Another Woman Sues Flock For Mistaken Crime Accusation By Police - and for Surveillance (coloradosun.com) 54
Last week a Florida woman sued Flock over its role in police officer accusing her of a crime she didn't commit But she's not the only one suing Flock over mistaken accusations, reports Gizmodo:
.
A Ring video of a Colorado woman being handed a criminal summons for a porch-package theft she did not commit recently went viral after the accusation rested on a Flock Safety automated license plate reader hit. Now, the woman involved in that case, Chrisanna Elser, is suing Flock Group, the towns of Columbine Valley and Bow Mar, Sergeant Jamie Milliman, and Chief Bret Cottrell in federal court on behalf of herself and other Coloradans whose plates the company has logged...
The package in question was worth $25... The claims aimed at the company are intrusion upon seclusion, plus negligence and negligent design, on the theory that Flock sold a searchable archive and refused to require a warrant, a case number, or a supervisor's sign-off before an officer could run a plate... Elser is asking the court to make Columbine Valley, Bow Mar, Cottrell, and Flock delete the retained location data, to bar them from keeping it unless it is tied to an open case number, and to make Flock require a warrant, a case number, and a supervisor's approval before a Colorado agency can search the system.
The Colorado Sun has more details. "Elser did not steal anything, but spent the following two weeks proving her own evidence to a department that did not return her calls, she said. [P]olice Sgt. Jamie Milliman told her the town of Bow Mar's surveillance cameras captured her forest green Rivian driving through town the same day a package disappeared from a thief... When Elser offered to show her own evidence to prove her innocence, including footage from her Rivian's onboard cameras, Milliman said she could bring it to court. Now, she is suing the officers and Flock Safety in U.S. District Court in Denver, alleging that the warrantless tracking violated her constitutional rights and that Flock's surveillance system unlawfully documents Coloradans' movements... "The scariest part is what happened to me can happen to anyone. I had no idea the Flock cameras existed and no idea a private company was keeping a record of every time I drove past my own neighborhood, or that any officer could pull it up without asking anyone or giving a reason for doing so," Elser said in a statement Tuesday. "If it can happen to me, it can happen to you...."
"As noted in the complaint, the Flock system accurately identified the location of Ms. Elser's vehicle, while law enforcement retained responsibility for interpreting and weighing that information as part of the broader investigation," Paris Lewbel, Flock's public relations manager said. "Flock stands by the accuracy and integrity of its technology and intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation."
The article includes this statement from the woman's attorney. "Coloradans pass Flock's cameras on the way to work, church, the doctor, a protest, and a friend's house, and Flock keeps a detailed record of their every movement. It knows where you went, when you went there, and how often you go back, and it gives that information to a police officer with no limits.
"We are asking a federal court to say what should be obvious: Flock's surveillance is straight-up creepy and the government does not get to follow everyone, all the time, without any reason for doing so."
The package in question was worth $25... The claims aimed at the company are intrusion upon seclusion, plus negligence and negligent design, on the theory that Flock sold a searchable archive and refused to require a warrant, a case number, or a supervisor's sign-off before an officer could run a plate... Elser is asking the court to make Columbine Valley, Bow Mar, Cottrell, and Flock delete the retained location data, to bar them from keeping it unless it is tied to an open case number, and to make Flock require a warrant, a case number, and a supervisor's approval before a Colorado agency can search the system.
The Colorado Sun has more details. "Elser did not steal anything, but spent the following two weeks proving her own evidence to a department that did not return her calls, she said. [P]olice Sgt. Jamie Milliman told her the town of Bow Mar's surveillance cameras captured her forest green Rivian driving through town the same day a package disappeared from a thief... When Elser offered to show her own evidence to prove her innocence, including footage from her Rivian's onboard cameras, Milliman said she could bring it to court. Now, she is suing the officers and Flock Safety in U.S. District Court in Denver, alleging that the warrantless tracking violated her constitutional rights and that Flock's surveillance system unlawfully documents Coloradans' movements... "The scariest part is what happened to me can happen to anyone. I had no idea the Flock cameras existed and no idea a private company was keeping a record of every time I drove past my own neighborhood, or that any officer could pull it up without asking anyone or giving a reason for doing so," Elser said in a statement Tuesday. "If it can happen to me, it can happen to you...."
