Do they not know the name of this officer, or are they not reporting it?
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.
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).
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.
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.
Flock added the field as a requirement and logs it. It's up to the police/local government to reprimand abuse.
If the search was granted based on human checks for the reason given, they would not dare be flippant about this. Of course it would take more time, humans don't scale, etc. but that's kinda the point: invasive methods should be a last resort.
This is something I'm sure all gun owners support.
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/dea-planned-moni...
https://www.libertynation.com/flock-cameras-vs-gun-shops-the...
In the correct political environment, entire companies can be dismantled with one executive action. Not our current political environment, but in the 1980s one it could happen.
-----------
Oh, also, companies were literally an act of Congress when this country started. We can change the rules back and dismantle any company that refuses to work for the benefit of this country.
Remember that one time when a large global company (The Dutch East India company) got a tax break from the king, and it angered the population so much that we took a bunch of tea (a symbol of the Dutch East India Company) and threw it into the Boston Harbor?
Ahhhhh yeah. I remember. Oh right, we teach that situation a bit differently today don't we? People probably don't remember exactly how easy it used to be or how this country used to treat companies that betrayed our values.
We can go back. But lets start with understanding that we _can_ go back. Step 2 is electing people who will agree with this political message.
Just one example: how is a journalist supposed to meet with a secret source if their locations at all times are logged?
Even if these databases are only ever searched investigating violations of laws, it’s trivial to find ways to twist that against political rivals, protesters and activists, ex girlfriends, journalists, and leakers.
And I'd reiterate what i said elsewhere:
I believe people respond to incentives. What we need are more laws governing the law makers and law enforcers. It maybe trivial to shoplift, but the laws (when enforced) make it irrational to.
We don't need this system, we don't need to tolerate having this vector for abuse lying around.
Why do you think the comparison is relevant at all?
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.
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.
If we don't like a technology we can easily get rid of it in practice.
And by that, I mean that Leaded Gasoline is infeasible to be profitable anymore. So no gas station serves it any more.
And please, it will be easier to regulate all public camera companies than to regulate all independent gas stations. So don't give me any crap about difficulties. Especially when said companies are all individually being purchased by government services like police.
Besides, I don't want them to have a right to track and correlate data about my location even if it's the best government ever that only ever uses this to solve the crimes that I agree are bad. No thanks.
- 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)
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.
It's a called integrity and morality. Clearly another thing cops and their sycophants don't have.
Freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment:
Freedom of the press - by harassing or criminalizing journalists who seek to expose gov or politicians who do wrong.
Freedom of assembly - license plate readers have been used to mass collect plates from people attending political rallies for mainstream candidates.
Freedom of speech and petition - tracking and harassing people for political speech or peaceful protest.
Under the second amendment:
Right to keep and bear arms.
See feds slurping up data on gun show attendees. Doing something that is a basic right should not land you in a gov crime database.
Under the 4th: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Knowing where someone is at all times is an unreasonable search.
And of course the supreme court has ruled that there is no basic right to privacy in the constitution, when they overturned roe v wade, but i strongly disagree with that ruling and believe it was not fair or consistent with the intent of the constitution.