We blame the technology because police misusing their powers is a tale as old as police, is demonstrably not fixable, and this technology is at fault for aggressively selling itself to police to give them these powers that we all know will be misused. Flock absolutely bears significant responsibility for creating the technology and conditions for this unjust behavior to exist, and continuing to advocate against those pushing back on it by trying to brand them as terrorists.

Yeah this reads like the cops simply didn't properly identify the vehicle. If anything, the Flock camera photo proves he was miles away.

Ironically, they're showing a situation where more tracking makes innocence clear. There's countless examples of innocent people being caught in a dragnet, based on data that correlates with but does not prove guilt, where more data collection leads to more innocent people suffering. That's what they should be focusing on.

A tool that requires perfect human oversight to avoid harming innocent people is a problem

There is absolutely that, but the CEO of Flock has said he believes a false-positive is better than a false-negative, so everything around the stack pushes police that way, too.

It is Flock's responsibility to grant access only to trained professionals who undergo routine training and testing in how to and how not to use the system.

Quite often the cops job is to find someone close enough and then toss them into the jaws of the criminal justice system. We like to say "innocent until proven guilty", but you goddammed better be ready to prove yourself innocent unless you want to find yourself imprisoned.

right, its the cops who decide "criminal culpability" all Flock did was lead them to the wrong person...poor innocent Flock

There's a well-known story about a man who escaped a murder conviction because he was at a Dodgers game when the murder happened, and there just happened to be a TV show filming at the stadium that just happened to record him there.

https://innocenceproject.org/news/how-curb-your-enthusiasm-s...

I'd like to think motive and a police sketch wouldn't be enough evidence for a conviction, but that's optimistic.

There was a recent case in Florida where an innocent woman with no past record was falsely jailed for 13 days due to Flock imagery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F_0iIaXGqA

Of course I can.

I don’t think someone should be thrown in jail for a month for having polarized windows on their car.

Red is a very popular color for the Giulia and window tint is not an uncommon item.

Any random person on the street could be described as able to be “caught without enough evidence to convict”

> It would only take 3 mins to get 5 miles away at 100 mph.

It would take a lot longer than that.

> Trying to say it was 5 miles away 23 seconds after an unknown reference is being intentionally obtuse.

The article specifically says:

> just 23 seconds after San Police Officers in Golden Hill tried stopping the suspected carjacker

> Their tort claim notes that the path the men took to the cigar lounge passed by several other Flock cameras, which could have corroborated their story, as well as the location data on their cell phones.

Your argument is that, what, this guy you argue has no money also hacked the phone company to fake their records while driving at 100 mph through San Diego under an invisibility cloak so no other cameras or people saw anything?