"As noted in the complaint, the Flock system accurately identified the location of Ms. Elser's vehicle, while law enforcement retained responsibility for interpreting and weighing that information as part of the broader investigation," Paris Lewbel, Flock's public relations manager said. "Flock stands by the accuracy and integrity of its technology and intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation."
The article includes this statement from the woman's attorney. "Coloradans pass Flock's cameras on the way to work, church, the doctor, a protest, and a friend's house, and Flock keeps a detailed record of their every movement. It knows where you went, when you went there, and how often you go back, and it gives that information to a police officer with no limits.
"We are asking a federal court to say what should be obvious: Flock's surveillance is straight-up creepy and the government does not get to follow everyone, all the time, without any reason for doing so."
Re: (Score:2)
There's a serial port GPS puck inside that WILL track you if you don't take the proper precautions!
Does it have a compass too? Those are handy. What's the battery voltage?
Re:Why are more people not cutting them divacup? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why are more people not cutting damien's cock? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why are more people not cutting them divacup? (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno, why aren't more people vandalizing devices that can snap your picture and upload to the cloud (to a database the authorities can search with no oversight) while you're actively in the process of committing what would likely result in felony charges in most states? The reality is Flock cameras have negative scrap value (they're essentially e-waste), and if you're really intent on picking up garbage from the streets, you might as well stick to the kinds of trash that are perfectly legal to collect and dispose of.
Non-destructively vandalizing the cameras (e.g.: putting a plastic grocery bag over them) probably has a better chance of being interpreted as a "protest" if you get a sympathetic judge, but you're still just as likely to get caught. People messing with Flock cameras is one of the lesser crimes that police tend to actually take somewhat seriously. There was a story recently of a cop that actually put up a fake 3D printed Flock camera so he could stake it out and catch someone when they tried to vandalize it (and it worked, they caught the guy).
We're seeing a pattern here (Score:5, Insightful)
Flock needs to be stopped, because people will eventually be terminated for a flock mistake,
Meanwhile, The CEO of Flock is online demanding his picture not be posted. The irony. However it appears the internet is doing what it does,
Re:We're seeing a pattern here (Score:4, Interesting)
The One Percenters are starting to worry about getting Mangione'd by the people they exploit.
Re: (Score:2)
The One Percenters are starting to worry about getting Mangione'd by the people they exploit.
Mangione'd Well played sir!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many hours of continuous flugelhorn exposure constructs a felony?
One note.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever else, Flock is very imprecise, prone to bad errors, and we're seeing a pattern of innocent people being arrested. Police should look at evidence rather than clog up court time. And apparently under Flock Law, one must prove they are innocent, because the Flock system is looked at as infallible.
In addition, it fosters sloppy police work. Even *if* Flock surveillance was infallible, proper analysis would still be required. In this case, the "evidence" (below) seems wildly inadequate and requires the accused to prove her innocence. Using the below as a the basis for a prosecution seems criminally negligent.
[P]olice Sgt. Jamie Milliman told her the town of Bow Mar's surveillance cameras captured her forest green Rivian driving through town the same day a package disappeared from a thief.
Re:We're seeing a pattern here (Score:5, Informative)
In addition, it fosters sloppy police work. Even *if* Flock surveillance was infallible, proper analysis would still be required.
Yes; most of these false arrests would have been avoided with a small amount of policework. Sadly, police face few consequences for poor actions (even fewer now that the administration has stopped federal oversight of questionable police forces; hope everyone is having the day they voted for!)
This doesn't limit the liability for flock and similar surveillance systems, but it should (but obviously will not) add liability for law enforcement which relies on these surveillance systems.
Re:We're seeing a pattern here (Score:4)
In addition, it fosters sloppy police work. Even *if* Flock surveillance was infallible, proper analysis would still be required.
Yes; most of these false arrests would have been avoided with a small amount of policework. Sadly, police face few consequences for poor actions (even fewer now that the administration has stopped federal oversight of questionable police forces; hope everyone is having the day they voted for!)
It'll be all fun and games until MAGAs get nabbed. Remind me to cry for them.
This doesn't limit the liability for flock and similar surveillance systems, but it should (but obviously will not) add liability for law enforcement which relies on these surveillance systems.
Just keeping it out of their hands will do for now. And remember, this too shall pass.
Re: We're seeing a pattern here (Score:2)
Sadly, we need to cry for everyone caught in this system. It is in our own best interests to make sure it is stopped, even for those too short sighted to see how it works against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, we need to cry for everyone caught in this system. It is in our own best interests to make sure it is stopped, even for those too short sighted to see how it works against them.
