this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
804 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

76564 readers
2897 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
804
After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence (coloradosun.com)
submitted 5 days ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
148 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20251030114314/https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frunch@lemmy.world 191 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (6 children)

I strongly encourage everyone interested in this topic (and you should be!) to read the article because this shit runs deep and they see absolutely no problem approaching the law in this fashion. Absolutely disgusting erosion of liberty and privacy, though it's not the least bit surprising. Here's an excerpt i found particularly chilling--this cop is fully convinced (or acting as if he were) about the validity of this minimal-effort investigation they apparently were ready to arrest someone over. Note that weeks later it was fully disproven and ended with a terse email acknowledging that she provided enough proof to absolve herself as the suspect. No accountability for their mistake, just: "you can go now"

“You know we have cameras in that town. You can’t get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing,” Milliman said to Elser, according to Ring doorbell footage of the Sept. 27 encounter viewed by The Colorado Sun.

“Just as an example, you’ve driven there about 20 times in the last month,” he added. 

Along with the Flock footage, the sergeant told Elser he also had a video from the theft victim that allegedly showed Elser ringing the doorbell before grabbing a package and running away. 

My favorite part

“I guess this is a shock to you, but I am telling you, this is a lock. One hundred percent. No doubt,” Milliman said.

😳

But Elser, a financial advisor, told the sergeant she had no idea what he was talking about. She asked several times to watch the video that Milliman insisted proved her guilt, but he refused to show her. And when Elser offered up footage from her Rivian’s onboard cameras to prove her innocence, Milliman said she could bring it to court.

“It doesn’t matter. I’ll be giving this all to you. If you are going to deny it to me, I am not going to help you with any courtesy,” Milliman said.

“It’s kind of funny because we have cameras on our truck, so we could show you exactly where we were,” Elser said. 

We are really fucked here. No accountability on their end, while foisting 200% accountability on ours.

[–] Cruel@programming.dev 94 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, been like this for quite a while. They can drag you for a while, lose their case, shrug it off, and continue as normal.

Meanwhile, you lost your job after your arrest, maybe even were denied bail and had to stay ~2 years in jail waiting for trial, and spent $100k on legal expenses. Winning at trial gives you no restitution for those massive losses. You're expected to also shrug it off and continue life.

[–] MeThisGuy@feddit.nl 25 points 5 days ago (2 children)

whatever happened to the right to a speedy trial? too many ppl give that up or is it not even asked anymore and you just have to know?

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 37 points 5 days ago

They just redefined “speedy” to be several years.

[–] Cruel@programming.dev 10 points 4 days ago

Sometimes lawyers do preliminary motions like to suppress unconstitutional search warrants or change of venue and stuff. If it's complex, it can take a while, and defense cannot request speedy trial if they're filing things, but you also don't necessarily want to forgo filing useful things.

Also, if they violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial, you can file a habeas corpus or something and, even if you win, there's still no consequence except them shrugging and saying oops.

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 61 points 5 days ago

This reminds me of how police abuse any new tool they're given.

Like how while trained dogs can actually sniff out drugs, when they're given to police, they get retrained to simply alert whenever the police want them to, and essentially become a flimsy reason to let police violate your rights and search anybody they want to.

And the police suffer zero repercussions for their actions. If they don't find drugs, there's nobody who's going to take them to court and force them to retrain their dogs or to disallow drug dogs from being used as reasonable suspicion.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 43 points 5 days ago (2 children)

We are really fucked here. No accountability on their end, while foisting 200% accountability on ours.

Is there some reason victims can't just sue flock into oblivion?

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 28 points 5 days ago

Good question! Frankly, i don't know. I have a feeling there would be some way they're protected in this arrangement since they're 'helping' law enforcement but that's far from even approaching legal precedent. I imagine questions like yours are going to be challenged in the courts as we move forward... 🫠

[–] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

Qualified immunity, Hasan Minhaj did a whole Patriot Act episode on it

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 37 points 5 days ago

If "video of someone roughly looking like you" is enough to completely reverse the burden of proof, then you can throw the whole justice system out of the window.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Absolutely disgusting erosion of liberty and privacy, though it’s not the least bit surprising.

Legally, it's not an erosion. Public spaces aren't private, and it was a charge that hadn't yet reached (probably costly) trial. It's the same level of erosion as before when they lacked this level of public surveillance.

this cop is fully convinced (or acting as if he were) about the validity of this minimal-effort investigation they apparently were ready to arrest someone over.

That's standard procedure for police in the US: overconfidence & pressure of any kind (eg, lies) to extract a confession no matter if false or the evidence doesn't support it. Their approach seeks conviction (no matter what) rather than truth. They're twats.

No accountability on their end

Their unaccountability is standard. Welcome to US law enforcement. They were just as bad before.

Apparently, policing can be better.UK policing was similar to the US until legal reforms (due to high profile cases of coerced confessions) led them to develop investigative interviewing, which seeks to gather evidence (free from biases & contamination) rather than confessions.

Much of the scientific base of investigative interviewing stems from social psychology and cognitive psychology, including studies of human memory. The method aims at mitigating the effects of inherent human fallacies and cognitive biases such as suggestibility, confirmation bias, priming and false memories. In order to conduct a successful interview the interviewer needs to be able to (1) create good rapport with the interviewee, (2) describe the purpose of the interview, (3) ask open-ended questions, and (4) be willing to explore alternative hypotheses. Before any probing questions are asked, the interviewees are encouraged to give their free, uninterrupted account.

When mandatory recordings revealed officers were unskilled interviewers (eg, assumed guilt of interviewee) missing & ignoring evidence due to their biases, and therefore needing training

they devised a program called PEACE with the help of psychologists. The week-long course, which also covered interviewing witnesses, was undertaken by every operational officer in the country. In the UK, unlike the USA, there is a high degree of cooperation and standardization between all forces. The training was a massive commitment, but it has helped avoid miscarriages, and it delivers better justice. Research studies and practical evaluations have also consistently shown higher skill levels and more objective approaches by officers. It is now accepted that not all officers will make good interviewers. PEACE has developed into several tiers of training linked to an officer’s field of work and identified potential.

Moreover, they refrain from lying.

The law does not allow lying to suspects, under any circumstances. Officers are trained to concentrate on probing a suspect’s account, seeking to confirm or negate by comparison with other known information. When the suspect knows that I can’t lie—my job is on the line if I do—I get more information.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

Fuck I'm jealous that other countries get that

[–] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 days ago

I thought it was interesting that she was ok with all the neighbourhood surveillance until it was used against her.