Hacker News Reader

Comment by ShadowOfThePit | Hacker News Reader

> Data reviewed by the EFF included searches labelled 'LMAO', 'LOL', 'Hehe', 'Haha', 'idk' and 'blah'. Other entries included 'asdfg' and strings of apparently random keyboard characters. In one case, an officer entered: 'robbery I don't remember the case number leave me alone'.

lol wtf. Like, I get it, "haha quirky me", if it was a personal coding project or an informal setting, but not here!? I wouldn't believe if you told me they were older than, what, 30?

On second thought, that's absolutely possible.

View on HN

So, I've actually implemented a system like this for my work. It's completely non-shocking to me that a unchecked and unvalided "reason" field ends up with nothing but garbage in it to get past the software checks.

My 3 "words" requirement because managers wanted more than just "caus" ended up with workers simply putting in "a o k".

These systems need more validation and teeth than simply letting the officers enter whatever text allows them to search. A case number isn't enough, IMO. There needs to be an actual warrant which the system checks. But further, misuse needs to be prosecuted (I know, fat chance).

The reason field is not to gate the search feature. It's for accountability. This officer should be reprimanded.

This officer and every other officer who flippantly uses such a system in this way should be relegated to a life of third-shift security work guarding some random warehouse.

IMO, they aren't qualified for even that. This is the sort of thing that proves them to be untrustworthy and thus should only work in low trust positions where they can't ruin someone's lives or business.

I think the “fat chance” part is why these networked license plate cameras can not be allowed to continue to exist.

If the solution to abuse is constant and careful oversight, that’s not a real solution. Any system will eventually be degraded, disbanded, or captured.

Your last paragraph could pertain to the use of Flock cameras on the population in general.

Hopefully!

This sounds exactly what happens when you are required to fill out a reason for say a deployment to your test enrvironment in a jira ticket. After a certain point you just stop obeying cause nobody reads the ticket anyways.

Commit messages

That's why we should also replace cops with LLMs and AI. Oh, wait.

What do you mean "not here"? They're looking at video footage of public places, I would not care either. I'm not happy about flock cameras but this is not like he's filling out paperwork for a charge or doing something important, these cops are looking at existing camera data of public spaces

I mean, if the field is required and is open text with no requirement that the text be useful, why would you bother? How many of use put stupid text into fields just to get to the download? Yeah yeah, cops are supposed to be above blah blah, but they are human.

Just because there isn't a coded requirement doesn't mean there hasn't been directions to state valid requirements. This isn't a Jira ticket, this is a tax-payer funded government official supposedly doing his job, and should 'bother' to give valid reasons.

Cops are not known for being well regulated individuals

The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable

I think you can trace both of these problems back to the police union.

>The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable

Flock added the field as a requirement and logs it. It's up to the police/local government to reprimand abuse.

We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.

Take that up with the police and local government

No. I’d prefer to take that up with the state and federal governments. Some states have passed bans on these invasive cameras. All should.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com