Flock isn't even finding the abuse or exposing the abuse. Sometimes it's their customers (police) discovering the abuse - if they actually perform audits like they should, but usually it's citizens submitting FOIA requests for data and discovering the abuses.

▲

rezistik 11 hours ago | parent [-]

This isn’t true. Flock has an entire team dedicated to creating these auditing tools.

That’s why we hear about abuse of flock over abuse of axon which does not offer those tools.

▲

Dezvous 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Show me an example of Flock (i.e. a Flock employee or official company record) exposing a cop for abusing their systems. Providing auditing tools to the customers to discover abuse is not exposing the abuse. If they were exposing the abuse they would be publishing publicly when officers submitted searches that violated a search policy, which they could do with their 'transparency' portals. But they'll never do that.

	▲	rezistik 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That doesn’t make any sense at all. You’re right I guess in that flock isn’t themselves going through audit logs I don’t believe but everything else is incorrect. I don't really think it is Flocks job to do the auditing. Flocks job is to make auditing possible and to surface abuse to the parties involved in policing the usage.