Yeah, as a person who was wrongfully accused some years back - a ridiculous thing - a third party accusation, I had around 20 alibis from people who were with me, the whole day, and even the victim said I bore little resemblance to the person who threatened him. Culminating in me advising the police that they need to tell the accuser they were looking at arrest for filing a false report, and after that, a civil case.
Point is, that does some psychological damage.
Unlike the standard "Cawps iz evilz" reac
Re: (Score:2)
I'm amazed the cops bothered to lift a finger for a $25 theft.
Re: (Score:3)
I have similar thoughts.
If the police cannot handle this tool correctly, then they don't deserve to have it as a tool. If Flock doesn't want all this blame and public hostility headed their way, then they need to put in some safeguards (requiring a warrant and etc.) to prevent the police from abusing their tool. Their failure to do that is on them, and its a key part of why people are demanding that they be taken down.
Re:We're seeing a pattern here (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever else, Flock is very imprecise, prone to bad errors, and we're seeing a pattern of innocent people being arrested. Police should look at evidence rather than clog up court time.
Except that the information Flock logged in their database was correct. It was the cops who decided that she was guilty just because she drove thru the town that day.
This was not a Flock error. It was bad cops.
The problem with Flock is that it should not be legal for it to exist. It is legal, and we need to change that. We need bar the collection of this kind of data, unless required to provide a service, and mandate the deletion of any data that is collected as soon as it is no longer necessary. If data is collected, it will be abused. There is no safeguard that can prevent that other than not collecting it in the first place.
Bad cops. That is a bigger problem. We need better cops. We need to purge bad cops from the force and hold those who remain to a higher standard. "with great power... great responsibility" The tradeoff is that we will not have many cops if we do.
Re:We're seeing a pattern here (Score:4, Interesting)
Whatever else, Flock is very imprecise, prone to bad errors, and we're seeing a pattern of innocent people being arrested. Police should look at evidence rather than clog up court time.
Except that the information Flock logged in their database was correct. It was the cops who decided that she was guilty just because she drove thru the town that day.
This was not a Flock error. It was bad cops.
One I was referring to was the incorrectly entered license plate what got a woman pulled over for suspected homicide - twice. A database error. After teh second time, they advised her to not drive that vehicle until they cleared the system and propagated the correct information.
This was not a bad cop, it was an error in the flock system. An error that can get people killed
Are their bad police? Sure. But your claims would appear to say that every single flock problem is by definition the result of criminal police. That's 100 percent the wrong approach. What is needed is logged interactions with data provided, such as the reason someone is maybe stalking someone. If Officer Joe Jones is stalking his ex wife Cynthia Jones, flock should be able to flag it. There are protections that Flock has none of at this time.
The problem with Flock is that it should not be legal for it to exist.
Problem is, if something can exist, it in fact will exist, Trying to make all license plate readers illegal is quixotic, honorable in intent, but doomed to fail.
Better to understand that, and implement enough safeguards to keep the bad guys and gals from doing bad things.
Re: (Score:3)
One I was referring to was the incorrectly entered license plate what got a woman pulled over for suspected homicide - twice. A database error. After teh second time, they advised her to not drive that vehicle until they cleared the system and propagated the correct information.
This was not a bad cop, it was an error in the flock system. An error that can get people killed
That was a cop error, not a Flock error. A cop entered the wrong license plate number into the database as the suspect vehicle. The Flock database faithfully reported that license plate number, and the other cops reacted to finding the reported suspect vehicle. This happened in the days before flock as well -cops put out an APB on the wrong vehicle/suspect.
Problem is, if something can exist, it in fact will exist, Trying to make all license plate readers illegal is quixotic, honorable in intent, but doomed to fail.
Better to understand that, and implement enough safeguards to keep the bad guys and gals from doing bad things.
License plate readers are not the problem, the database of all known occurrences over time is. I don't think we will outlaw surveillance databases in
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that what is required is so systemically difficult to achieve in the US, that it will never happen.
Look at what the UK has, by comparison:
1. National number plate standards that are focused on legibility and ensuring a unique identifier above all else, so that there’s no need for AI-based inference
2. National standards for ANPRs covering every aspect (compliance and audit below, but these are just one small part of a much larger framework)
This requires a top-down national approach to de
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that what is required is so systemically difficult to achieve in the US, that it will never happen.
