I imagine this technology is here specifically to force people to give up on privacy. In a "guilty until proven innocent" situation, you can't even do your own secure/private tracking as any local data wouldn't have attestation. Only solution is to be rich enough to fight it out in court.
This is also blatantly an engine for parallel construction & evidence laundering at a massive scale. The only things holding law enforcement back from using it that way is the commitment of individual departments to following the rules of due process, or their fear of the consequences for violating them. So effectively nothing. And everyone involved in building, selling, buying, and using this tool knows that.
Police overreach that wantonly harms innocent people will continue to grow until police departments are made to routinely and predictably compensate their victims for the damages they cause - in this case, the costs of having to hire an attorney, time spent responding and collecting evidence, emotional distress, etc. These are all part of the cost of having law enforcement, but are currently being shirked by the municipalities deputizing the police departments and instead levied as externalities that fall onto unlucky victims.
Once the accounting is corrected, these issues mostly become cost-benefit tradeoffs. Should department policy allow officers to continue focusing solely on someone they believe is a perpetrator based on circumstantial evidence, but who insists innocence and immediately offers up their own evidence? Should a city adopt Flock even though it costs a bunch of money, both for the service and for the false positives it generates? Town/city government might decide they're willing to pay for these things. But at least it will be an honest decision, made by the people ultimately responsible for it.
You think the police are bad, just wait until all the other enforcers get their grubby mitts on this.
At least with the police you have rights. When the building inspector gets to rifle through the Home Depot camera records for the plate number of everyone who DIY'd an un-permitted shower renovation or the conservation commission asks Flock for every address the Sunbelt Rentals truck went you have no rights.
I don't understand what process was going on here. Why was police showing up on her doorstep and having a back and forth if they had evidence? File charges and she can fight them.
Why is she supplying evidence to the police dept? If they haven't filed charges just ignore them? If they have, evidence goes to court.
While I'm not a criminal attorney, I'm not sure if this is much different than a prosecution based upon an allegation that the defendant being identified by a bank camera capturing an image of a bank robber. If criminal charges are filed, a preliminary determination of probable cause must be made.
In a case where there was no supporting evidence - e.g. literally the only evidence is a camera image of person, I would imagine the image would have to be close to irrefutable in order to meet a probable cause standard.
Since we now know that the person depicted on the ring camera was not the defendant - and that the police voluntarily dismissed the charges when confronted with evidence showing they were wrong, makes it pretty clear the police filed charges without evidenced that could have passed the probable cause test.
This isn't necessarily the problem of using an image as evidence of a crime. It's a problem with the police filing charges in a manner they know is an abuse of their authority, but not giving a sh*t because it was only $25 and that it would be heard in Municipal Court - a place where the local Judge and Prosecutor have to get along with the Police and therefore the local police know they will never be punished for their abusive behavior.
It's not clear to me what this story has to do with Flock specifically. Surveillance cameras have been around for a long time, and cops can use footage from them as evidence for charging people with theft. Cops can legally lie to suspects about all sorts of things including how certain they are of evidence against a specific person - this is probably a bad thing that ought to be legally reformed, but it also has nothing specifically to do with Flock or surveillance cameras more generally.
> She later watched footage from the victim’s doorbell camera, which was posted on NextDoor, showing the package thief.
It seems like a package theft did in fact happen, and that the house owner themselves chose to put up cameras to record their door and posted the footage of it on the internet. In fact this footage was evidence the person in this article used to exonerate themselves, so this isn't even a general argument against surveillance cameras.
I wish this article explored more why the cops thought the thief was this person, or tried to suggest a better procedure for the police to use. Should the police have been legally required to just send the court summons and not try to talk to the suspect? Is there a better procedure than having a court case for incidents like this where a theft seems to have actually occurred and the police think they have a suspect? How ought the system to work here?
When the detective says "I've got that (that = doorbell camera quality footage) on my phone right now of you taking that package."
This is clearly a police officer saying that she is a thief and felon. Isn't this slanderous/defamatory? The trial had not even occurred to prove guilt.
Does she have grounds to sue the police department for defamation?
Forgive me for writing this, but this whole story possibly reeks of somewhat questionable journalism...
This whole story reads like:
"Something bad happened to Person A. They were accused by Person B of something they didn't do. They were the victim. The victim. Flock doorbell cameras were nearby. They're sort of similar to Ring doorbell cameras but they're Flock. Flock. Did we mention Flock? Person A was a victim, and Flock cameras were nearby. Flock. Flock. Did we mention Flock? Flock cameras were nearby..."
But maybe some people don't see the pattern, so (again, forgive me for writing this!) let me write another story using that same "journalistic" pattern:
"A group of people tortured, raped and killed (or allegedly tortured, raped and killed) a second group of people. The first group of people we'll call a "gang" or a "junta" or a "militia" (as opposed to "a group of people"), the second group of people we'll call "The Victims" (as opposed to "a group of people" -- which was probably another gang, junta or militia!). The second group were Victims! Victims! And during the time of their victimization, their intense victimization, a bunch of Oreo Cookies(tm) sat on the table near where the atrocities (or alleged atrocities!) took place! Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies! Did we mention that Oreo Cookies were nearby when the victimization occurred? Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies were nearby when the atrocities occured! Did we mention Oreo Cookies? Oreo Cookies were on the table near the victims!"
