A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

103

TTiwariparth6165 about 3 hours ago 54 commentsRead Article on techtimes.co.uk

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

27% Positive

Analyzed from 1438 words in the discussion.

Discussion (54 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

vatsachak•about 3 hours ago

This cop is doing his part to get rid of flock

frandroid•37 minutes ago

Yeah but they changed it to a dropdown now so others won't be able to follow in his footsteps.

josefresco•about 2 hours ago

> July 2025, an officer with the Lake County, Indiana, Sheriff's Department

Do they not know the name of this officer, or are they not reporting it?

nonethewiser•about 2 hours ago

It's public. It's in the dataset that was released containing "LMAO".

JsonDemWitOster•about 1 hour ago

Naturally I don't know how the Flock search platform operates but this implies to me that this "Reason:" field is a mere formality, after-the-fact accountability (if even that!).

If the search was granted based on human checks for the reason given, they would not dare be flippant about this. Of course it would take more time, humans don't scale, etc. but that's kinda the point: invasive methods should be a last resort.

ShadowOfThePit•about 3 hours ago

> Data reviewed by the EFF included searches labelled 'LMAO', 'LOL', 'Hehe', 'Haha', 'idk' and 'blah'. Other entries included 'asdfg' and strings of apparently random keyboard characters. In one case, an officer entered: 'robbery I don't remember the case number leave me alone'.

lol wtf. Like, I get it, "haha quirky me", if it was a personal coding project or an informal setting, but not here!? I wouldn't believe if you told me they were older than, what, 30?

On second thought, that's absolutely possible.

cogman10•about 3 hours ago

So, I've actually implemented a system like this for my work. It's completely non-shocking to me that a unchecked and unvalided "reason" field ends up with nothing but garbage in it to get past the software checks.

My 3 "words" requirement because managers wanted more than just "caus" ended up with workers simply putting in "a o k".

These systems need more validation and teeth than simply letting the officers enter whatever text allows them to search. A case number isn't enough, IMO. There needs to be an actual warrant which the system checks. But further, misuse needs to be prosecuted (I know, fat chance).

kennywinker•35 minutes ago

I think the “fat chance” part is why these networked license plate cameras can not be allowed to continue to exist.

If the solution to abuse is constant and careful oversight, that’s not a real solution. Any system will eventually be degraded, disbanded, or captured.

nonethewiser•about 2 hours ago

The reason field is not to gate the search feature. It's for accountability. This officer should be reprimanded.

a34729t•about 3 hours ago

This sounds exactly what happens when you are required to fill out a reason for say a deployment to your test enrvironment in a jira ticket. After a certain point you just stop obeying cause nobody reads the ticket anyways.

pluc•about 3 hours ago

Commit messages

darkwater•about 3 hours ago

That's why we should also replace cops with LLMs and AI. Oh, wait.

dylan604•about 2 hours ago

I mean, if the field is required and is open text with no requirement that the text be useful, why would you bother? How many of use put stupid text into fields just to get to the download? Yeah yeah, cops are supposed to be above blah blah, but they are human.

dpoloncsak•about 2 hours ago

Just because there isn't a coded requirement doesn't mean there hasn't been directions to state valid requirements. This isn't a Jira ticket, this is a tax-payer funded government official supposedly doing his job, and should 'bother' to give valid reasons.

guywithahat•about 2 hours ago

What do you mean "not here"? They're looking at video footage of public places, I would not care either. I'm not happy about flock cameras but this is not like he's filling out paperwork for a charge or doing something important, these cops are looking at existing camera data of public spaces

mingus88•about 2 hours ago

Cops are not known for being well regulated individuals

The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable

I think you can trace both of these problems back to the police union.

nonethewiser•about 2 hours ago

>The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable

Flock added the field as a requirement and logs it. It's up to the police/local government to reprimand abuse.

kennywinker•33 minutes ago

We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.

pelagicAustral•about 2 hours ago

My commit messages when no one is looking, and the reason I hardly ever open source stuff...

foolfoolz•about 3 hours ago

flock isn’t going away. this feels like the 1990s web that grew into a more regulated system with safeguards. flock or a (more advanced) replacement are going to be part of policing in the us forever

dragontamer•about 2 hours ago

Once upon a time, one of the largest companies of the USA, Bell Labratories, was declared an illegal monopoly and eradicated.

In the correct political environment, entire companies can be dismantled with one executive action. Not our current political environment, but in the 1980s one it could happen.

-----------

Oh, also, companies were literally an act of Congress when this country started. We can change the rules back and dismantle any company that refuses to work for the benefit of this country.

Remember that one time when a large global company (The Dutch East India company) got a tax break from the king, and it angered the population so much that we took a bunch of tea (a symbol of the Dutch East India Company) and threw it into the Boston Harbor?

