It's like asking the prisoners in the panopticon whether they behave differently due to the risk of being watched. The answer is 100% yes, whether they know it or not. That's the point.
I came in to the thread anticipating a highly placed tptacek comment defending Flock without grappling with any of their numerous problems, and claiming that "regular people" love Flock. Weird how predictable that's become.
They simply didn't properly identify the vehicle because Flock's ALPR gave them the pass. The innocent person would not have needed "photo proof" of his distant location if the ALPR didn't exist in the first place. Then he would not have been forced to spend a month of his life in jail.
We blame the technology because police misusing their powers is a tale as old as police, is demonstrably not fixable, and this technology is at fault for aggressively selling itself to police to give them these powers that we all know will be misused. Flock absolutely bears significant responsibility for creating the technology and conditions for this unjust behavior to exist, and continuing to advocate against those pushing back on it by trying to brand them as terrorists.
There are two possibilities: One is that Flock is genuinely only being used for legitimate law enforcement purposes and proves useful in less than 0.1% of cases -- a data point the taxpayers footing the bill certainly deserve to know; the other is that there are a very large number of illegitimate uses, which any reasonable citizen should oppose.
Why are people like you so eager to defend Flock rather than simply expecting transparency on its uses?
"Ownership" of data may have little or nothing to do with control of the data, depending on what other rights you agree to give up. Your Flock contract may specify your ownership of the data and then in the next sentence release to Flock all or most control of that data (you still own it!).
The people creating, funding, controlling, developing, deploying and using the tech are not neutral, and the technology is indistinguishable from those people. In light of that, I would argue your assertion, that the "tech is neutral", is nothing more than rhetoric and that in every meaningful way the tech lacks neutrality.
Isn't PG's conflation of Denmark's high income tax with a proposed wealth tax a clear flaw in his math and argument re: "the highest taxes in the world"? Why wouldn't you instead compare to other countries that also have both income and wealth taxes?
Just as much as voting for a narcissistic pathological liar and sex offender is Christian. Turns out people are not very consequent with their supposed values when it gets in the way of their personal interests.
The data set IJ is providing here is situations where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted. Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public.
> Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public.
"could" is doing a lot of work here...
> where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted.
No, that's not what IJ said. From the article: "Nearly all of these officers were criminally charged and lost their jobs, either by resigning or getting fired."
So not all 14 of these were "reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted".
If you're trying to make significant social change, make the strongest argument that you are capable of.
I don't think "could" is doing a lot of work here at all. It seems logical that if cases where the misuse of flock systems were discovered only when the same officers misbehaved in other, more visible situations then there are officers that avoid the more visible situations and continue to use the system that does not expose their bad behavior (flock).
Logical as in fits your world view or as in can be backed up by observable evidence?
The IJ (which I financially support) is a very serious organization that understands datasets, rules-based evidence and also public relations. If there was a stronger case that they could have made with the data that they had available, they would have.
I've already stated that I agree with the premise suggested, but I'm making the point that if you actually want to do anything about it, you need the evidence to back it up.
I can't go to my boss with a proposal to do something significant without measurable evidence to back up my reasoning and neither can you.
I have personally had a traffic ticket thrown out because the officer had a DV case brought by his spouse, who worked in the court. This caused the officer to be fired. I'm VERY aware of problems with LEO, but if you want to do something with a high administrative or human resources cost like any change to the status quo would obviously have -- you need real hard proof. Not "oh isn't it obvious"?
