* Illegal to collect every plate for later analysis

* Must delete "non hit" plate images within 3 minutes

* Strict forbidden to upload "non hit" camera imagery off the device

I would add that it should also require a warrant to access the ALPR data, but it's a great start.

https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/261/261-75-b.htm?utm_source=c...

And ALPR is only one method that Flock uses. Their pan-tilt-zoom offerings are specifically meant to target pedestrians. They have facial recognition (and I've heard gait as well) and sniff for Bluetooth and other things to try to fingerprint devices.

It needs to be illegal to collect video for later facial recognition analysis as well.

I believe I've seen claims the are recording Bluetooth MACs of passing devices, and I've definitely seen that they're also detecting people on the camera feed.

* Illegal to collect every plate for later analysis

* Must delete "non hit" plate images within 3 MILLISECONDS

* Strict forbidden to upload "non hit" camera imagery to NON-VOLATILE STORAGE.

* "HIT" LIST MUST BE CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY SIGNED & ENCRYPTED BY WARRANT KEY ONLY JUDGE HAS ACCESS TO.

FIFY

I think the best solution is to just say nobody can do this, including the government. Or that if we allow things like Flock to exist, then we'd need actual legislation that tightens considerably how available the data is to be searched, and what approvals are necessary to access it.

The obvious next step, otherwise, is for someone to start OpenALPRMap and we all get to suffer together.

Isn't Flock's alleged legality predicated on the principle that there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in public? I don't see why that would change depending on whether it's "Joe Average" or a police officer at the controls---IIUC I'm allowed to capture images, video, etc. of people in public just as much as cops are.

Agreed that these systems simply need to be banned.

Some of the cases involve sexual assault and kidnapping as well.

And obviously those are just the ones who got caught.

Part of this is refusing to ever accept accountability for their actions, either individually or collectively.

If you attach a GPS to your wife's car without her knowledge, you can (and should) be prosecuted. Flock cameras collect the same data (rough location of a vehicle) and they just do it for every single vehicle passing their sensor. Then, through analysis of that massive dataset, you can now effectively stalk anyone, in the past, for the cost of a database search.

And I have no interest in the distinction between Joe Average and LEOs. That's about 6 months of training, and we have an absolute avalanche of evidence of how LEOs are:

* Prone to unnecessary violence (google 40% cops)

* Are ALREADY abusing this system to stalk wives, girlfriends, exes of the two formers, or just people when they're fucking bored

The clear solution is to ban it, but our Government has both a financial and power stake in keeping people surveilled, which is why I'm a huge fan of how many people are just destroying these things at scale.

I don't think you could get out of stalking charge by just being so good at stalking that person affected didn't detect it, assuming you get detected at some point for some reason.

Why does that matter? If your car is in public, do you not have any right to it's privacy either?

> and can track a person to non-public locations.

... what does that even mean? All locations are public, because by definition, locations only exist in public. What location have you been to that permits no one to see you arrive and later leave?

> Also, collecting data does not restrict one’s freedom of moment.

I mean, if that data can be used to imprison you, I think it's just matters of gradation whether you consider that true or false.

> Nor is it stalking. Stalking is a pattern of conduct designed to intimidate or inflict emotional distress.

But it clearly is. It's both a way to dragnet the public from doing illicit things, and it's deployed with a common selling point of reducing crime. You can say that instilling emotional distress in criminals is good but that also means you're doing that to at least some amount of the public.

> If knowing that someone else knows you were at a particular location at a particular time causes you distress, you have issues.

I do have issues! I have issues with my country being turned into a surveillance state because dipshits already worth more money than I will ever see in my lifetime need even more money. Yes I have issues with that.

> Do you flee from every other car that sees on the road?

As a woman, I've several times in my life had the experience of being followed by a car and not going my usual direct route home for fear of my safety. So not every car certainly, but if one was, I dunno, following close enough to get my license plate? Yeah I probably would try and "flee" that car.

Edit: Flock is/was breaking California state law by allowing outside partners to illegally access data collected in California.

Guns are legal but murder is not, so ... yes?

It makes sense to me that recording public activity may be legal but publishing those videos would not be (for example name-and-likeness copyrights).

Or that you'd need a warrant to search those videos and issuing a warrant comes with a one-time key that decrypts the search parameters you specified in advance to get the warrant.

Likewise, the fourth amendement doesn't forbid a police officer from recording someone in public, because there's no expectation of privacy when out in public.

