago
      > Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a question that is roughly 2000 years old. Still no good answer. I feel like we are moving towards a very specific answer, without much thought: AI.
- tintor 2mo ago
  People who have nothing to hide get ambushed by police at gunpoint, because surveillance system misidentifies them.
- DANmode 2mo ago
  Let them show themselves.
- Walf 2mo ago
  The funniest response I've read to this type of reasoning went something like this: a family gathering; topic of privacy came up; boomer-type trotted out the "nothing to hide" line; younger relative asked them if they enjoy a particular type of sexual intercourse with their spouse; red faces and looks of horror; the asker reminded everyone that privacy is important and it doesn't mean one is doing anything wrong.
  - rationalist 2mo ago
    "Does your phone have a passcode? What are you hiding? Can I look through your text messages?"
  - Analemma_ 2mo ago
    The underlying principle here is that secrecy and privacy are not the same thing. The famous illustrative example is that when you’re taking a shit it’s no secret what you’re doing in there, but most people still prefer not to be watched when they do it.
  - veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
    Isn’t the easy reply here that there is no expectation of privacy in public, unlike in one’s home? There are tens, or more likely hundreds of millions of cameras recording outside in the United States.
    - Walf 2mo ago
      It's not that simple. If you were in public, going about your business, but someone followed you around perpetually, noting down everything you did, you should feel stalked and harassed. That is exactly what these machines are doing. Being in public means that you're not hiding any one part of your behaviour, but nor are you telling everyone where you've been and where you're going, etc.
      - aqme28 2mo ago
        In some places, like Germany, that reasonable expectation of privacy standard extends into public. You’re not allowed to just film strangers that have nothing to do with you. In some ways, I feel like this is a better system for our future.
- sixothree 2mo ago
  There was a time when you could paste a reddit username into an online tool and it would build a profile of the person in question. And when I came across one of these "if you have nothing to hide..." people, I did just that. After I asked them how the weather was and how their dog was doing they deleted their account. Lightweights.
  - willis936 2mo ago
    If you want a bad time just ask a chatbot what it knows about your username.
duxup 2mo ago
I don't understand why a regular patrol officer would / should even have access to something like this without some level of extra authorization. They're not detectives running an open investigation ... In this case this officer was searching numerous networks over and over again, that alone should trigger some metrics that raise the question "uh ... why?"
- newsomix9xl 2mo ago
  Pacheco has been one of the top users of the Flock system this year, according to data The Light previously obtained from the city. The most common reason inputted since April for her searches has been “traffic infraction.”
  - duxup 2mo ago
    Just thinking of that reason, I don't even know what Flock would tell you at that point. It would tell you where else they were? Not going to do any good. Makes that reason pretty suspicious.
- nickthegreek 2mo ago
  How else could they have arrested that wisconsin guy for driving to michigan to purchase cannabis? You know, apparently a totally valid use for such technology..
- none2585 2mo ago
  Because no one important cares and no one will do anything about it.
  - sixothree 2mo ago
    Celebrities get special treatment in hospitals built into pretty much all EHR software. Names are obfuscated, while searches and views get instantly flagged. I highly suspect the same thing exists here.
    - 2mo ago
Tostino 2mo ago
Wonder how quick this will get removed off the front page, like the last one about a woman pulled over at gunpoint multiple times because the ALPR kept making a mistake. Like I said in the last thread... I went and spoke at my county commission meeting today against these cameras: https://www.youtube.com/live/1OmEmpL-7qY?t=720 https://www.youtube.com/live/1OmEmpL-7qY?t=720 I went back and got transcripts for the rest of the meetings for the day, and after saying it was not up for a vote today, two of the commissioners attempted to push it through within 10 min of the end of day, but it ended up failing in a tie. So, decision is delayed, and there is actually a chance of fighting these being put up, as well as the ones already there.
- vips7L 2mo ago
  > Wonder how quick this will get removed off the front page YC’s an investor after all
  - sublinear 2mo ago
    That's not why these are getting flagged. The tech angle is very weak otherwise too similar to the ordinary news. It's not that we don't care or even disagree. I'm not saying this to stir an argument either. I'm just giving an honest answer why the rest of us ordinary folk flag these. They go into the same bin as most of the AI posts. As well, I can't speak for everyone, but the pushback replies to my comment here (if any) would likely be assumed bots/paid engagement. This problem isn't unique to HN either. The discussion can be fine sometimes, especially if it's more about the tech than the politics, but if people wanted reddit or the ordinary news they'd be over there and wouldn't come here. You can bang your drum over there.
    - newsomix9xl 2mo ago
