Stalking Cops: When High-Tech Solutions Fail to Account for Human Nature

The recent announcement by Flock that it will require all law enforcement agencies with access to its license plate reader data to use a safety tool aimed at preventing cops from stalking their personal acquaintances is a sobering reminder of the darker side of technology. On the surface, this move appears to be a victory for those pushing for greater accountability in policing and an acknowledgment by Flock that its platform had become a facilitator of abuse rather than just a neutral tool.

However, scratch beneath the surface, and it becomes clear that this solution may merely treat symptoms rather than address the root cause. The safety tool, which automatically detects abnormal activity and locks out access for users who engage in such behavior, raises more questions than answers about the true nature of the problem it seeks to solve. Flock’s own admission that only a third of agencies had opted in to this optional free feature since April suggests that even with a solution available, there was no real urgency among some law enforcement bodies to address the issue.

The fact that high-profile incidents – including one in which three cops were arrested for using Flock cameras to stalk their exes – prompted Flock into requiring its use raises questions about the effectiveness of relying on technology to solve problems that are inherently human. It’s a stark reminder that even with the most sophisticated tools at our disposal, we often struggle to prevent abuses of power and authority.

This issue stretches far beyond policing and surveillance, forcing us to confront the darker aspects of human nature in ways we never could before. The notion that we can simply “tech our way out” of problems like stalking is a myth perpetuated by those who believe that innovation alone can solve complex social issues.

Flock’s new policy may be a step in the right direction, but it’s unclear whether it will be enough to restore trust and confidence in the platform. Without significant changes in policing practices and societal attitudes towards surveillance, we’ll continue to see abuses of power and technology that are as old as they are egregious.

The defined criteria for abnormal behavior used by Flock’s safety tool is a critical concern. Will it be based on algorithmic determinations of what constitutes stalking, or will it be a more subjective measure? This raises questions about the potential for abuse in itself. The surveillance industry is at a crossroads, requiring a fundamental reevaluation of how we balance individual rights with collective security.

There’s also the issue of whether agencies will adhere to Flock’s new policy. Historically, law enforcement bodies have found ways to circumvent or ignore measures aimed at preventing abuse of power. This raises serious questions about the effectiveness of relying on technological solutions without corresponding changes in institutional culture and accountability.

Ultimately, this story is less about technology and more about human nature – our capacity for abuse, our tendency towards corruption, and our failure to adequately address these issues through systemic change. The arrests of those three cops in Georgia should have been a wake-up call for us all – not just law enforcement. It’s time we stop treating these incidents as isolated anomalies and start recognizing them for what they are: symptoms of a broader disease that affects us all.

As the tech industry continues to push the boundaries of innovation, it’s up to us to ensure that this progress is matched by a corresponding commitment to addressing the darker aspects of our own nature. The future of policing, surveillance, and accountability hangs in the balance – not just for Flock or its users, but for all of us. Will we learn from these mistakes, or will we continue down the path of treating symptoms rather than the root cause?