zlacker

>>locopa+(OP)
> “As much as Flock tries to be good stewards of the powerful tech we sell, this shows it really is up to users to serve their communities in good faith. Selling to law-enforcement is tricky because we assume they will use our tech to do good and then just have to hope we're right.”

> The Flock source added “Even if Flock took a stance on permitted use-cases, a motivated user could simply lie about why they're performing a search. We can never 100% know how or why our tools are being used.” A second Flock source said they believe Flock should develop a better idea of what its clients are using the company’s technology for.

In other words, why bother with safeguards when they'll just lie to us anyways?

>>Jtsumm+g8
> Even if Flock took a stance on permitted use-cases, a motivated user could simply lie about why they're performing a search. We can never 100% know how or why our tools are being used.

I think this is a legitimate problem.

But...isn't this what warrants are for? With a warrant, the police have to say why they want to perform a search to a judge, under threat of perjury. They have a powerful incentive not to lie.

So...should warrants be required for this kind of Flock data also? Couldn't Flock set a policy that these searches are performed only under warrant? Or a law be enacted saying the same? I imagine it would make Flock much less attractive to their potential customers, and searches would be performed much less often. [1] So it's not something Flock is going to do on their own. I think we'd need to create the pressure, by opposing purchases of Flock or by specifically asking our elected representatives to create such a law.

[1] If I'm being generous, because of the extra friction/work/delay. If I'm being less generous, because they have no legitimate reason a judge would approve.

>>scottl+6c
Yes, this is what warrants are for.

Flock's entire business model is a flagrant violation of the 4th amendment. What Flock does for their core business is called "stalking", which is a crime.

The issue here is not that the law is inadequate to resolve this problem. The issue is that the current administration has chosen to collude with private corporations that flagrantly violate the law, thereby replacing our entire judiciary system with a protection racket.

Please don't be generous. Fascists depend on our patience to insulate them from consequences.

>>thomas+bs
Yes, but the problem is deeper than flock or even privacy as a concept. The problem is that we routinely fail to recognize organization crime. Basically, you're allowed to just spread and obfuscate accountability and get away with basically anything.

If I stalk someone, I go to jail. If 100 people get together and invent Super Stalking and they stalk everyone all the time, nobody goes to jail. It's completely counter-intuitive but this is how we structured society and justice.

>>array_+hy4
If 100 police officers get together and stalk you, that is a crime.

The problem here is not the lack of law, it's the lack of law enforcement.

>>thomas+j8e
No, it's literally not a crime. That's what flock is used for and it's perfectly legal.

>>array_+9vl
Not according to the 4th amendment, and precedent set by the supreme court. Police can't just keep notes on every time and place they have seen your license plate. Doing it digitally, and feeding that info to an LLM isn't meaningfully different, apart from how much obviously worse it is.

Flock isn't legal. It simply hasn't been prosecuted, either.