      The tech angle is weak? This is about the impact of tech, on privacy, surveillance, and society. This is a crime that could not be committed without AI, the internet, and relatively inexpensive cameras using solar panels. It is a very tech oriented crime that could not be committed 30 years ago.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
pudgywalsh 2mo ago
[flagged]
- lux-lux-lux 2mo ago
  There’s a difference between the abuse potential of ‘a car’ and ‘a nationwide surveillance network that tracks your location any time you’re on a public road’
  - pudgywalsh 2mo ago
    If she used a GPS tracker instead of an ALPR as alleged, would you be demanding they be outlawed? As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.
    - 27183 2mo ago
      A more relevant question is why does some knuckle dragging street pig have access to surveillance tech? This should be regulated exactly the same as wiretapping--specific reasons, specific cases, specific authorization, etc. It should not have been possible for this piece of shit to access the system at all.
    - jjj123 2mo ago
      If all people had to have gps trackers installed on their cars and that data was easily accessible to cops, yeah I would demand they be outlawed.
    - pamcake 2mo ago
      I would question why individual police officers would be able to plant pucks administered by the agency and track using (a combination of third-party and) agency infrastructure at will without oversight and properly reviewed papertrail. Nobody's calling for outright banning of cameras. It's about the way these and their feeds are being deployed, integrated and utilized.
    - atmavatar 2mo ago
      No need to outlaw the device. If the cop used an unauthorized GPS tracker without a warrant, you could take them to court for a Fourth Amendment violation and stand a pretty good chance at winning. Even if you want to argue it was done purely as a personal citizen vs. citizen matter, you could almost certainly win a lawsuit for harassment and stalking. There's plenty of precedent for both types of cases. Flock cameras are stalking at scale, and they should not be tolerated.
scrapedface 2mo ago
News that it’s a woman for once.
thangalin 2mo ago
https://i.ibb.co/WWWYznHX/flock-future.png https://i.ibb.co/WWWYznHX/flock-future.png ;-) See also: https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/ https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/
burnt-resistor 2mo ago
This is actually one of the more limited and benign risks of voluntarily installing a municipal/private panopticon system owned by a corporation. Because of the motivations and degrees of agency associated with under-regulated capitalism, derived data about vehicles and people will be stored indefinitely because it has value to be extracted, to be sold and leased, to the highest bidder, be it to data brokers, police agencies (as is the supposed mission), and intelligence agencies. They won't necessarily be US-based entities either. It will be used to form judgements, discriminate, make inferences, and accusations about people with limited or wrong "evidence" anytime between now, days, years, and who knows for how long in the distant future. No privacy and unknowable risks of misuse and abuse that manifest with use of new technology developed or "connections" made with new information at any time in the future.
infinite_spin 2mo ago
At this point I think it's necessary to notify anyone who has been tracked after a fixed number of days, unless a court order is used to extend that period. An officer using this for legitimate reasons should have few problems getting that court order. This would at least give people some amount of safety net from stalking by LE.
- jauer 2mo ago
  I think this or similar accountability measures is where we'll need to end up with this kind of technology. It's too useful for catching vehicle theft rings and similar kinds of highly disruptive criminal networks to abandon the technology entirely. LOVEINT has been a thing for as long as electronic surveillance has existed. We fire and/or prosecute people for it. We didn't turn out back on those capabilities. I'd like to see someone using systems not available to the general public to to look up info on people without a legitimate purpose be treated as a kind of aggravated stalking. Government employees should be held to a higher standard because they are in a position of public trust, but TBH people at companies like Google, Meta, Verizon, Comcast abusing internal tools for this should be similarly held accountable because they have access to resources far beyond e.g. one hobbyist logging TPMS IDs on passing vehicles.
  - infinite_spin 2mo ago
    Fair point, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, however I am fearful of a surveillance state. These trust issues seem to be stacking up, so I think statutory transparency is necessary.
    - eptcyka 2mo ago
      With Flock, we can and absolutely should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Good riddance for that demonic little pest.
    - qmr 2mo ago
      Fuck that baby and the bath water. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." In the words of the civil rights attorney on YouTube, "Freedom is scary, deal with it."
ajsnigrutin 2mo ago
3d printing to the rescue: https://makerworld.com/en/models/3107766-flock-sock-flock-camera-cover?from=search#profileId-3503858 https://makerworld.com/en/models/3107766-flock-sock-flock-ca...
My_Name 2mo ago
As an observer from another country, it is increasingly obvious that America can no longer call itself 'The Land of the Free' unironically. In my view it is closer to a police state.
mnmnmn 2mo ago
[dead]
cucumber3732842 2mo ago
Cops abuse every system that's given to them, to varying extents. Whining 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.
SanjayMehta 2mo ago
[flagged]

