Thread

1. nrmitchi · 1790387333 · focus · HN ↗

   > Police didn't care that Lindsey Isaacs' car was the wrong color, and wasn't damaged. They still arrested her because of Flock data.

   This is literally the first sentence of the article.

   You can dislike public surveillance, but statements like "Flock camera data put this woman in jail for 13 days" blatantly ignores the the fact that Flock didn't put anyone in jail, a bunch of cops who very clearly knew that it wasn't her.

   > The Flock camera, meanwhile, had recorded Isaacs’ car and its license plate several miles away from the site of the accident, sometime around the time of the incident.

   Blaming a tool, when the cops in question are clearly willing to grasp to whatever piece of "evidence" makes their job "easier" is a giant cop-out and excuse for the people who are abusing it.

   Any piece of evidence requires some form of critical examination; that is what law enforcement's job is. If you're just going to go with the first theory/piece-of-evidence they find.... they're not doing their job (and violating peoples constitutional rights through sheer laziness).

   1. rambojohnson · 1790389994 · focus · HN ↗

      The point is that if the flock surveillance data hadn't existed in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation. Everybody knows police will abuse this kind of surveillance technology, regardless of how accurate it is.

      1. MentalM · 1790421353 · focus · HN ↗

         > The point is that if the flock surveillance data hadn't existed in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation.

         Yeah. After all, the police are known for never arresting people based solely on very tenuous and easily disproved evidence. This damn flock surveillance data!

         > Everybody knows police will abuse this kind of surveillance technology

         Only here that is literally not the case. There was a real crime and the surveillance technology provided the relevant evidence.

         1. rambojohnson · 1790649505 · focus · HN ↗

            It proved that Isaacs’s car was at a particular location at 9:51 p.m... about three miles from the crash scene. It did not prove that her car was the crash vehicle, that she was at the crash, or that she was the driver who caused it. did you bother to read teh fucking article?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.