Thanks! Reading now.
The first two don't seem like Flock issues at all.
In the first, police used Flock cameras as they would have a closed-circuit camera. They got a vague look at the person driving a suspect car, and they got another lead on the owner of the car, tracked him down on Facebook, and picked out a person from his friends list that looked like the picture on the camera.
In the second, there was a fatal hit-and-run accident involving a Dodge Durango; the police did a dragnet search for Dodges Durango and literally picked the first one they could find parked on the street. They then papered the case backwards to match it to the accident, claiming it had telltale damage (it did not).
Both those cases are police malfeasance, to be sure. But they're not the police believing Flock against all other evidence; they're police essentially manufacturing evidence to clear a case.
There is, at least in Illinois, a pervasive and difficult-to-solve accuracy problem with these systems, which is that Illinois LEADS is full of stale data; it wasn't designed with the expectation that it'd be matched against plates in real time, but rather with patrol cars calling in plates when they pulled them over.
I would just be mindful of how you talk about the subject, if you’re looking for feedback. If not, just ignore me I guess ha
> One problem in these discussions is that it's virtually impossible to have a conversation or to explore the topic in any depth because every single comment on the thread is read purely as advocacy.
People "advocate" in these threads because we don't want to live under mass surveillance. This has already been discussed in depth in books like 1984.
This along with the tone of your first comment comes more across as “Not in my backyard”.
Yes I think all cameras are problematic. I don't want to be recorded in public, especially by the state and it's commercial "partners". It's pretty wild that this is even up for debate at this point, scary times.