Yes it very much is, there's plenty of evidence
Note that all the other charges against this person were dropped.
This is not like something that helps them cover their tracks, or hide behind some tool.
I don't like Flock, but it's the 'surveillance state' part of it that is bad.
In terms of 'cops being bad cops' - that's a separate thing.
Also - Flock for sure should not be allowed to be used in this kind of speculative kind of thing.
What about when they stalk and pull over women they're infatuated with? That's not being a bad cop? You know they do that, right?
This literally does help them hide behind some tool. They can get away with all sorts of rights violations by the nature of "we didn't collect the data, we bought it" in the first place.
Just like cops should not be able to ram their cars into people , or pepper spray peole in the face just because someone refused to show their id?
Like - you people have any sense at all of the difference between laws, policy, training, tools, rules of engagement etc?
Some tools are more amenable to abuse than others.
Some tools are far more dangerous (guns) than others.
Some tools are more easily abused without repercussion.
Some tools (Flock) can have audit trails aka information access - and also therefore limitations - like 'warrant' and 'court order', and 'access history' etc..
The moment the system has access registry, and the law says 'can only be used for such and such' - then defense lawyers can request access to logs to show unlawful access.
That's a great feature, and it will aboslutely curb lazy or bad cops from doing bad things.
That doesn't mean flock is good or bad, it's characterizing.
That's exactly what Flock is doing. It's just the latest variation on "power corrupts".
I don't think this is reasonable or principled.
The evidence here is that Flock can be used maliciously, I don't think anyone doubts that, the question is it a tool that is inherently bad in it's normal functioning, and I don't think so.
Like ... 'pepper spray' can be used maliciously by cops, since it's 'less apparently extreme' they can get away with more shenanigans. But it's not 'inherently' bad tool, and perpetual use won't change policing.
If you see a story where cops use pepper spray maliciously, and it harms someone ... that's evidence of an incident, not of a bad tool.
The 'evil' of flock is the surveillance state, not in bad apple cops.
That’s an uncharitable strawman.
We have checks against police abuse in place. Probably not enough in the US, but they exist. There’s no meaningful oversight in the US of Flock camera usage, though. And frankly, meaningful oversight will kill Flock’s business model - which it should. Nothing Flock is doing should be allowed in a democracy, in its current form.
"This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down."
No. The 'domestic violence and prohibited substances' is the part that will ruin lives directly.
Domestic violence, bad. The drugs, debatable, but that's a matter of getting 'weed' made legal, not a surveillance issue.
It's not 'destroyed lives from crime' - it's the 'destroyed civic fabric from an authoritarian surveillance state' ... that is the problem.
It's not the 'incident' that is the problem, because Flock is not helping cops be 'dirty cops' or anything.
It's the totality of it - and the pernicious grinding away of common civil liberties.
Probably we should not be able to use this 'interstate' unless for 'in pursuit of violent criminals leaving the scene of a violent crime' ... which is so rare that it wouldn't make sense.
The only place this should be tolerated is in 'acute areas of high crime, with annual review and judicial warrant' - aka where there is literally that much crime that it's a serious civic concern - and it has to be part of an overall civic plan by the municipality, in conjunction with social services, investment etc - never as a 'lone tool'.