She presented a current insurance coverage card to the officer and he still ticketed her because Flock said she wasn't covered.
What would have happened if she showed the current coverage using the insurance app on her phone?
(Incidentally, I assume paper insurance cards will cease to be considered valid before too long, and handing your unlocked phone to a cop will be coercively normalized.)
Cops aren't intellectually inclined (or equipped, for that matter) to second guess a surveillance tool that's showing them an unequivocal answer to a question. This is 100% on Flock for selling a tool to users they know won't reliably question its output, despite whatever bullshit CYA terms and conditions come attached to it, and then failing to ensure that its output is correct.
A modern police department should actively discipline officers that are too lazy to run the necessary checks to prove the human's paperwork is legit, especially when they have a computer that can do it for them right in front of them!
Cities adding ALPRs should also be holding the ALPR company financially liable for _every single mistake_ these systems make.
I don't even want to blame Flock for this level of incompetence.
So, voters have to ban this tech or get a bill passed that makes the company responsible financially for screw ups. Is there a third option?
It feels like every new innovation in our society now is just a new way to diffuse responsibility.
Quote in the link below:
"Rebranding surveillance capitalism as ethically driven is one of the more cynical takes I've seen".
That still means these systems of humans working with machines are broken, does it not?