205 points by newsomix9xl 2mo ago

It was only about an hour ago I saw yet another mindless commentator on one of these threads saying "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about".

newsomix9xl 2mo ago
These risks were said to be theoretical what ifs? But headlines are showing that they are quite real problems. Who watches the watchers?
- edoceo 2mo ago
  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a question that is roughly 2000 years old. Still no good answer. The journalists uncovering this are doing good and necessary work. We need more transparency. Perhaps every search needs to be tied to a specific case and then made public after some time period.
  - richardfey 2mo ago
    > Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a question that is roughly 2000 years old. Still no good answer. I feel like we are moving towards a very specific answer, without much thought: AI.
tintor 2mo ago
People who have nothing to hide get ambushed by police at gunpoint, because surveillance system misidentifies them.
DANmode 2mo ago
Let them show themselves.
Walf 2mo ago
The funniest response I've read to this type of reasoning went something like this: a family gathering; topic of privacy came up; boomer-type trotted out the "nothing to hide" line; younger relative asked them if they enjoy a particular type of sexual intercourse with their spouse; red faces and looks of horror; the asker reminded everyone that privacy is important and it doesn't mean one is doing anything wrong.
- rationalist 2mo ago
  "Does your phone have a passcode? What are you hiding? Can I look through your text messages?"
- Analemma_ 2mo ago
  The underlying principle here is that secrecy and privacy are not the same thing. The famous illustrative example is that when you’re taking a shit it’s no secret what you’re doing in there, but most people still prefer not to be watched when they do it.
- veec_cas_tant 2mo ago
  Isn’t the easy reply here that there is no expectation of privacy in public, unlike in one’s home? There are tens, or more likely hundreds of millions of cameras recording outside in the United States.
  - Walf 2mo ago
    It's not that simple. If you were in public, going about your business, but someone followed you around perpetually, noting down everything you did, you should feel stalked and harassed. That is exactly what these machines are doing. Being in public means that you're not hiding any one part of your behaviour, but nor are you telling everyone where you've been and where you're going, etc.
    - aqme28 2mo ago
      In some places, like Germany, that reasonable expectation of privacy standard extends into public. You’re not allowed to just film strangers that have nothing to do with you. In some ways, I feel like this is a better system for our future.
sixothree 2mo ago
There was a time when you could paste a reddit username into an online tool and it would build a profile of the person in question. And when I came across one of these "if you have nothing to hide..." people, I did just that. After I asked them how the weather was and how their dog was doing they deleted their account. Lightweights.
- willis936 2mo ago
  If you want a bad time just ask a chatbot what it knows about your username.

duxup 2mo ago

I don't understand why a regular patrol officer would / should even have access to something like this without some level of extra authorization. They're not detectives running an open investigation ... In this case this officer was searching numerous networks over and over again, that alone should trigger some metrics that raise the question "uh ... why?"

newsomix9xl 2mo ago
Pacheco has been one of the top users of the Flock system this year, according to data The Light previously obtained from the city. The most common reason inputted since April for her searches has been “traffic infraction.”
- duxup 2mo ago
  Just thinking of that reason, I don't even know what Flock would tell you at that point. It would tell you where else they were? Not going to do any good. Makes that reason pretty suspicious.
nickthegreek 2mo ago
How else could they have arrested that wisconsin guy for driving to michigan to purchase cannabis? You know, apparently a totally valid use for such technology..
none2585 2mo ago
Because no one important cares and no one will do anything about it.
- sixothree 2mo ago
  Celebrities get special treatment in hospitals built into pretty much all EHR software. Names are obfuscated, while searches and views get instantly flagged. I highly suspect the same thing exists here.
  - 2mo ago

Tostino 2mo ago

Wonder how quick this will get removed off the front page, like the last one about a woman pulled over at gunpoint multiple times because the ALPR kept making a mistake. Like I said in the last thread... I went and spoke at my county commission meeting today against these cameras: https://www.youtube.com/live/1OmEmpL-7qY?t=720 https://www.youtube.com/live/1OmEmpL-7qY?t=720 I went back and got transcripts for the rest of the meetings for the day, and after saying it was not up for a vote today, two of the commissioners attempted to push it through within 10 min of the end of day, but it ended up failing in a tie. So, decision is delayed, and there is actually a chance of fighting these being put up, as well as the ones already there.

vips7L 2mo ago
> Wonder how quick this will get removed off the front page YC’s an investor after all
- sublinear 2mo ago
  That's not why these are getting flagged. The tech angle is very weak otherwise too similar to the ordinary news. It's not that we don't care or even disagree. I'm not saying this to stir an argument either. I'm just giving an honest answer why the rest of us ordinary folk flag these. They go into the same bin as most of the AI posts. As well, I can't speak for everyone, but the pushback replies to my comment here (if any) would likely be assumed bots/paid engagement. This problem isn't unique to HN either. The discussion can be fine sometimes, especially if it's more about the tech than the politics, but if people wanted reddit or the ordinary news they'd be over there and wouldn't come here. You can bang your drum over there.
  - newsomix9xl 2mo ago
    The tech angle is weak? This is about the impact of tech, on privacy, surveillance, and society. This is a crime that could not be committed without AI, the internet, and relatively inexpensive cameras using solar panels. It is a very tech oriented crime that could not be committed 30 years ago.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

