this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
974 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

86459 readers
4081 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
974
Flock Says Its Cameras Worked 'Correctly' When Police Tracked and Ambushed Me for No Reason (www.thedrive.com)
submitted 2 days ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
129 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A brief recap: a few weeks ago I’d taken the $155,000 Range Rover I was testing out to run some errands with my wife in Plymouth, Minnesota. I was backing out of a parking space in front of my local Kohl’s when four cop cars came screaming up and “initiated a box and pin on the vehicle,” as the police report says. Hands on their guns, the officers ordered us out of the vehicle, patted us down, and eventually told us the Range Rover’s license plate—New Jersey 34 10 DTM—was stolen, they suspected the vehicle itself was stolen too, and they’d used Flock cameras to track me down over the last two days.

The scenario involving my wife and I is just one of many like it. Thomas noted that the system is 99% accurate today, but it’s performing 20 billion reads a month. That 1% error rate, of which I was a part of in June, makes for two hundred million misreads a month.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

False equivalence. Expressing yourself through material means, like art, music, heck, even bumper stickers, that's perfectly reasonable. You don't "own" that license plate. It's not yours, its an identity being externally pushed on you. They let you customize it somewhat, to make it feel like something you're choosing to do. You're not choosing it. It's not an expression of the self, it's an identity externally imposed, and that's a meaningful distinction, even if you understand and agree with why it's being imposed.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

But you don't own the art you watch/listen to. You don't own the message on the bumper sticker. There is no difference.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 hours ago

That's a very legalistic interpretation of art. From a psychosocial perspective, all art is participatory. Each token is more than simply a construction of the artist. Who and how it's shared with and interacted with is an active participant in creating its meaning. The act of choosing is in itself an internalizing behavior. There does remain some externalized imposition, but as an act of voluntary community building, not a function of practical necessity in the service of ends not entirely your own; and importantly if the terms of that voluntary association change you can remove the symbol.