DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired(ajc.com)
ajc.com
DeKalb deputy charged with Flock camera misuse; more Georgia officers fired
https://www.ajc.com/news/2026/07/3-more-georgia-police-officers-fired-over-alleged-flock-camera-misuse/
10 comments
This news and the timing of it seems like it is trying to elicit your response. Flock has been getting a lot of bad press recently.
The first batch of firing that happened in GA was not because of Flock safeguards, it was because an internal auditor said let's look at your new system.
If they cared about privacy, they would have had such a system in place not something that is just being rolled out.
Second, these people are getting caught because “The activity identified during the audit revealed that the employees searched their own license plates or those of a family member/acquaintance, and not random members of the public,”
A fair reading of that says it is ok to look up information on random members of the public. I feel better already.
If the bar is set at random people, a friend of a friend looking up the info and getting it back to you would get around the safeguards, back to the old buddy in the department.
The first batch of firing that happened in GA was not because of Flock safeguards, it was because an internal auditor said let's look at your new system.
If they cared about privacy, they would have had such a system in place not something that is just being rolled out.
Second, these people are getting caught because “The activity identified during the audit revealed that the employees searched their own license plates or those of a family member/acquaintance, and not random members of the public,”
A fair reading of that says it is ok to look up information on random members of the public. I feel better already.
If the bar is set at random people, a friend of a friend looking up the info and getting it back to you would get around the safeguards, back to the old buddy in the department.
i always hoped the "buddy" would be the lever that goes "no, that's crossing the line between friendship and ethics, please rethink your request"
something an artificial buddy will happily do anyway when you promise that your grandmother is on the line
something an artificial buddy will happily do anyway when you promise that your grandmother is on the line
> i always hoped the "buddy" would be the lever that goes "no, that's crossing the line between friendship and ethics, please rethink your request"
What percent of law enforcement agents do you think would meet that bar?
What percent of law enforcement agents do you think would meet that bar?
It's going to vary by country, state, and "culture".
Here, in my locale, honest LEOs that that have strict ethics run at about 80%.
Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.
Here, in my locale, honest LEOs that that have strict ethics run at about 80%.
Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.
Is that locale in the United States as I assumed based on the conversation being around flock cameras?
If it is, and you are assuming 80% strict ethics then I have a PBA card from my grandfather to pull out to show you how incorrect that is on a statutory basis.
Also your second paragraph
> Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.
How can you assume they have strict ethics but also understand that they change their ethical stance depending on who they are dealing with. That’s not strict ethics by any definition.
If it is, and you are assuming 80% strict ethics then I have a PBA card from my grandfather to pull out to show you how incorrect that is on a statutory basis.
Also your second paragraph
> Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.
How can you assume they have strict ethics but also understand that they change their ethical stance depending on who they are dealing with. That’s not strict ethics by any definition.
No, and Venn diagrams.
How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%?
Also, Philippine Basketball Association membership carries no weight here.
How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%?
Also, Philippine Basketball Association membership carries no weight here.
PBA = Police Benevolent Association
> How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%?
Is that a real question? Having strict ethics is a higher bar than variable ethics. How can you assume that more LEO’s are strictly ethical than varying their ethics when you literally brought up
> Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.
You literally said “…strictly ethical about varies…” you are being inconsistent with terminology if you are trying to claim strict ethics can vary
If you need
Strict[1] Variable[2]
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strict
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/variable
> How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%?
Is that a real question? Having strict ethics is a higher bar than variable ethics. How can you assume that more LEO’s are strictly ethical than varying their ethics when you literally brought up
> Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.
You literally said “…strictly ethical about varies…” you are being inconsistent with terminology if you are trying to claim strict ethics can vary
If you need
Strict[1] Variable[2]
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strict
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/variable
<yawn>
You seemed determined to get messy rather than legitimately discuss where we are not seeing eye to eye.
Yes, definitions matter. Yes, I do see difficulties in two strangers discussing this.
Yes, the behaviour of LEOs changes depending on who they interact with and yes they can be oblivious to that change.
When I say that most of our state LEO's have strict adherence to the code of ethics, I mean that. When I say those in the grey area still consider themselves to have strict adherence, I also mean that.
Part of the mess lands with where they see themselves in the state and who they see as those they serve and those that they protect others against.
Maybe get a life and stop idly throwing about dictionary definitions? Particularly one that's a fork of English.
You seemed determined to get messy rather than legitimately discuss where we are not seeing eye to eye.
Yes, definitions matter. Yes, I do see difficulties in two strangers discussing this.
Yes, the behaviour of LEOs changes depending on who they interact with and yes they can be oblivious to that change.
When I say that most of our state LEO's have strict adherence to the code of ethics, I mean that. When I say those in the grey area still consider themselves to have strict adherence, I also mean that.
Part of the mess lands with where they see themselves in the state and who they see as those they serve and those that they protect others against.
