Hacker News Reader

Show me an example of Flock (i.e. a Flock employee or official company record) exposing a cop for abusing their systems. Providing auditing tools to the customers to discover abuse is not exposing the abuse. If they were exposing the abuse they would be publishing publicly when officers submitted searches that violated a search policy, which they could do with their 'transparency' portals. But they'll never do that.

View on HN

That doesn’t make any sense at all.

You’re right I guess in that flock isn’t themselves going through audit logs I don’t believe but everything else is incorrect.

I don't really think it is Flocks job to do the auditing. Flocks job is to make auditing possible and to surface abuse to the parties involved in policing the usage.

Deflect all you want - nothing I said was incorrect or nonsensical. Flock only provides auditing tools because they're required to for compliance reasons. Then they use the tools as PR to essentially say 'look we're catching bad cops' which is not the case. As I said from the beginning - the responsibility for catching abusers is passed on to the customers and citizens doing FOIA requests. Flock is not 'exposing' the abuse at all, they're facilitating it and passing the moderation responsibilities down. Their CEO is a compulsive liar and sucks at PR.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com