The courts have found that legally, one officer recording one person is no different from a large-scale, automated surveillance system recording everyone.

Well, that argument goes both ways. If the scale and automation don't make a difference, they don't make a difference.

Canada's rights are in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they aren't absolute.

Part 1, Section 1.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Subject to that, we get Section 2.

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

If they're not absolute, they're not rights. It's a feel-good document that protects jack shit.

Say one country has this type of "feel-good document," but it's consistently interpreted by powerful courts as a strong protection, and the government generally leaves people alone due to democratic norms. Another country has a strict and absolute constitution, but courts in practice don't interpret it as such, or people are more frequently harassed when criticising the government. Where would you feel more comfortable speaking your mind, and which document is more useful for protecting freedoms?

I'm not making a specific claim about any real countries, though I would say that freedoms are not strictly worse-protected in Canada than in the US. I'm only stating that a law or other document in and of itself can't protect anything - government and society need to respect it.

Democracy is about more than just elections, and freedom is about more than just laws.

My point revolves around the unlimitedness of the other right that is being used to override the first right in question. A large part of that "insane leeway" is exactly due to the corpos' rights being taken as unlimited/absolute - note how the argument in Pruneyard was trying to use property rights to override free speech rights.

But sure, rather than tweaking the conception of rights, we could instead target reform at reigning in the "rights" of corpos - they are merely whole-cloth creations of government, after all. But I suspect we'd still hit corner cases with sufficient power imbalances between individuals (say a small-time landlord and their tenant, with the landlord attempting to curtail the tenant's speech).

Isn't this effectively outsourcing body cams? The frequent stated reason for lack of which is "we would but our department can't afford it :'( anyway check out this new armored vehicle we bought!"

"Tracking" on duty cops doesn't seem unusual, though I think a different argument could be made for their off duty time.

* Edit: this is Canada, so my feelings likely don't apply to their laws.

I have only skimmed the paper myself, so if it contains any mistakes I'm likely to have missed them. But his argument seems good to me.

I think its equivalent to putting a tracker in everyone's car and giving the police access to it.

Surveillance is also firmly in pre-crime territory. People being stalked when they haven't (yet) done a crime.

That is not the case. It hasn't been truly tested, and there are very strong hints in SCOTUS's previous opinions that scale dramatically changes the equation for them.

Of course SCOTUS is currently much more amenable to the idea of changing their mind, so who knows how it'd actually hit, but it's far from decided law in the US.

For one example, Sotomayer's concurrence in US v. Jones (2012)

> Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F. 3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring).

> I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account when considering the existence of a reasonable societal expectation of privacy in the sum of one’s public movements. I would ask whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on. I do not regard as dispositive the fact that the Government might obtain the fruits of GPS monitoring through lawful conventional surveillance techniques. See Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 35, n. 2; ante, at 11 (leaving open the possibility that duplicating traditional surveillance “through electronic means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy”). I would also consider the appropriateness of entrusting to the Executive, in the absence of any oversight from a coordinate branch, a tool so amenable to misuse, especially in light of the Fourth Amendment’s goal to curb arbitrary exercises of police power to and prevent “a too permeating police surveillance,” United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 595 (1948).*

If you're talking about US courts, then no. If they had, then we wouldn't see -for example- SCOTUS ruling that "geofence warrants" were searches that require Fourth Amendment analysis, rather than being equivalent to picking up a recording of events that happened in plain sight. We also wouldn't see at least one Federal judge openly noting that the judges that cite US vs. Knotts really need to read the entire opinion, rather than just the bit that agrees with what is convenient for them.

US v. Knotts is the forty-year-old case that is the source of the "You've no right to privacy when you're on public roads" idea that both people and judges have been parroting for quite a while now. In addition to establishing that principle, it also considered a possible future where the electronic surveillance that -at the time-

* had to be manually installed into cargo destined for the target's vehicle

* was only capable of tracking a single target vehicle

would become sufficiently advanced as to permit 24/7 dragnet surveillance... at which time, courts would need to reconsider what was just and right in light of such dreadfully advanced mass surveillance capabilities.

Pages 28 (starting at section C.) through 38 of this judge's opinion and order [0] are good reading... it can be hard to tell, but the judge really takes other judges who rely on Knotts but clearly haven't actually read it to task. If you have a half hour free, you should really read the whole thing.

[0] <https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.oknd.76...>

Oh - this had me in stitches.

