Consider:

Traffic stop. Officer is making 'small talk'. "Where ya goin?". Where ya comin from?".

These are generally not 'small talk'. They are fishing questions, cop asking for info that could lead to suspicion, and detention while they dig for more.

And these sorts of questions can generally be answered by, simply, "None of your business, officer".

Every subsequent question, such as "I'm just making small talk", or "Hey, no big deal", or "What's the problem, you have something to hide?" are all just follow up fishing questions. And deserve no answer.

During a traffic stop, Flock gives officers information they would normally be lawfully denied, like "Where ya coming from?". Flock sidesteps your right to constitutionally refuse such information (and in the absence of reasonably articulable suspicion or other evidence, during a traffic stop, denies the officer the right to demand such information) and as such is a blight on constitutional protections. Flock must be better controlled, or abandoned.

And officers using Flock to look up the plates of their ex, former landlord, or the random guy who gave them a dirty look at a stop light are plainly violating these individuals' rights, and must be sanctioned. And the supervision of the abuses systems similarly sanctioned. Meaningful sanctions, every incident.

The Government rarely surrenders access to information. They seek power at every opportunity. In America, only the Constitution, and adherence to law, can nominally restrict this.

I agree. People used to do all sorts of things.

They used to be able to bring forth valid examples to back their point up in a debate. Now they just bring forth plenty of shitty examples proven repeatedly to be shitty. Which we left behind for many a valid reason.

Just explain to me how in the hell you feel the status quo of parents being more "buddies" to their children, growing them rather than raising them, and removing ANY form of punishment or accountability, becomes a proven good thing in society. Can you logically and factually explain how the action of NOT punishing children appropriately, has created a vast improvement in child behavior in society? Because I can give you plenty of examples of what happens when those insufferable unaccountable children become insufferable unaccountable grown-ass children and start wreaking havoc in the world because no one bothered to remember the actual value of saying NO to a child.

Yes. Last century DID handle this problem differently. Modern society has merely failed to justify why we stopped. And now we're dealing with the fallout from it. Everywhere.

And to be clear for the idiotic extremists who can't debate anything outside of the fringe, there is a fundamental difference between a spanking and a beating. If you're still confused, go attend AA meetings until the stories make that distinction crystal clear.

And if we're still wondering how this all happened, the single motherhood rate went from 20% to 70% in the last half-century. No matter how independent feminism wants to pretend it is and don't "need" men, the absolute lack of a father figure will be felt for generations to come. Rest assured.

Nonsense. The training materials not only guide towards correct behavior, they also push candidates to self evaluate that they are here for the correct reasons. There is also screening to help ensure they are here for the correct reasons. Do bad ones slip through, there are obviously some that do not have the intelligence, temperament, or judgement that the job requires and they should be removed. However they are the exception, the outliers.

Funny but that's kind of what you are doing. Frankly your personal incidents are of far lesser weight than the training and screening. Again, they are literally told that they are expected to go into harms way to protect people when the situation calls for it. That will be your duty. And if you think otherwise or think you could not do so, leave now.

And sometimes it is an extreme form of emphasis. An indication of extreme seriousness. It all depends on context.

That is just your erroneous opinion.

You are literally contradicting yourself here. Dismissing the more common behavior due to personal anecdotes.

Claimed misbehavior like is this thread? Debunked misbehavior..

And the source of your bias. Plus your opinion is this story suggests that you may not be the best evaluator of what is actual misbehavior.

A red herring. Police and Military are trained to not obey illegal orders.

No, I merely acknowledge that people who should not be officers slip through the screening. They are however outliers, hence "generally".

Amusingly you are projecting, what have you offered other than your questionable interpretations of your personal anecdotes?

LOL - maybe now you understand why I used words like "generally".

You conclusion displays poor logic and reading comprehension of face value. I have said there are people who slip through the screening that may be unfit due to intelligence, temperament, and judgement. Obeying an illegal order would be one of those judgement failures.

Thank you for confirming your bias and a tendency to believe misrepresentations. You seem to not understand the reality behind what you discuss.

Did "not a venue worth much time" confuse you?

Guilty here too. In real life I am also well known for playing devils advocate to keep people honest. Friends sometimes test me for fun, picking a side and having me argue that position.

100%. But hearing the other sides falsehood and illogic, although I would characterize it as their shallowing thinking and/or shallow information, can be quite informative. (1) To learn the common arguments made by opponents. (2) Your political team does not always tell the truth, their political team does not always lie. Both teams will lie to manufacture the desired perception, both teams will tell the truth when the truth coincidentally supports the desired perception. One needs to listen to both sides to discover the truth. Much like police officers have to have a conversation with the journalist rather than just accept the employees claims of harassment or threats, again motivated not by the claim but the suspicious activity of following.

