3 ms·

> Data reviewed by the EFF included searches labelled 'LMAO', 'LOL', 'Hehe', 'Haha', 'idk' and 'blah'. Other entries included 'asdfg' and strings of apparently

> Data reviewed by the EFF included searches labelled 'LMAO', 'LOL', 'Hehe', 'Haha', 'idk' and 'blah'. Other entries included 'asdfg' and strings of apparently random keyboard characters. In one case, an officer entered: 'robbery I don't remember the case number leave me alone'. lol wtf. Like, I get it, "haha quirky me", if it was a personal coding project or an informal setting, but not here!? I wouldn't believe if you told me they were older than, what, 30? On second thought, that's absolutely possible.

a34729t 11d ago
This sounds exactly what happens when you are required to fill out a reason for say a deployment to your test enrvironment in a jira ticket. After a certain point you just stop obeying cause nobody reads the ticket anyways.
- pluc 11d ago
  Commit messages
  - darkwater 11d ago
    That's why we should also replace cops with LLMs and AI. Oh, wait.
cogman10 11d ago
So, I've actually implemented a system like this for my work. It's completely non-shocking to me that a unchecked and unvalided "reason" field ends up with nothing but garbage in it to get past the software checks. My 3 "words" requirement because managers wanted more than just "caus" ended up with workers simply putting in "a o k". These systems need more validation and teeth than simply letting the officers enter whatever text allows them to search. A case number isn't enough, IMO. There needs to be an actual warrant which the system checks. But further, misuse needs to be prosecuted (I know, fat chance).
- nonethewiser 11d ago
  The reason field is not to gate the search feature. It's for accountability. This officer should be reprimanded.
  - deleted 11d ago
    [deleted]
  - nmeagent 10d ago
    This officer and every other officer who flippantly uses such a system in this way should be relegated to a life of third-shift security work guarding some random warehouse.
    - cogman10 10d ago
      IMO, they aren't qualified for even that. This is the sort of thing that proves them to be untrustworthy and thus should only work in low trust positions where they can't ruin someone's lives or business.
- kennywinker 11d ago
  I think the “fat chance” part is why these networked license plate cameras can not be allowed to continue to exist. If the solution to abuse is constant and careful oversight, that’s not a real solution. Any system will eventually be degraded, disbanded, or captured.
  - Smoosh 11d ago
    Your last paragraph could pertain to the use of Flock cameras on the population in general.
    - kennywinker 11d ago
      Hopefully!
mingus88 11d ago
Cops are not known for being well regulated individuals The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable I think you can trace both of these problems back to the police union.
- nonethewiser 11d ago
  >The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable Flock added the field as a requirement and logs it. It's up to the police/local government to reprimand abuse.
  - kennywinker 11d ago
    We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.
    - nonethewiser 11d ago
      Take that up with the police and local government
      - kennywinker 11d ago
        No. I’d prefer to take that up with the state and federal governments. Some states have passed bans on these invasive cameras. All should.
dylan604 11d ago
I mean, if the field is required and is open text with no requirement that the text be useful, why would you bother? How many of use put stupid text into fields just to get to the download? Yeah yeah, cops are supposed to be above blah blah, but they are human.
- dpoloncsak 11d ago
  Just because there isn't a coded requirement doesn't mean there hasn't been directions to state valid requirements. This isn't a Jira ticket, this is a tax-payer funded government official supposedly doing his job, and should 'bother' to give valid reasons.
guywithahat 11d ago
What do you mean "not here"? They're looking at video footage of public places, I would not care either. I'm not happy about flock cameras but this is not like he's filling out paperwork for a charge or doing something important, these cops are looking at existing camera data of public spaces

a34729t 11d ago

This sounds exactly what happens when you are required to fill out a reason for say a deployment to your test enrvironment in a jira ticket. After a certain point you just stop obeying cause nobody reads the ticket anyways.

pluc 11d ago
Commit messages
- darkwater 11d ago
  That's why we should also replace cops with LLMs and AI. Oh, wait.

cogman10 11d ago

So, I've actually implemented a system like this for my work. It's completely non-shocking to me that a unchecked and unvalided "reason" field ends up with nothing but garbage in it to get past the software checks. My 3 "words" requirement because managers wanted more than just "caus" ended up with workers simply putting in "a o k". These systems need more validation and teeth than simply letting the officers enter whatever text allows them to search. A case number isn't enough, IMO. There needs to be an actual warrant which the system checks. But further, misuse needs to be prosecuted (I know, fat chance).

nonethewiser 11d ago
The reason field is not to gate the search feature. It's for accountability. This officer should be reprimanded.
- deleted 11d ago
  [deleted]
- nmeagent 10d ago
  This officer and every other officer who flippantly uses such a system in this way should be relegated to a life of third-shift security work guarding some random warehouse.
  - cogman10 10d ago
    IMO, they aren't qualified for even that. This is the sort of thing that proves them to be untrustworthy and thus should only work in low trust positions where they can't ruin someone's lives or business.
kennywinker 11d ago
I think the “fat chance” part is why these networked license plate cameras can not be allowed to continue to exist. If the solution to abuse is constant and careful oversight, that’s not a real solution. Any system will eventually be degraded, disbanded, or captured.
- Smoosh 11d ago
  Your last paragraph could pertain to the use of Flock cameras on the population in general.
  - kennywinker 11d ago
    Hopefully!

mingus88 11d ago

Cops are not known for being well regulated individuals The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable I think you can trace both of these problems back to the police union.

nonethewiser 11d ago
>The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable Flock added the field as a requirement and logs it. It's up to the police/local government to reprimand abuse.
- kennywinker 11d ago
  We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.
  - nonethewiser 11d ago
    Take that up with the police and local government
    - kennywinker 11d ago
      No. I’d prefer to take that up with the state and federal governments. Some states have passed bans on these invasive cameras. All should.

dylan604 11d ago

I mean, if the field is required and is open text with no requirement that the text be useful, why would you bother? How many of use put stupid text into fields just to get to the download? Yeah yeah, cops are supposed to be above blah blah, but they are human.

dpoloncsak 11d ago
Just because there isn't a coded requirement doesn't mean there hasn't been directions to state valid requirements. This isn't a Jira ticket, this is a tax-payer funded government official supposedly doing his job, and should 'bother' to give valid reasons.

guywithahat 11d ago

What do you mean "not here"? They're looking at video footage of public places, I would not care either. I'm not happy about flock cameras but this is not like he's filling out paperwork for a charge or doing something important, these cops are looking at existing camera data of public spaces