I don't understand why a regular patrol officer would / should even have access to something like this without some level of extra authorization. They're not detectives running an open investigation ...<p>In this case this officer was searching numerous networks over and over again, that alone should trigger some metrics that raise the question "uh ... why?"
You never worked for a startup where the CEO demanded administrator rights to everything just because he's CEO?
Pacheco has been one of the top users of the Flock system this year, according to data The Light previously obtained from the city. The most common reason inputted since April for her searches has been “traffic infraction.”
Because no one important cares and no one will do anything about it.
How else could they have arrested that wisconsin guy for driving to michigan to purchase cannabis? You know, apparently a totally valid use for such technology..
It was only about an hour ago I saw yet another mindless commentator on one of these threads saying "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about".
The funniest response I've read to this type of reasoning went something like this: a family gathering; topic of privacy came up; boomer-type trotted out the "nothing to hide" line; younger relative asked them if they enjoy a particular type of sexual intercourse with their spouse; red faces and looks of horror; the asker reminded everyone that privacy is important and it doesn't mean one is doing anything wrong.
People who have nothing to hide get ambushed by police at gunpoint, because surveillance system misidentifies them.
These risks were said to be theoretical what ifs? But headlines are showing that they are quite real problems.<p>Who watches the watchers?
Let them show themselves.
I don't see a connection to Flock specifically in this lovers' spat. If it wasn't Flock it would be any number of other things. This is a literally-who-cares incident that is being built up into something it isn't.<p>It's like saying she drove a Ford police car during these activities therefore Ford is evil, QED.<p>It's more worthy of discussion noting New Bedford is a shithole and the armpit of Mass.
Its a good example of those who say "surveillance systems can and will be used inappropriately" - a jilted lover cop with access is <i>exactly</i> the kind of irrational person who could do so.<p>A person with a Ford can do all the things car owners can do. But very few people are trusted with access to ALPR cameras.<p>So: I disagree.<p>I have no qualms with New Bedford and I'm sure it has lots of, or even mostly, upright police officers who follow the law.
There’s a difference between the abuse potential of ‘a car’ and ‘a nationwide surveillance network that tracks your location any time you’re on a public road’
Wonder how quick this will get removed off the front page, like the last one about a woman pulled over at gunpoint multiple times because the ALPR kept making a mistake.<p>Like I said in the last thread... I went and spoke at my county commission meeting today against these cameras: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/1OmEmpL-7qY?t=720" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/live/1OmEmpL-7qY?t=720</a><p>I went back and got transcripts for the rest of the meetings for the day, and after saying it was not up for a vote today, two of the commissioners attempted to push it through within 10 min of the end of day, but it ended up failing in a tie. So, decision is delayed, and there is actually a chance of fighting these being put up, as well as the ones already there.