Look at what the UK has, by comparison: 1. National number plate standards that are focused on legibility and ensuring a unique identifier above all else, so that there’s no need for AI-based inference 2. National standards for ANPRs covering every aspect (compliance and audit below, but these are just one small part of a much larger framework)
This requires a top-down national approach to deliver. Hence why it’s so difficult in the US.
I know, right? Here's your problem shilly. Europe, were everything is right and just, has it's own mass surveillance issues.
https://europeantimes.news/202... [europeantimes.news]
https://www.politico.eu/articl... [politico.eu] That one is quite relevant - A cop in Ireland was stalking her ex using surveillance on him. HJe didn't do anything wrong, she jus used her power to spy on him.
Did you know that Europe sells surveillance software to some pretty sketchy countries? https://stateofsurveillance.or... [stateofsurveillance.org] and https://www.hrw.org/report [hrw.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The world isn’t a fricking binary. There can be problems in country A and *worse* problems in country B. ANPR cameras in the UK are still abused by the police, but it’s materially more difficult and there’s materially lower levels of abuse. And Europe isn’t a country where things are all done the same way, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The world isn’t a fricking binary. There can be problems in country A and *worse* problems in country B. ANPR cameras in the UK are still abused by the police, but it’s materially more difficult and there’s materially lower levels of abuse. And Europe isn’t a country where things are all done the same way, anyway.
You just defended Europe for doing the exact same thing you condemn the US for There ya go. At least you are honest about your hypocrisy.
And make no mistake, rejecting my diets offhand is hypocrisy.
You see homie, it isn't right what Flock is doing, and we are doing something about it. What have you done about Europe’ssame situation other than defend it? That reads like a wife who demands an open marriage, and her husband says "Okay, I have a woman who's been interested in me for a while, I'll
Re: We're seeing a pattern here (Score:2)
Don't blame Flock for lazy police work.
Re: (Score:2)
Flock increases the range and severity of the mistakes that lazy cops can make. It’s a systemic additional risk.
The American mindset seems increasingly incapable of understanding that humans don’t act in a vacuum, and that a focus on individual responsibility alone is never going to be enough to resolve large-scale failures. It’s like the whole field of systems safety engineering has just disappeared in a puff of smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
Flock increases the range and severity of the mistakes that lazy cops can make. It’s a systemic additional risk.
The American mindset seems increasingly incapable of understanding that humans don’t act in a vacuum, and that a focus on individual responsibility alone is never going to be enough to resolve large-scale failures. It’s like the whole field of systems safety engineering has just disappeared in a puff of smoke.
Your first point - spot on. Flock just makes it too easy.
Second point - okay, all Americans aer stupid and incapable of understanding simple things. Now do Europe
https://europeantimes.news/202... [europeantimes.news] Did you know the EU sells spyware to other countries - including Rwanda? https://stateofsurveillance.or... [stateofsurveillance.org] https://stateofsurveillance.or... [stateofsurveillance.org]
Now to the flock like behavior https://www.politico.eu/articl... [politico.eu] From that page: Jack Murphy was suspicious. His ex-girlfriend, Eve Doherty, seemed to know a lot abou
Re: (Score:2)
This smacks of both-sides-ism. There are systemic differences in culture and governance across countries, and itâ(TM)s just silly not to acknowledge them, especially if the pushback is âoelook, Iâ(TM)ve found some anecdata that shows the problem exists in your continent too!â
Itâ(TM)s like claiming that because gun crime exists in European countries, itâ(TM)s not meaningfully worse in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
This smacks of both-sides-ism. There are systemic differences in culture and governance across countries, and itâ(TM)s just silly not to acknowledge them, especially if the pushback is âoelook, Iâ(TM)ve found some anecdata that shows the problem exists in your continent too!â
Itâ(TM)s like claiming that because gun crime exists in European countries, itâ(TM)s not meaningfully worse in the US.
Allow. me to make myself perfectly clear. What both countries aer doing is 100 percent wrong. You on teh other hand are a supporter of the EU 's surveillance and sales of surveillance software to countries like Myanmar.
I say both cases are wrong, while you show you support what the EU is doing.
You see, shillly, your anti USA narrative requires it being the only country at fault. That's teh problem with those narratives. They turn people into hypocrites. That you've had multiple responses shows that yo
Re: (Score:2)
I have consistently talked about the *UK* and the US. The UK is quite famously *not part of the EU*. Time for you to wind your neck in
Re: (Score:2)
I have consistently talked about the *UK* and the US. The UK is quite famously *not part of the EU*. Time for you to wind your neck in
Hypocrites will hypocrite.
