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 12 hours ago | parent [-]

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 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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)

▲

7e 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Flock records public events. None of these apply. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space and the courts have been quite clear on this. Actual legislation would need to be passed to restrict what can be recorded in public settings. A redefinition of "public", basically. And what about the public? Would they also be barred from making their own recordings of public events? Would they be barred from sharing them with law enforcement?

	▲	NBJack 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not necessarily. One could argue my cell phone's signal is in the public when I use it (home or otherwise; it is rather omnidirectional), and the records thereof aren't subject to it the same way as say a search of my phone or my home. However, in Carpenter v. United States, government entities were found to be in violation of the fourth when accessing historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant (at least over a period of 7 days or more, if I understood it right). Previously, it was considered fair game under the basis of records technically turned over to a 3rd party. Then there's United States v. Jones (2012), where it was established a GPS tracking device was attached to a car constitutes a search. It remains to be seen how Flock will ultimately hold up in court. Although a few cases have popped up, I think it's too early to tell.
	▲	hackyhacky 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The police officer is not standing on the street corner, observing public events. They are searching a privately-held database of sensitive information whose use is governed by certain restrictions, which are being violated by the police officer. Whether or not those violations rise to the level of crime does not erase the fact that they unethical, and likely against both Flock's terms of service and the department's policy.

▲

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

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 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.