Ahhhhh yeah. I remember. Oh right, we teach that situation a bit differently today don't we? People probably don't remember exactly how easy it used to be or how this country used to treat companies that betrayed our values.

We can go back. But lets start with understanding that we _can_ go back. Step 2 is electing people who will agree with this political message.

maerF0x0•about 2 hours ago

In this case the issue isn't 19k flock cameras, but an utter lack of repercussion for failure to justify usage. In the same way I'd be arrested and jailed if I breached/used 19K ring cameras that do not belong to me, this guy should be arrested and jailed for his misuse. Police unions are a major root cause of many issues in the USA.

kennywinker•21 minutes ago

It’s clear to me that these networked license plate cameras represent a fundamental impingement on freedom.

Just one example: how is a journalist supposed to meet with a secret source if their locations at all times are logged?

Even if these databases are only ever searched investigating violations of laws, it’s trivial to find ways to twist that against political rivals, protesters and activists, ex girlfriends, journalists, and leakers.

toomuchtodo•about 3 hours ago

https://ij.org/the-ij-database-of-alpr-abuse/

jasonlotito•about 2 hours ago

Flock makes it easy to track people and where they go. For example, if you are going to a gun range, or going to a place to buy guns and ammo, Flock makes it easy to track that. This makes it easy to figure out who has weapons and allows the government to easily target them first. This would make it easy to create a digital database of known and suspected gun owners.

This is something I'm sure all gun owners support.

kennywinker•18 minutes ago

The government would never do that! /s

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/dea-planned-moni...

https://www.libertynation.com/flock-cameras-vs-gun-shops-the...

progforlyfe•about 3 hours ago

Policy officers are mis-using this powerful, hugely invasive massive surveillance tool? I am utterly shocked!

y1n0•about 2 hours ago

Given the absurd commit messages I see, basically along the lines of “oops” “lmao” “wtf” I don’t see the issue.

kergonath•about 1 hour ago

OTOH, are you in an official role with extended powers because you represent the State? A role where you can routinely infringe on the civil and human rights of the people around you?

Why do you think the comparison is relevant at all?

SHAKEDECADE•about 2 hours ago

I'm guessing that often you find yourself surrounded by people and issues that just don't make sense to you.

alistairSH•about 3 hours ago

Too bad they haven't named/shamed the actual officers. Lack of details is effectively giving the police carte blanche to continue doing this shit. "Oh, we'll tell the officer to cut that out (fingers crossed behind back)"

dayyan•about 3 hours ago

Would you have not? Don't lie.

fckgw•about 2 hours ago

We're supposed to hold police officers to a much higher standard. Whether I would or not is irrelevant.

psychoslave•about 2 hours ago

A higher standard would not let such a mass surveillance network exist, even less give the possibility of such a large look up in it without single use accreditation by a judge or some tierce relevant to keep in check citizens right for privacy.

Any large enough population will also include people failing at doing the-right-thing™ (when such a thing could at least reach some societal consensus) at least sometimes in their life. Expecting anything else is dooming the standard at the lowest possible floor level.

hackyhacky•about 2 hours ago

I work in a field where privacy of customer information is protected by law and we all take this very seriously. So, no, I would not do this, and I think that police (who have vastly much more power over people's lives than I do) should not either.

dylan604•about 2 hours ago

That's great. Now put yourself in the same situation the cops are working with and not your arbitrarily applied restrictions. The cops clearly do not have these restrictions, so why are you applying something artificial like this?

NBJack•43 minutes ago

Since the context here is the U.S., there are plenty of restrictions they are legally bound by. Here's a small sample:

- The fourth amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure)

- Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 (evidence gained without adhering to the fourth amendment is inadmissible)

- Wong Sun v. United States, 1963 (conclusions drawn from unlawfully obtained evidence/illegal entry can be challenged or outright discarded)

- Franks v. Delaware, 1978 (the right to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement)

hackyhacky•43 minutes ago

Pardon, but I think that someone who carries a gun (and is allowed to use it) as part of their work uniform requires stronger, not weaker ethical guidelines than someone who pushes code.

sophacles•about 2 hours ago

I hold myself to all sorts of standards that are not enforced by anyone outside of me. There are plenty of things I choose not do do despite a complete lack of consequence if I do them.

It's a called integrity and morality. Clearly another thing cops and their sycophants don't have.

dpoloncsak•about 2 hours ago

I would assume, if I'm reviewing the cameras for a valid reason, that it may end up in court. If it ends up in court, I'd want my logs to show I atleast did the bare minimum, yes.

ajross•about 2 hours ago

The point is not that police are bad and we aren't. You're right that everyone can be tempted to terrible action by access and permission to terrible things.

The very clear point here is that cops are in practice misusing this system without a meaningful safeguard in place to ensure searches are legal. Which is especially worrisome in this country given that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Like, the constitution isn't unclear on this at all.

ambicapter•about 2 hours ago

No because I'm not a cunt.