5 ms·
That wasn't an initial safety feature. It was added after abuse had already been reported. Flock also needs to require a case number or some other method of val
by sheikhnbake 18d ago
That wasn't an initial safety feature. It was added after abuse had already been reported. Flock also needs to require a case number or some other method of validation for legitimate use. Presuming the continue to exist in any capacity. Otherwise we're just going to keep discovering incidents like this.
- rtkwe 18d agoThey'll just keep a random old case number on a notepad to put in.
- sheikhnbake 18d agoThat's a fair point. The only other validation gate I can think of within our current system would be a valid warrant number. A system where the warrant automatically limits the search by time and geo-fence could be interesting.
- rtkwe 16d agoI don't think warrants are currently cataloged and formatted in a way that can easily be retrieved and parsed by Flock to validate that a given warrant covers the requested data.
- sheikhnbake 13d agoI don't think it would need to validate the applicability of the warrant to the requested data. It would just be checking that a valid warrant exists. The deterrent to abuse would be that a Judge's name is attached to each warrant. Cops have lied to judges before to get bogus warrants but I think it would make abuse less likely overall.