Maybe get a life and stop idly throwing about dictionary definitions? Particularly one that's a fork of English.
> When I say that most of our state LEO's have strict adherence to the code of ethics, I mean that. When I say those in the grey area still consider themselves to have strict adherence, I also mean that.
When Terrance Howard says 1x1 = 2, he also means that and it’s as equally coherent.
They cannot strictly adhere to a code of ethics and simultaneously violate it when it comes to people they don’t care about. The “strict” part would require them to always adhere to said ethics.
When Terrance Howard says 1x1 = 2, he also means that and it’s as equally coherent.
They cannot strictly adhere to a code of ethics and simultaneously violate it when it comes to people they don’t care about. The “strict” part would require them to always adhere to said ethics.
No.
My father worked as what would be (roughly) equivalent to the US Marshal service in Australia.
One day in 2001 one of his coworkers was fired because he saw what he thought was a cute girl in a newspaper article who had won a car in a lottery, and her new license plate was visible. He looked her up.
He didn't interact with her, communicate with her, drive by her home, call her. He looked her up out of sheer bored curiosity, and within 2 months, auditing of the warrants he was working couldn't find a correlation as to why he'd queried this license plate, and he was asked to explain, and couldn't.
Please don't conflate Flock with responsible use of technology. The CEO is on record as saying he says a false positive is better than a false negative. And Flock itself won't turn off data sharing options that are illegal in a state to an agency of that state. They'll happily give training on how to use that data sharing to that agency. They've stated that it's not their policy to tell agencies how to abide by data sharing laws.
My father worked as what would be (roughly) equivalent to the US Marshal service in Australia.
One day in 2001 one of his coworkers was fired because he saw what he thought was a cute girl in a newspaper article who had won a car in a lottery, and her new license plate was visible. He looked her up.
He didn't interact with her, communicate with her, drive by her home, call her. He looked her up out of sheer bored curiosity, and within 2 months, auditing of the warrants he was working couldn't find a correlation as to why he'd queried this license plate, and he was asked to explain, and couldn't.
Please don't conflate Flock with responsible use of technology. The CEO is on record as saying he says a false positive is better than a false negative. And Flock itself won't turn off data sharing options that are illegal in a state to an agency of that state. They'll happily give training on how to use that data sharing to that agency. They've stated that it's not their policy to tell agencies how to abide by data sharing laws.
The same exact thing happens with Flock, the only cases we hear about are because the tool empowers such easy abuse of liberty that people make no efforts to hide what they’re doing
At least seven other Georgia law enforcement officers were fired this month and charged with misusing the technology.
That includes a Henry County police officer who was fired and arrested last week following an investigation into his access of the Flock network, authorities there said.
That includes a Henry County police officer who was fired and arrested last week following an investigation into his access of the Flock network, authorities there said.
I’d have a lot less heartburn with these types of systems if the system prevented mass data exfiltration by organizations (so they can’t simply retain the non-evidence themselves), and limited ALL non-anonymized data retention to the prior 30 days unless there is a signed court order. To me, that is a perfectly reasonable compromise between safety and privacy. No articulated suspicion to a judge means your data evaporates after 30 days.
If you want a bit of irony, look up the Flock CEO’s home address (not terribly difficult). You will see it’s blurred out on Google Maps Street View
Anyone can request their residence be blurred on Street View. I did it myself about six years ago.
Just going to leave this here. I grew up in Rhode Island in the Eighties and if a cop got turfed from the cops in Rhode Island, you pretty much know they did something right. https://youtu.be/f1P-g3Hkvjg?is=d-00G7YND4OJrUY3
Flock: You thought we put the cameras up to spy on you. Haha on the police who buy them and rat themselves out!
Gosh, no one could have predicted this.
this isn't an archive. This is copied text onto a page, possibly modified.
Please use one of the standard archive.today sites or wayback machine to offer mirrors.
Please use one of the standard archive.today sites or wayback machine to offer mirrors.
I'm not sure what to think here. Legitimate misuse, sure. But the article says at least one person only looked up their own license plate. I feel like that should be considered acceptable. It's not law enforcement usage specifically, but can't I grant myself the right to see information on my own vehicle?
Yes, devil's advocate could say if standard citizens can't, no one can. Just seems so minor it's not worth losing a job over. All other cases (including plates of family which you don't directly own), yes, investigate fully and apply appropriate actions.
Yes, devil's advocate could say if standard citizens can't, no one can. Just seems so minor it's not worth losing a job over. All other cases (including plates of family which you don't directly own), yes, investigate fully and apply appropriate actions.
> I feel like that should be considered acceptable
Not if they're married and their spouse also drives the vehicle.
Not if they're married and their spouse also drives the vehicle.
Ethics aside, I don’t think there’s a legal issue with obtaining data on one’s spouse.
Legal issue no, but with how much more likely cops are to be domestic abusers, i think its very dangerous
Replying to myself to address responses.
