<- Back
Comments (83)
- dredmorbiusThis is not a jury nullification (which is an emergent property of US Constitutional double-jeopardy protections), but a failure to indict, that is to bring criminal charges (a "bill of indictment") for potential criminal conduct.In this instance, the case has been dismissed, but might conceivably be brought again.Why grand juries make the decisions they do is hard to determine, as their operations are (usually) secret. This may have simply been a case of insufficient evidence of a crime, or identity of the suspect ("probable cause"), as appealing as a broader backlash theory might be.Much of this article appears to be either speculation or unsourced information if there was in fact resistance to bringing a Flock case by this grand jury. The latter might indicate a violation of secrecy oaths by jury members or other court officers.Specific practices vary by state, not all of which use grand juries. All federal criminal cases rely on a grand jury.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_Sta...>
- VikingCoderI got my catalytic converter stolen twice.I hear Flock cameras have even more valuable materials inside them.
- recursivedoubtsJury nullification ain't sounding so bad anymore, is it?
- pluralmonadSad to see how quickly the narrative has been pushed from "you should not collect this data" to a bunch of "we need common sense guardrails" comments.
- aizkThis reads like a newspaper snippet you discover in a cyberpunk video game.
- SoftTalkerWhy would a simple vandalism charge go to a grand jury?
- fHrI'm more pro surveillance and think a lot of people missbehaving in public need it nowadays. But even I think this Flock Quasistasi mass sutveillance stuff is going way to far. It's hard to say I love security but also privacy and the abuse potential or risks are huge as well. I'm torn.
- lenerdenator>The backlash against Flock has intensified as a growing number of police officers have been accused of or charged with abusing the technology, often to stalk romantic interests. As of Aug. 12, there had been more than 100 cases of abuse by law enforcement, according to the Institute for Justice.In response, Flock announced new safeguards designed to prevent misuse by police. Critics, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argue that the reforms are largely “cosmetic,” and that warrants should be required for searching license plate reader data.I'll go further: the gathering of such information should only be allowable by a sworn law enforcement officer acting under a warrant or some other sort of judicial permission during an active investigation.Flock and Axon are private companies. What's to stop them from selling this license plate data to the police or to other parties to pad their quarterly numbers? Actually, I'd be surprised if they're not already doing this. A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts.
- ratelimitsteveThe state will try again until they get the result that they have determined is correct.
- josefritzishereThis is true patriotism.
- superkuhThis is only fair play given the cities and DAs around the country have refused to indict or prosecute Flock surveillance when they break the law.
- buellerbuellerGood. Let the techbros understand we don't want a surveillance state.
- throwfaraway135Life is considered the highest value in the west. So let me ask you this. Is the life of a person less worth than your privacy?
- seethishatProperty damage is a crime.I don't object to Flock cameras or any other public cameras. But if I did, I would write to my congress person rather than commit a crime and destroy someone's property.