FTA:
“We thought nothing of it, as common surveillance, that’s great,” Elser said of the cameras. “You’re watching for crime — not to wrongly accuse somebody.”
So, what did she learn?
Imagine if she hadn't been able to afford a Rivian or a lawyer. The police could easily have handcuffed her and put her in jail on day 1. Without a good lawyer, what chance of release would she have had? Bail? Sure, but if you can't afford it or don't have someone to put up a bond, guess what? You're not going home.
Had the victim of this police overreach been less privileged, she could easily have been convicted.
This is kafkaesque. “I know you committed a crime because I have video”. Can I see the video? “No”. I found the video. That’s not me and they don’t get into my vehicle. “We know it was you” here let me spend a week of sleepless nights collecting exhaustive evidence that it wasn’t me. “Good detective work!”
I wonder if the cops just picked a car at random and said that was the thief.
14 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 35.1 ms ] threadOnce the accounting is corrected, these issues mostly become cost-benefit tradeoffs. Should department policy allow officers to continue focusing solely on someone they believe is a perpetrator based on circumstantial evidence, but who insists innocence and immediately offers up their own evidence? Should a city adopt Flock even though it costs a bunch of money, both for the service and for the false positives it generates? Town/city government might decide they're willing to pay for these things. But at least it will be an honest decision, made by the people ultimately responsible for it.
At least with the police you have rights. When the building inspector gets to rifle through the Home Depot camera records for the plate number of everyone who DIY'd an un-permitted shower renovation or the conservation commission asks Flock for every address the Sunbelt Rentals truck went you have no rights.
Why is she supplying evidence to the police dept? If they haven't filed charges just ignore them? If they have, evidence goes to court.
In a case where there was no supporting evidence - e.g. literally the only evidence is a camera image of person, I would imagine the image would have to be close to irrefutable in order to meet a probable cause standard.
Since we now know that the person depicted on the ring camera was not the defendant - and that the police voluntarily dismissed the charges when confronted with evidence showing they were wrong, makes it pretty clear the police filed charges without evidenced that could have passed the probable cause test.
This isn't necessarily the problem of using an image as evidence of a crime. It's a problem with the police filing charges in a manner they know is an abuse of their authority, but not giving a sh*t because it was only $25 and that it would be heard in Municipal Court - a place where the local Judge and Prosecutor have to get along with the Police and therefore the local police know they will never be punished for their abusive behavior.
> She later watched footage from the victim’s doorbell camera, which was posted on NextDoor, showing the package thief.
It seems like a package theft did in fact happen, and that the house owner themselves chose to put up cameras to record their door and posted the footage of it on the internet. In fact this footage was evidence the person in this article used to exonerate themselves, so this isn't even a general argument against surveillance cameras.
I wish this article explored more why the cops thought the thief was this person, or tried to suggest a better procedure for the police to use. Should the police have been legally required to just send the court summons and not try to talk to the suspect? Is there a better procedure than having a court case for incidents like this where a theft seems to have actually occurred and the police think they have a suspect? How ought the system to work here?
This is clearly a police officer saying that she is a thief and felon. Isn't this slanderous/defamatory? The trial had not even occurred to prove guilt.
Does she have grounds to sue the police department for defamation?
This whole story reads like:
"Something bad happened to Person A. They were accused by Person B of something they didn't do. They were the victim. The victim. Flock doorbell cameras were nearby. They're sort of similar to Ring doorbell cameras but they're Flock. Flock. Did we mention Flock? Person A was a victim, and Flock cameras were nearby. Flock. Flock. Did we mention Flock? Flock cameras were nearby..."
But maybe some people don't see the pattern, so (again, forgive me for writing this!) let me write another story using that same "journalistic" pattern:
"A group of people tortured, raped and killed (or allegedly tortured, raped and killed) a second group of people. The first group of people we'll call a "gang" or a "junta" or a "militia" (as opposed to "a group of people"), the second group of people we'll call "The Victims" (as opposed to "a group of people" -- which was probably another gang, junta or militia!). The second group were Victims! Victims! And during the time of their victimization, their intense victimization, a bunch of Oreo Cookies(tm) sat on the table near where the atrocities (or alleged atrocities!) took place! Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies! Did we mention that Oreo Cookies were nearby when the victimization occurred? Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies were nearby when the atrocities occured! Did we mention Oreo Cookies? Oreo Cookies were on the table near the victims!"
(Again, forgive me for writing this...)
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
(AKA: "Guilt By Association")
So, what did she learn?
Imagine if she hadn't been able to afford a Rivian or a lawyer. The police could easily have handcuffed her and put her in jail on day 1. Without a good lawyer, what chance of release would she have had? Bail? Sure, but if you can't afford it or don't have someone to put up a bond, guess what? You're not going home.
Had the victim of this police overreach been less privileged, she could easily have been convicted.
I wonder if the cops just picked a car at random and said that was the thief.
What a thing to say...