In general I think you are being intellectually honest hence my continuing to interact. I think our disagreement is more a matter depth of knowledge regarding law enforcement. I suppose it might help to confess that I am NOT a sworn law enforcement officer, however I have gone through some of their formal training. My involvement is of a Search and Rescue/Recovery role. That role needs some formal training with respect to the handling of evidence. However the intro classes are designed for future patrol officers and cover many other topics and skills. Among the extras were interviewing techniques, which was helpful in this thread.

I also once interacted with a journalist in the field during one callout. The journalist was quite fair and reasonable, I have no problem with such pros.

With respect to convincing a 3rd party, sure, too deep into the thread for that. Still there is seeing if the other party will add any interesting info. Again, you seem to be intellectually honest, not just regurgitating party talking points (well, you got close to that with respect to illegal orders), so you might add something interesting in a rebuttal. And, I suppose, there is a slight possibility I am stubborn. :-)

Do you think you can tell the average childs origin story by talking to them for 10 minutes? See how well they respect you? Listen to you? Pay attention to your direction, or even follow the directions of their peers?

I'll bet you can. What's not so easy anymore is actually finding a child who knows how and why to behave properly. And if you think you're going to deny that problem, then ask yourself why American educators are quitting in droves. They used to be armed with the proper tools to manage children. Now every child comes with a lawyer issued to them. Parent consent used to be respected. Now it's optional and dismissed whenever a twentysomething teacher still wet behind the ears decides they should hold more authority in a situation. With a school system that cares more about how much an A-grade is worth in funding rather than ensure a student earns it.

Origin stories are not hard to follow when they're speaking that loudly. The same arrogant one is becoming all too common now.

So can I, stupid.

And any good parent fucking knows the difference between a spanking and a beating, so how about you try and not conflate what you've admitted to doing yourself with "abuse".

Regarding those who wish to label proven punishments as old-fashioned and outdated, let me ask you the obvious as we debate mental illness in America; Hows the fucking status quo working out as compared to before?

I thought so. Society will either lear the hard way, or the harder way.

And the entire point of my retort devolving into grown-ass children unable to parent or punish children was summed up in the fact that humanity is too stupid to create an actual kill switch for AI.

Thank you for confirming my point.

This.

If the "reason" box isn't a pre-populated menu with legally validated options, someone royally fucked up that UI long before even considering the issues of mass survellience in America.

On a related note, no one managed to use "Copy McCopface" as the reason? C'mon man. If you're gonna troll the system, at least fashionably troll it.

Until it isn't. I lived in an extremely safe neighborhood, nothing ever happened. One night an officer pulls over a car on our main road, the officer walks up to the car, the driver fires three rounds into the officer, his vest catches all of them. He's knocked down and in pain, he barely crawls back to his vehicle and calls for help before passing out. The next day there is a photo of him in the hospital with his shirt off. He has three large orange sized bruises on his abdomen. The call he pulled over for a minor traffic offense was an armed robber fleeing from a robbery 7 miles away that had not made. Patrol officers had not received notice yet. This can happen anywhere.

FBI stats indicate traffic stops are one of the most dangerous things that officers do.

Officers are used to getting conflicting information from callers. The fact that the employee claimed harassment does not mean the officer would believe it, they too would notice that videos and pictures is not necessarily harassment. What would get their attention is "getting followed". That is the key here. That is what escalates things as following is in a different category than videoing.

Nope, it was the employees claim of "getting followed".

Nope, standard interview technique. Get the person to talk, to explain, to self incriminate. Questions along the lines of "what else did you do", "what else did you have", etc typical sort of lines of questioning to get a person to provide additional information. They want long open ended conversations. If someone is lying that provides more opportunities for inconsistencies. The more points to compare and contrast the two stories they are hearing.

No, that is a subjective opinion. As I indicated earlier, officer won't take that as a given. They will ask what did the other person do, what did they say, what did they have, etc?

Untrue, what really motivated all this was the following. And both sides agree that happened?

The problem is Flock is a private company so in theory anyone can pay for access. It just so happens all the customers are the police. That's the legal loophole.

The police will pitch a hissy fit and threaten a work stoppage.

Racism is in fashion now they don't have to hide.

Many other countries do not have it and they are not dens of lawlessness.

Indeed. Also, stealing somebody else's work in this way is basically career-death for academics. They may lose their job and become unemployable. They may lose their PhD. Hence it does happen very rarely. Obviously the LLMs and their handlers have no such qualms.

It is no surprise that quite a few enterprises have strict prohibitions against putting any company data into LLMs.
Also the OWASP LLM Top 10 (https://genai.owasp.org/resource/owasp-genai-llm-top-10-2026/) list this as the 2nd most serious risk.

It is stealing if you do not cite all of them in your publication. The standards for scientific misconduct are VERY clear: You are not allowed to hide your sources.