How Cops Are Trying to Hide Their Use of Flock | Hacker News Reader

How Cops Are Trying to Hide Their Use of Flock

404media.co

145 pointscdrnsf9 comments

I’ve been instantly suspicious of all the reports of counties “allowing their Flock contracts to expire”, which doesn’t imply either “removing ALPR cameras” or ceasing potential 4th Amendment violations, more broadly. I don’t think any one of the agencies or public officials making these promises deserves any benefit of the doubt. Americans should be demanding robust protections and transparency from those who have been endowed by our democratic consent to wield the power of the state.

I asked my local sheriff about the Flock cameras that are located on my street.

He swore that they were only "ALPR" (Automatic License Plate Readers) and "definitely not Flock cameras".

I went and looked again, and they definitely are Flock cameras, so that's nice.

Cops doing everything possible to emulate the gestapo. I honestly don't see any way to fix our justice system other than giving 95% of all employed officers the boot.

remove qualified immunity, make them personally responsible for their actions, not the city

Each officer would then have malpractice insurance, like doctors or lawyers. Criminal or incompetent officers' insurance premiums would get so high that they would need to find another career.

This would pin all violations on judgement proof goons.

Ok then, just get rid of qualified immunity. The city will take care of their liability issues on its own.

How is this constitutional?

See, now here's the great part: it's probably not.

BUT: until Flock-like tracking systems are legislated (or judiciated) out of existence, they're not actually unconstitutional [despite the obvious layperson applications of similar concepts, e.g. USvCarpenter (cellphones, only)].

Hopefully jury immunity makes "constitutionality" null & void. Or perhaps [something about] "the will of the people," which is us...

#RemainHopeful #Spraypaint

Reply on news.ycombinator.com