> the cop illegally looked up her vehicle information on DAVID
It continually surprises me that these tools operate on basically trust. Why cops have direct access to these databases is baffling. I don't have much hope for florida to regulate its police but at least mandating providing a reason to use the database seems like a very reasonable thing to legislate.
Flock knows what inter-agency data sharing is legal and not legal in what states. So you think they'd have the functionality to disable forbidden data sharing when they sign a new agency in that state. They don't do that. "That's not our responsibility." And not only that, but:
Agency: Could we get training on how to do [forbidden data sharing]?
Flock: Absolutely. It's illegal in your state. Now that I've said that, here's how you do it in the app.
This guy only got punished because he wasn't enough of a bullshit artist to come up with an implausible but not-provably-false accusation against her, and he actually said the quiet part out loud about how this is used for tyrants. If he had just stuck to the story he overheard she was slinging crack or something he'd have likely gotten away with it with little more than side eyes and maybe some refresher class for appearances.
Because republicans continue to fight each other over how much they can lick authority boot. Gone are the days of fiscal conservatives or small government… no sir they are all on board for locking this place down.
> Because republicans continue to fight each other over how much they can lick authority boot
Because Americans think everything is a partisan issue, despite things like this happening under multiple federal administrations of differing parties and in States that are, effectively, single party of both major parties.
Just because a party is in power doesn't mean that party hasn't worked towards reform or correcting an issue. Lot's of arguments of "it happens under both parties" completely ignore corrective actions taken under one party and subverted by the other. Police in particular have an insane amount of political power and it would take decades to clean out the rot.
Republican Chester Arthur signed the Pendleton Act / civil service reform, which arguably virtually assured the way to gain power in the civil service was to add people or resources, meaning each president after had to grow the apparatus in order to implement their campaign promises or favors rather than just shit-canning all the previous people and regrowing it to the old size.
Before that the "spoils" system was able to check size of the executive branch as the people were allowed to elect someone to shit-can the previous servants. As it stands now the people have been essentially ripped of their previous voting power to elect an executive to make significant reductions of the civil service.
I think at this point both parties love the effects of civil service reform. Any handwaving about DOGE notwithstanding. It assures that the size of government can really only ratchet up, at least without stars aligning in congress, and bigger civil service means more executive power.
To get the party nomination you need to promise lots of things to lots of people, "I'm going to bankrupt the party favors to those who get me into power in order to help the little guy" might be a decent campaign slogan but you damn well better be pushing to put the peasants in debt/inflation as fast as possible if you actually want to get into office -- or else someone else will and snatch the nomination from you.
If you require a reason that is bureaucracy which people complain about for good reason. Requiring a reason adds great cost and we would rather not pay it. We might be forced to because not everybody is honest, but it is much better if we can trust others and so not have to do this.
Who on earth is complaining about bureaucracy in the police station? Maybe the VA, maybe the DMV, maybe the fish and wildlife service, but who wants the men who run around with guns and shoot people to do so without any administrative oversight?
Edit: anyway, the "bureaucratic" overhead of providing a reason seems to be unlikely to impede police work if indeed there is a legitimate reason to access these databases.
People who’ve consumed some of the decades of hollywood movies and TV shows where the hero is portrayed as having to break the rules to get their guys and people enforcing rules are portrayed as officious bureaucrats.
What an absolutely terrifying situation for that woman. It reminded me of a story from the UK where a police officer pulled over a woman, arrested her (for no reason) and raped and murdered her. I don’t know what you’re supposed to do in that situation because the law says you’re supposed to submit to police officers, not resist arrest, etc.
I immediately thought this was like something from a Carl Hiaasen novel, then read “He was tracking and chasing a woman that he met and harassed on the set of the AppleTV+ show Bad Monkey.” Bad Monkey is based on a Carl Hiaasen novel.
> the cop illegally looked up her vehicle information on DAVID
It continually surprises me that these tools operate on basically trust. Why cops have direct access to these databases is baffling. I don't have much hope for florida to regulate its police but at least mandating providing a reason to use the database seems like a very reasonable thing to legislate.
That's mass surveillance for you.
Beyond that.
Flock knows what inter-agency data sharing is legal and not legal in what states. So you think they'd have the functionality to disable forbidden data sharing when they sign a new agency in that state. They don't do that. "That's not our responsibility." And not only that, but:
Agency: Could we get training on how to do [forbidden data sharing]?
Flock: Absolutely. It's illegal in your state. Now that I've said that, here's how you do it in the app.
