She feared the impact a theft charge, though small, would have on her financial career.
Wild that a false accusation, after being proven as false at the court of law, can still impact one’s career.
deleted by creator
because when they run a background check on you they see you were charged. and that’s all that matters. you are untouchable to most employers.
AI is built on a reward system. Its sole reason for existence is to complete its task and get the reward points. It will create false information to do this. One AI that a lawyer “accidentally” used in court actually created its own 4-5 page court cases to use as citations to justify the case it was working on.
AI is a novelty and should NOT be in charge of any decision making or be admissible as evidence in any way.
So because she is better off financially and is not worried about google tracking, she had all the cameras, GPS tracking, and everything set up to prove her innocence.
I decline all of that stuff and i would have a MUCH tougher time proving my innocence when wrongly accused like she was.
This is just another step towards fascism where police are charging people for crimes they never committed, based on AI and computers screwing up.
WTF? Do I have to allow shit in my car and phone to start tracking me to provide evidence in my favor when some ai decides it has “tracked” me? The only reason this lady got out of it without getting a lawyer and going to court is she allowed all the bullshit in her phone and car that I block. And if she didn’t have it, what would have happened in court?
that’s exactly what I got out of this whole situation.
guilty until proven innocent.
That’s how they’re running it, and there are a whole lot of people who would prefer it to run that way in the future.
What should be happening is: when falsely accused and exonerated in court, you get a judgement against the LEA for treble damages for your costs to rebut their false claims.
False claims are going to happen, but if they’re costing the police thousands of dollars per instance, that should slow them down. I’m more than happy to pay increased taxes to put that deterrent on the agencies.
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.
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 needed 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.
I thought it was interesting that she was ok with all the neighbourhood surveillance until it was used against her.
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?
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… 🫠
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.
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?
They just redefined “speedy” to be several years.
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.
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.
Important for those who don’t know: police can legally lie to you. Happens all the time when they’re trying to get a confession. In a discussion, they’ll be like “we have your fingerprints matched and we have video of you, so it’s better if you’re just honest with us.” But they often don’t have anything which is why they’re desperate for a confession.
Weird to me that people are taking issue with the cameras more than the police work.
The problem here is charges being made with weak evidence and officers legally allowed to lie. I had a similar experience, but she was smarter than me. I was 22 and naive, thinking I didn’t need to prove my innocence because they have to prove my guilt in court (logically seemed impossible when I wasn’t guilty). The presumption of innocence is a lie. And juries and judges don’t operate with pure logic and reason. I had to learn the hard way, losing many years of my life.
This is exactly the tactic the officer was employing here (for a sub $25 theft), not showing the accused the evidence so they don’t know what the police might or might not know.
At some point in the process, there is “discovery” where both sides share their evidence before trial to avoid going to trial for stupid stuff (like this.) But you usually have to engage thousands of dollars of legal services before discovery is available, again over a sub $25 theft allegation.
The officer sweating her for driving through his town on the day somebody porch pirated somebody else is really ridiculous.
And that’s why you DON’T TALK TO THE POLICE.
If you are detained, do not talk at all, even if you’re nervous, even if you think you’re being helpful. Do not volunteer anything. If you are arrested, you say exactly this and nothing else: “I invoke my right to remain silent, and I invoke my right to an attorney.” Repeat that exact phrase AND NOTHING ELSE until you have your attorney present.
they came to my door to arrest me on false pretenses. they ask me to leave my house because my children died. they kept making shit up until they left.
I got pulled over the other day. The reason given was a lane change violation (which was bullshit pretense, it was right outside a very rural, but very busy, bar so this was likely actually entrapment, tho I was for sure under the legal limit - I was there to check out line dancing because I’ve never seen it before, and only had one beer in the hour I was there).
I also had a very expired registration (haven’t driven much, and didn’t realize I forgot to renew it).
But I got let off everything with a warning…? I spent days trying to figure it out because it should have been a ticket… he didn’t even seem interested in waiting for me to dig out my insurance info (which I had, just had to get it out of my wallet).
But I have a dash cam… and it records sound. It would have proven I didn’t violate anything, and he was recorded saying why I was pulled over so no way to flub it and say it was actually the registration all along, and thus the pretense for pulling me over in the first place was void. I’m pretty sure that’s the only reason I got off with a list of warnings rather than tickets.
Back in the days before dash cams I got let off with warnings a few times. Once in a while they actually are human beings, but that’s rare when they’re on a month end quota filling mission.
Honestly, he probably was looking for drunks, and when you clearly weren’t he just played it off (poorly).
Yeah. But that’s not entrapment. He didn’t coerce anyone into doing anything.