pudgywalsh 2mo ago

[flagged]

lux-lux-lux 2mo ago
There’s a difference between the abuse potential of ‘a car’ and ‘a nationwide surveillance network that tracks your location any time you’re on a public road’
- pudgywalsh 2mo ago
  If she used a GPS tracker instead of an ALPR as alleged, would you be demanding they be outlawed? As it stands they're $20 on Amazon with dozens to choose from.
  - 27183 2mo ago
    A more relevant question is why does some knuckle dragging street pig have access to surveillance tech? This should be regulated exactly the same as wiretapping--specific reasons, specific cases, specific authorization, etc. It should not have been possible for this piece of shit to access the system at all.
  - jjj123 2mo ago
    If all people had to have gps trackers installed on their cars and that data was easily accessible to cops, yeah I would demand they be outlawed.
  - pamcake 2mo ago
    I would question why individual police officers would be able to plant pucks administered by the agency and track using (a combination of third-party and) agency infrastructure at will without oversight and properly reviewed papertrail. Nobody's calling for outright banning of cameras. It's about the way these and their feeds are being deployed, integrated and utilized.
  - atmavatar 2mo ago
    No need to outlaw the device. If the cop used an unauthorized GPS tracker without a warrant, you could take them to court for a Fourth Amendment violation and stand a pretty good chance at winning. Even if you want to argue it was done purely as a personal citizen vs. citizen matter, you could almost certainly win a lawsuit for harassment and stalking. There's plenty of precedent for both types of cases. Flock cameras are stalking at scale, and they should not be tolerated.

scrapedface 2mo ago

News that it’s a woman for once.

thangalin 2mo ago

https://i.ibb.co/WWWYznHX/flock-future.png https://i.ibb.co/WWWYznHX/flock-future.png ;-) See also: https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/ https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/

burnt-resistor 2mo ago

This is actually one of the more limited and benign risks of voluntarily installing a municipal/private panopticon system owned by a corporation. Because of the motivations and degrees of agency associated with under-regulated capitalism, derived data about vehicles and people will be stored indefinitely because it has value to be extracted, to be sold and leased, to the highest bidder, be it to data brokers, police agencies (as is the supposed mission), and intelligence agencies. They won't necessarily be US-based entities either. It will be used to form judgements, discriminate, make inferences, and accusations about people with limited or wrong "evidence" anytime between now, days, years, and who knows for how long in the distant future. No privacy and unknowable risks of misuse and abuse that manifest with use of new technology developed or "connections" made with new information at any time in the future.

infinite_spin 2mo ago

At this point I think it's necessary to notify anyone who has been tracked after a fixed number of days, unless a court order is used to extend that period. An officer using this for legitimate reasons should have few problems getting that court order. This would at least give people some amount of safety net from stalking by LE.

jauer 2mo ago
I think this or similar accountability measures is where we'll need to end up with this kind of technology. It's too useful for catching vehicle theft rings and similar kinds of highly disruptive criminal networks to abandon the technology entirely. LOVEINT has been a thing for as long as electronic surveillance has existed. We fire and/or prosecute people for it. We didn't turn out back on those capabilities. I'd like to see someone using systems not available to the general public to to look up info on people without a legitimate purpose be treated as a kind of aggravated stalking. Government employees should be held to a higher standard because they are in a position of public trust, but TBH people at companies like Google, Meta, Verizon, Comcast abusing internal tools for this should be similarly held accountable because they have access to resources far beyond e.g. one hobbyist logging TPMS IDs on passing vehicles.
- infinite_spin 2mo ago
  Fair point, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, however I am fearful of a surveillance state. These trust issues seem to be stacking up, so I think statutory transparency is necessary.
  - eptcyka 2mo ago
    With Flock, we can and absolutely should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Good riddance for that demonic little pest.
  - qmr 2mo ago
    Fuck that baby and the bath water. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." In the words of the civil rights attorney on YouTube, "Freedom is scary, deal with it."

ajsnigrutin 2mo ago

3d printing to the rescue: https://makerworld.com/en/models/3107766-flock-sock-flock-camera-cover?from=search#profileId-3503858 https://makerworld.com/en/models/3107766-flock-sock-flock-ca...

My_Name 2mo ago

As an observer from another country, it is increasingly obvious that America can no longer call itself 'The Land of the Free' unironically. In my view it is closer to a police state.

mnmnmn 2mo ago

[dead]

cucumber3732842 2mo ago

Cops abuse every system that's given to them, to varying extents. Whining 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.

SanjayMehta 2mo ago

[flagged]