I know it's a thing.

That was just my reaction reading the OP.

First paragraph: reasonable, if ignoring that access it not likely to be unrestricted willy-nilly.

Second paragraph: not as reasonable given that Amazon likely comply without issue with us intelligence, and sell the data to third parties, which the police could just buy (similar has been done) to avoid consent or legal obstacles.

Third paragraph: out of nowhere, focus on police. No mention of intelligence agency staff or say Amazon staff doing the same thing.

I just had a wee chuckle to myself was all.

Ah, you mean like if we had some sort of knowledgeable, impartial third-party to grant the police permissions. They could, get this, "judge" whether the absolute bare minimum of evidence is likely to exist. So long as Flock didn't provide a way to circumvent an approval process like that, you could maybe reduce the instances of abusers stalking their victims to "acceptable" levels.

What do you think the chances are that we could invent a system like that? You don't think Flock and the police would find a way to circumvent it do you?