Why? Is there something about their dataset and/or methodology that you can identify as deficient that would indicate that the rate is much higher than what was published?

I agree with the sentiment, but if you want anyone to do anything about it we need evidence and not vibes.

I'm trying to help you make your case. So far the only comments in this thread are the most low-effort reactions that don't say anything substantive.

▲

JohnMakin 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I agree with the sentiment, but if you want anyone to do anything about it we need evidence and not vibes.

I don't believe your concern trolling tone here - I'm not asking anyone to do anything either. I'm pointing out this is likely much more prevalent, based on the absolute fact most abuse/stalking cases go unreported, so this is likely a small subset of a larger problem. The "evidence" is these cases existing at all. In any case, flock data is mostly invisible and the police that use it get very little oversight. So how do you suggest I get any evidence? Shall I hack into their systems? Get real.

Even in the article:

> Most incidents came to light only after victims reported the officers’ behavior to the police, typically in the context of a broader stalking allegation.

> The 14 cases listed below are almost certainly an undercount. Not all police misconduct gets detected, and some cases likely get resolved quietly. Officers frequently cite vague or inaccurate reasons for their searches in ALPR systems, sometimes to evade detection of misconduct.

And regarding this:

> I'm trying to help you make your case.

Nah, I don't believe you.

	▲	argomo 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The evidence is just "human nature". Honestly, it's just negligence at this point to give people power over others without due oversight and accountability. But it's nice we have concrete examples of abuse to help motivate action.

▲

loteck 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The data set IJ is providing here is situations where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted. Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public.

▲

cucumber3732842 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This. They almost certainly use it for parallel construction 99% of the time. Just get lucky and "show up" when your spouse has someone over.

These 14 just were sloppy and left such an egregious fact pattern in their wake that a public record was created (firing, charges filed, etc)

▲

busterarm 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public.

"could" is doing a lot of work here...

> where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted.

No, that's not what IJ said. From the article: "Nearly all of these officers were criminally charged and lost their jobs, either by resigning or getting fired."

So not all 14 of these were "reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted".

If you're trying to make significant social change, make the strongest argument that you are capable of.

▲

stickfigure 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're asking us to believe that, absent evidence to the contrary, 100% of stalking cases were publicized enough to make this list.

Your Bayesian priors desperately need an update.

▲

fitblipper 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think "could" is doing a lot of work here at all. It seems logical that if cases where the misuse of flock systems were discovered only when the same officers misbehaved in other, more visible situations then there are officers that avoid the more visible situations and continue to use the system that does not expose their bad behavior (flock).

	▲	busterarm 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Logical as in fits your world view or as in can be backed up by observable evidence? The IJ (which I financially support) is a very serious organization that understands datasets, rules-based evidence and also public relations. If there was a stronger case that they could have made with the data that they had available, they would have. I've already stated that I agree with the premise suggested, but I'm making the point that if you actually want to do anything about it, you need the evidence to back it up. I can't go to my boss with a proposal to do something significant without measurable evidence to back up my reasoning and neither can you. I have personally had a traffic ticket thrown out because the officer had a DV case brought by his spouse, who worked in the court. This caused the officer to be fired. I'm VERY aware of problems with LEO, but if you want to do something with a high administrative or human resources cost like any change to the status quo would obviously have -- you need real hard proof. Not "oh isn't it obvious"?

▲

jasonlotito 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For those following along, this was the original comment:

> Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public. > "could" is doing a lot of work here...

I'd be careful replying to someone commenting and editing with such large diffs without calling it out. Fairly deceptive.

	▲	busterarm 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There's no deception. I added to my comment before anybody replied. I didn't change a word of the original text. You're throwing unnecessary shade.

▲

Refreeze5224 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The decades-long history of police abuse of power isn't enough? There is not a single power they have not abused eventually, and it's quite obvious that introducing new powers will inevitability be exploited.

▲

calfuris 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A "review of media reports" is not going to capture any incidents that the media didn't report on. That doesn't strike me as likely to capture every incident, or even a majority of incidents.

▲

snickerbockers 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

LOVEINT.

	▲	busterarm 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This term was coined at the NSA where roughly 1 case is reported per year and overwhelmingly through self-reporting during polygraph exams. That's quite different from this situation.

▲

jasonlotito 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Why?

FTA: The 14 cases listed below are almost certainly an undercount.

I feel that supports the original comment, considering it's all subjective.

Now, you are going to be tempted to start arguing that "almost certainly an undercount" doesn't support the original comment. But remember, it's subjective, and any reasonable person reading that comment and the article could see how "at least" could be seen as doing a lot of work.

	▲	busterarm 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"almost certainly an undercount." isn't the same thing as "prevalent", which was the accusation by the comment I was responding to.