8 ms·

Would you have not? Don't lie.

• hackyhacky 18d ago
  I work in a field where privacy of customer information is protected by law and we all take this very seriously. So, no, I would not do this, and I think that police (who have vastly much more power over people's lives than I do) should not either.
  • dylan604 18d ago
    That's great. Now put yourself in the same situation the cops are working with and not your arbitrarily applied restrictions. The cops clearly do not have these restrictions, so why are you applying something artificial like this?
    • sophacles 18d ago
      I hold myself to all sorts of standards that are not enforced by anyone outside of me. There are plenty of things I choose not do do despite a complete lack of consequence if I do them. It's a called integrity and morality. Clearly another thing cops and their sycophants don't have.
    • hackyhacky 17d ago
      Pardon, but I think that someone who carries a gun (and is allowed to use it) as part of their work uniform requires stronger, not weaker ethical guidelines than someone who pushes code.
    • NBJack 17d ago
      Since the context here is the U.S., there are plenty of restrictions they are legally bound by. Here's a small sample: - The fourth amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) - Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 (evidence gained without adhering to the fourth amendment is inadmissible) - Wong Sun v. United States, 1963 (conclusions drawn from unlawfully obtained evidence/illegal entry can be challenged or outright discarded) - Franks v. Delaware, 1978 (the right to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement)
      • 7e 17d ago
        Flock records public events. None of these apply. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space and the courts have been quite clear on this. Actual legislation would need to be passed to restrict what can be recorded in public settings. A redefinition of "public", basically. And what about the public? Would they also be barred from making their own recordings of public events? Would they be barred from sharing them with law enforcement?
        • hackyhacky 17d ago
          The police officer is not standing on the street corner, observing public events. They are searching a privately-held database of sensitive information whose use is governed by certain restrictions, which are being violated by the police officer. Whether or not those violations rise to the level of crime does not erase the fact that they unethical, and likely against both Flock's terms of service and the department's policy.
        • NBJack 17d ago
          Not necessarily. One could argue my cell phone's signal is in the public when I use it (home or otherwise; it is rather omnidirectional), and the records thereof aren't subject to it the same way as say a search of my phone or my home. However, in Carpenter v. United States, government entities were found to be in violation of the fourth when accessing historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant (at least over a period of 7 days or more, if I understood it right). Previously, it was considered fair game under the basis of records technically turned over to a 3rd party. Then there's United States v. Jones (2012), where it was established a GPS tracking device was attached to a car constitutes a search. It remains to be seen how Flock will ultimately hold up in court. Although a few cases have popped up, I think it's too early to tell.
• ambicapter 18d ago
  No because I'm not a cunt.
• ajross 18d ago
  The point is not that police are bad and we aren't. You're right that everyone can be tempted to terrible action by access and permission to terrible things. The very clear point here is that cops are in practice misusing this system without a meaningful safeguard in place to ensure searches are legal. Which is especially worrisome in this country given that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Like, the constitution isn't unclear on this at all.
• fckgw 18d ago
  We're supposed to hold police officers to a much higher standard. Whether I would or not is irrelevant.
  • psychoslave 18d ago
    A higher standard would not let such a mass surveillance network exist, even less give the possibility of such a large look up in it without single use accreditation by a judge or some tierce relevant to keep in check citizens right for privacy. Any large enough population will also include people failing at doing the-right-thing™ (when such a thing could at least reach some societal consensus) at least sometimes in their life. Expecting anything else is dooming the standard at the lowest possible floor level.
• dpoloncsak 18d ago
  I would assume, if I'm reviewing the cameras for a valid reason, that it may end up in court. If it ends up in court, I'd want my logs to show I atleast did the bare minimum, yes.
• advisedwang 17d ago
  Exactly. So this shouldn't be possible.
• deleted 17d ago
  [deleted]