Well I never said it was, I said that was probably why “warnings.”
The root of the issue is allowing officer to lie in order to deprive people of thier rights.
He knew he had nothing, he was just trying to get a confession by saying it was a 100% lock. The cameras wouldn’t matter as much if lieing like that was illegal.
The fact that police officers can lie but people can’t shows you the terrible power imbalance in our law enforcement.
Also there’s no legal obligation to answer your door.
Worth noting that Ring has announced a partnership with Flock.
So if you’re in the Ring ecosystem, maybe time to re-consider.
I am stuck in a residence where the owner doesn’t consider surveillance to be a threat model. It sucks.
lol it’s literally an Amazon business. Should have been time to reconsider when Bezos loudly said that Ring footage can be used for anything they want.
So many reasons to re-consider.
Fascist nation taking notes from the CCP
Should disabling these cameras be considered community defense? Discuss.
Yes, next question.
No.
😎
It should be considered a moral imperative.
🫳
🎤
“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.
And he saw nothing wrong with that.
Are you kidding? They’re proud of it. They honestly think it’s a good thing. Along with the recent article about ICE stopping brown people and using a phone app to ID them from a photograph , we’ve rocketed right past the Papers-Please phase of fascism into a high tech dystopian end game.
Additionally, the citizens who support this kind of government surveillance are fine with a few innocents getting charged.
Particularly if those innocents are the “right” color.
And yet still, somewhere out there, there is a fake or brain dead leftist spouting on about how democrats support genocide.
“Chemo makes me sick, so Ill stick with Cancer”
I mean some of them legit do (cough Fetterman), and a lot just don’t particularly care about stopping it, but that’s beside the point, I know the kind of people you’re actually talking about. There is still value in electing the lesser evil, and pushing to get better and more progressive Dems in office (that are usually better at pushing back against fascism anyways)
know the kind of people you’re actually talking about. There is still value in electing the lesser evil, and pushing to get better and more progressive Dems in office (that are usually better at pushing back against fascism anyways)
This is exactly my point. The democrats have huge AIPAC backing and support some awful things, but they are fucking saints compared to the only other options in this political system.
They are the only potential vehicles for long term change and stability exactly the way you described.
Progressive candidates have to be winning primaries despite swimming upstream, and democrats have to continue winning federally despite the bad taste (chemo) they put in your mouth.
In many instances, they are “rogue installations” aka trash left on the side of the road that no one owns now. Check with your municipality if they have an agreement for them. If they don’t, feel free to put them in the bin where they belong.
For anyone unaware, there is a community effort to map these cameras. https://deflock.me/
Someone who isn’t me is wondering if there is any sort of rapid glass etching compound that would help to decorate the lenses for them.
Seems like some kind of oily fog/spray could obscure things until someone took the time to physically clear it. More temporary, but perhaps easier to accomplish?
Edit: And this pisses me off that I have to think about such things.
A very salty spray would be effective. The spray itself would obscure the lens until it is cleaned and cleaning it would be a pain in the ass to do without damaging the lens.
Unless you’re self hosting your own cameras, just don’t. If you don’t control the data then it’s somebody else’s camera.
What are the laws about search warrants around home cameras and the 5th amendment?
I’ve thought about setting up old smart phone based IP cameras around my house facing out windows. But decided that if it comes down to arresting people for anti regime speech, that having cameras with background audio of private conversations wasn’t a good idea.
I’m not sure it matters if it’s legal or not anymore these days.
Still, they can legally demand any recordings from you if they reasonably can know that such recordings exist. Generally they will need a warrant or they may subpoena you for the evidence that they know you have. You can even be arrested for erasing your own footage as destruction of evidence.
Obligatory statement that I am not a lawyer and this isn’t legal advice.
Go Colorado Sun! Proud sponsor for many years!
Reading the article, I am very confused. It appears that they simply decided a random person was the culprit because she was recorded as driving through town during the time period of the package theft, and that’s all they had?
That’s what I gathered as well. They mentioned there was doorbell footage but refused to show it to her. I’m guessing they saw she was in town, saw a person that maybe partially could have resembled her maybe if you squinted on the doorbell footage, and said that was all the evidence they needed.
There is the weirdly pushy way the police officer tried to get her to confess that seems to imply that, too. They had a hunch, and hoped the person would be dumb enough to incriminate herself. It’s a real shame she only exonerated herself, I am sure they would have loved it if she had tracked down the real thief.
“Pick up the can citizen.”
Pigs are really bad at investigating
No wonder Stephen Miller is so against citizens wearing masks.
Edward Snowden did try to warn us over a decade ago.