The UK was part of the EU, and despite the idea that Brexit makes us something else, they are europeans, and trying to use your exceptionally lame "That's different!" card, you just dig yourself a little deeper into your cesspit.
But you gotta rationalize. I even gave you an out noting that all this is simply wrong, and you still cling to your narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame Flock for lazy police work.
You put them together. Flock has no guardrails, and perpetuates mistakes across it's system.
This isn't all about Lazy police work, or ba cops. I'm certain whatever line of work you are in, there are bad people.
No homie - this is about a system that allows bad people to be bad. Flock is ripe for abuse, so rather than teh usual hatred of police that seems to be the rule here, you make it harder to do the malfeasance. It's the difference between locking your car, and leaving it unlocked with etc keys on
Quaint, outmoded concepts (Score:5, Informative)
- Freedom of movement [wikipedia.org]
- Right to privacy [wikipedia.org]
- Freedom of assembly [wikipedia.org]
- Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures [wikipedia.org]
Re:Quaint, outmoded concepts (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty blackpilling that the people who I heard my whole life whipped into a frenzy over how sacrosanct those all were turned out the the people who have come the closest to dismantling it, seemingly because we had the audacity to elect a black man to President. And then trying a woman next?
It's not just surveillance - it's digital stalking (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one thing to say "You have no expectation of privacy in public" and quite another to have someone following you everywhere you go, recording all you do and providing that information to government agencies without a warrant. Someone out filming a concert and you happen to be in the shoot isn't the same as having a detailed tracking record created on you, this is digital stalking.
This needs to end, it's a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
Re: It's not just surveillance - it's digital stal (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The government is already there, it’s just the people who are intent on euphemising it, because the truth is too awful to contemplate.
Re: It's not just surveillance - it's digital stal (Score:1)
Cameras only record your location as you pass in front of a camera. They don't 'track you' you pass by their data collection points. Yes, your path between data collection points can be guessed/interpolated, but you aren't tracked in a meaningful sense of the word.
To track somebody would require Flock cameras to be deployed in such huge number that literally no location within the city is not monitored by flock cameras.
There are 'only' about 130,000 flock cameras deployed in America [dontgetflocked.com], for comparison, there a [clearway.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
This is all so wildly stupid, it’s incredible.
The US has between 50 and 82 million CCTV cameras compared to the UK’s 4 to 6 million. So the US has at least 10x as many CCTV cameras for a population that’s 6x the size.
The US has 130,000 Flock cameras and about 20,000 other ALPR cameras, while the UK has 14,000. So the US has 10x as many ALPR/ANPR cameras for a population that’s 6x the size.
Population size is, of course, a much better metric than area because no-one is putting up camer
Fuck Flock (Score:4, Informative)
Someone needs to shove a Flock camera up the Flock CEO's ass.
Flock will never be a Pride (Score:2)
nft
Re: Wow, worth $25? (Score:1)
Did it happen in front of a flock camera?
Do you have witnesses to provide the officers with actionable information (make, model of car, description of driver, license plate number, anything)?
What do you honestly think officers can do without anything other than the color of paint the hit-and-run car left on your vehicle?
Guilty until proven innocent (Score:1)
Re: Guilty until proven innocent (Score:1)
Lazy police work should 109% be punished. A detective should not ask for an arrest warrant based solely on a Flock camera sighting, no prosecutor should try and prosecute on such thin evidence, and no judge should sign-off on such a warrant, and ANSoLUTELY no jury should convict based solely/exclusively on Flick camera data...
But they do...
And folks want to blame the cameras, not the officers.
No, they don't... (Score:1)
The article includes this statement from the woman's attorney. "Coloradans pass Flock's cameras on the way to work, church, the doctor, a protest, and a friend's house, and Flock keeps a detailed record of their every movement. It knows where you went, when you went there, and how often you go back, and it gives that information to a police officer with no limits."
No, Flock doesn't know where you're going, it knows when you pass in front of one of their cameras, it's the police that take those discrete points and interpolates a a starting, ending point, and then the police guess as to motive/intent/reason.
If a city has 150 Flock cameras, then Flock only knows when, how many times, and what direction you were heading as you passed one of their 150 cameras - that's it.
avg iq (Score:2)
Median IQ of cops: 90.