This guy only got punished because he wasn't enough of a bullshit artist to come up with an implausible but not-provably-false accusation against her, and he actually said the quiet part out loud about how this is used for tyrants. If he had just stuck to the story he overheard she was slinging crack or something he'd have likely gotten away with it with little more than side eyes and maybe some refresher class for appearances.
Because republicans continue to fight each other over how much they can lick authority boot. Gone are the days of fiscal conservatives or small government… no sir they are all on board for locking this place down.
Like the evil Republicans running San Francisco!
https://www.sf.gov/news--san-franciscos-new-public-safety-ca...
Oops, only six days later!
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/sfpd-says-license-plate-...
"San Francisco police said they have disabled access to their network of Flock Automated License Plate Reader cameras"
Also of note, how much backlash the Mayor and SFPD faced about approving the contract in the first place against public opinion.
> Because republicans continue to fight each other over how much they can lick authority boot
Because Americans think everything is a partisan issue, despite things like this happening under multiple federal administrations of differing parties and in States that are, effectively, single party of both major parties.
Just because a party is in power doesn't mean that party hasn't worked towards reform or correcting an issue. Lot's of arguments of "it happens under both parties" completely ignore corrective actions taken under one party and subverted by the other. Police in particular have an insane amount of political power and it would take decades to clean out the rot.
So, by this logic, it wouldn't make sense if programs like this hadn't been _started_ under administrations of both parties, right?
I'm looking for what evidence it would take to convince you that this isn't a partisan issue.
Republican Chester Arthur signed the Pendleton Act / civil service reform, which arguably virtually assured the way to gain power in the civil service was to add people or resources, meaning each president after had to grow the apparatus in order to implement their campaign promises or favors rather than just shit-canning all the previous people and regrowing it to the old size.
Before that the "spoils" system was able to check size of the executive branch as the people were allowed to elect someone to shit-can the previous servants. As it stands now the people have been essentially ripped of their previous voting power to elect an executive to make significant reductions of the civil service.
So I'd argue the Republicans did start it.
And Democrats are fighting against it, right?
https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2025/10/newsom-vet...
I think at this point both parties love the effects of civil service reform. Any handwaving about DOGE notwithstanding. It assures that the size of government can really only ratchet up, at least without stars aligning in congress, and bigger civil service means more executive power.
To get the party nomination you need to promise lots of things to lots of people, "I'm going to bankrupt the party favors to those who get me into power in order to help the little guy" might be a decent campaign slogan but you damn well better be pushing to put the peasants in debt/inflation as fast as possible if you actually want to get into office -- or else someone else will and snatch the nomination from you.
If you require a reason that is bureaucracy which people complain about for good reason. Requiring a reason adds great cost and we would rather not pay it. We might be forced to because not everybody is honest, but it is much better if we can trust others and so not have to do this.
Who on earth is complaining about bureaucracy in the police station? Maybe the VA, maybe the DMV, maybe the fish and wildlife service, but who wants the men who run around with guns and shoot people to do so without any administrative oversight?
Edit: anyway, the "bureaucratic" overhead of providing a reason seems to be unlikely to impede police work if indeed there is a legitimate reason to access these databases.
People who’ve consumed some of the decades of hollywood movies and TV shows where the hero is portrayed as having to break the rules to get their guys and people enforcing rules are portrayed as officious bureaucrats.
> which people complain about for good reason
But bureaucracy itself exists for a good reason. The hard part is finding a balance.
That was my point. Finding the balance is hard.
I think it's intresting to read about the guy who made yolo. Take a look at his website and later, his thoughts about the monster he may have created.
https://x.com/pjreddie/status/1230524770350817280
https://pjreddie.com/darknet/yolo/
https://medium.com/@graham.wallington/the-evolution-of-yolo-...
What an absolutely terrifying situation for that woman. It reminded me of a story from the UK where a police officer pulled over a woman, arrested her (for no reason) and raped and murdered her. I don’t know what you’re supposed to do in that situation because the law says you’re supposed to submit to police officers, not resist arrest, etc.
It's worth mentioning that the ALPR's in the Florida keys are unavoidable due to it basically being 1 road.
Rare good news story about a cop facing consequences (arrest). Was he fired as well? I couldn't tell from the article.
The linked article does not say what happened to him, but if you Google his name there are lots of hits. This one says he was fired:
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/monroe-county-deputy-arr...
The penalties for police abusing the power we grant them should be severe.
I immediately thought this was like something from a Carl Hiaasen novel, then read “He was tracking and chasing a woman that he met and harassed on the set of the AppleTV+ show Bad Monkey.” Bad Monkey is based on a Carl Hiaasen novel.
Hey, maybe we shouldn't build out this infrastructure so aggressively?