I didn’t express an opinion about whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea. All of you have had an immediate emotional reaction to the idea that there’s no legal “right to privacy” from your spouse. The legal question and the ethical questions (should you be aware at all time what your spouse is up to? should you dig around in their personal journal or phone to learn thing?) are separate.
Should you invade your spouse’s privacy? No. And if you’re constantly paranoid enough to be doing that, you likely have issues that are negatively affecting the relationship.
There’s not even proper protection of your privacy from strangers and companies, let alone such from a spouse.
Should there be? Of course.
The arguments against this behavior don’t even need to include spousal considerations. It shouldn’t happen, period. When it happens, it should be punished, period. But when it’s punished, “oh, it’s just my wife” isn’t a defense - not because spouses should have privacy protections, but because the system was abused.
I didn’t express an opinion about whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea. All of you have had an immediate emotional reaction to the idea that there’s no legal “right to privacy” from your spouse. The legal question and the ethical questions (should you be aware at all time what your spouse is up to? should you dig around in their personal journal or phone to learn thing?) are separate.
Should you invade your spouse’s privacy? No. And if you’re constantly paranoid enough to be doing that, you likely have issues that are negatively affecting the relationship.
There’s not even proper protection of your privacy from strangers and companies, let alone such from a spouse.
Should there be? Of course.
The arguments against this behavior don’t even need to include spousal considerations. It shouldn’t happen, period. When it happens, it should be punished, period. But when it’s punished, “oh, it’s just my wife” isn’t a defense - not because spouses should have privacy protections, but because the system was abused.
That’s a take. Maybe stop, say it out loud and see if you catch yourself. Like, why am I searching for where my own car has been?
Oh right, because I am worried about the safety of my children. God save us from child safety.
Oh right, because I am worried about the safety of my children. God save us from child safety.
A quick bit of research proves otherwise, for example: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591464acadd7b0493427d3... and others as described here: https://aaml.org/wp-content/uploads/MAT109_1.pdf
Given how many murders are committed against one's spouse, there ought to be.
Really? Doesn't a spouse have a right to privacy? I don't see how getting married makes you forfeit privacy rights you otherwise have.
Unless you mean that there's no legal issue with obtaining data in anyone, which is a much larger problem.
Unless you mean that there's no legal issue with obtaining data in anyone, which is a much larger problem.
There is a legal concept here of “spousal privilege” similar to that between attorney-client or priest-penitent. So a spouse with “information” could not be compelled to divulge it.
But if you mean husband and wife keeping secrets hidden from each other, that is not really a thing, except for normal human limits and boundaries, and in a marriage, the spouses should probably expect a reasonable minimum of that.
But if you mean husband and wife keeping secrets hidden from each other, that is not really a thing, except for normal human limits and boundaries, and in a marriage, the spouses should probably expect a reasonable minimum of that.
So what's your point?
"Ethics aside" for the person empowered to act on behalf of the state?
"Ethics aside" for the person empowered to act on behalf of the state?
It's misuse precisely because any civilian can't use the same tool. Despite how they act, cops do not have a separate set of legal rights that extend to their off-duty lives.
If a cop was checking to make sure they got away with drunk driving, it removes factors that might deter them from continuing that behavior.
If a cop was checking to make sure they got away with drunk driving, it removes factors that might deter them from continuing that behavior.
In the state of Georgia, https://eservices.drives.ga.gov/_/ gives access to the following information based on license plate or VIN:
Look-up Information Look-up the status of your title, insurance, or registration. Also view available prestige plates or license plates, vehicle history, or search for ELT lienholders.
Look-up Information Look-up the status of your title, insurance, or registration. Also view available prestige plates or license plates, vehicle history, or search for ELT lienholders.
Check Title Status
Check Insurance Status
Check Registration Status
Check Prestige License Plate Availability
View License Plates
Search ELT Lienholder
Vehicle History Lookup
Check on My Purchase from a Dealer
It basically shows a lack of respect for the gravity of these tools. If a cop was fucking around with a gun, youd want them held accountable for that so there is a standard of care in using these things. We need that because these can be very dangerous if misused, even unintentionally. The next thing this cop might do with alpr data is look up their friend to play a prank on them or something. Its gotta be nipped in the bud
It’s a test with a good excuse. If caught, it’s only their own data, right? If not caught, then time to abuse the system.
im not sure if anyone saw me, was my presence noted on camera at the time and locale of a crime?
thats why looking up your own marker, should be suspicious, its reconaissance, investigating the investigation.
when someone queries the police for status of info, or tries to be overly helpful its a checkmark toward reasonable suspicion.
thats why looking up your own marker, should be suspicious, its reconaissance, investigating the investigation.
when someone queries the police for status of info, or tries to be overly helpful its a checkmark toward reasonable suspicion.
Traditional look-up software is probably being misused by cops all the time (à la the old noir trope of a PI having "a buddy in the department" who can look up anything for him).