Juxtaposing "law enforcement" and "Joe Average" in that way is entertaining for Australians, as "Joe Average" is literally one of the entry requirements for law enforcement.

From https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/recruitment/application_proces... :

"Academic Eligibility Year 12 HSC (minimum ATAR 50 or equivalent)"

"ATAR 50" is Australian for "of your high school cohort, half of them did better than you."

> Applicants must meet minimum academic eligibility and satisfy English language proficiency requirements for entry into the ADAP program. Academic Eligibility

Year 12 HSC (minimum ATAR 50 or equivalent); or other equivalent qualifications such as:

    AQF Certificate III
    Certificate IV
    Diploma
    Advanced Diploma
    Bachelor or higher degree
    vocational experience
    bridging/preparatory courses  (UPPAP)
    para-professional, and
    other post-secondary qualifications

Filming cops in public is a legitimate activity protected by the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court. Using a nationwide surveillance network to track people not suspected of any crime and without a warrant is not.

However, they are simply commissioned by law enforcement and law enforcement are just one of any number of customers. There is either an expectation of privacy or there isn't. This case highlights this exactly.

I'd rather see surveillance first pointed towards government leaders, and then once the government is highly surveilled, then maybe we can trust the government to surveil everyone else.

I don't know. My idea here isn't very realistic. It's not going to happen (though we should still try), so maybe just outlawing all of it would be more realistic.

People have no principals and no stomach for giving up a little bit of state jackboot applied on those they hate exchange for it not being applied on those they don't.

I do agree that we just shouldn't have this kind of mass-surveillance in general, and I think that's kind of the point of this particular endeavor.

I feel that's like saying there's "nuance" when the police choose to pull someone over because--unlike the other car--they didn't have a "I Donated To Cops" license plate.

Yes, it's technically a difference, but if it matters then the police are abusing their power to play favorites.

  > I feel that's like saying there's "nuance" when the police choose to pull someone over because--unlike the other car--they didn't have a "I Donated To Cops" license plate.

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/J7yJfhsuJls

We should be able to subpoena the GPS records of the car’s location as well - or potentially FOIA that information. Sunlight is good. The opposite should only be done by going through a metric ton of hoops. Otherwise you end up… where we are now.

Let’s pretend that police will only use the footage for good. No one else has access? That seems unlikely.

The IT department? Flock employees? Contractors? Managers?

  > I can see some nuance to this one. Flock is intended to be searchable by law enforcement, not Joe Average. Tracking cops and then publishing that information is not exactly the same as turning Flock back on the Flockers.

Joe Average would be charged by Flock per search, and could only afford to stalk his ex wife a couple of times via Flock, because it would get expensive soon.

Police officers can stalk their exes over 2000 times: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/26/us/flock-kentucky-police-...

It's safer to give your info to average joe population than cops.

I would feel better if only cops didn't have access to see me on flock cameras and cops had to request footage through a public reddit or something.

This is all a bit of a joke sure, but less than police access to flock cams is.

You have to assume it’s not just used by sworn law enforcement officers, especially when Flock’s own civilian employees have abused it.

The intent of Flock in the US at least was just to use technology to get around the 4th amendment.

The police shouldn't be allowed to use automated tools like this without a warrant.

https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=snPDoXl9ZPs&si=mxrTyJpsBrZ...

When the people turn it around and sniff on cops, why is that then any different suddenly?

> we'd need actual legislation

Can the people do legislation? It's always some judges and politicians who form a clique at the end of the day.

https://www.flocksafety.com/

>> tracking locations of flock cameras (https://deflock.org/)

>> destroying/removing them (https://flockstats.org/)

>> litigating their use (https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/get-the-flock-out)

What specific response from the general public would you like that it's arguably already happening?

Destroying 450 out of 130,000, ie 0.3%, is not sufficient to resist the imposition of a surveillance state. Americans pretty clearly do not care for freedom as much as they yap about.

Just the part where you're supposed to be doing something about it, otherwise don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to call out others for doing the same thing?

It was a beautiful thing.

The state ordered the cameras removed but they left the posts, someone stuck a flag inside the old post.

https://postimg.cc/q6vSQ01V

(For what it's worth I haven't read ~half of the books on my shelf. "Simulacra and Simulation" is mocking me from across the room)

I do think there is value in fighting the power... but 1984 is not a book that depicts such a choice working out well.

Why invoke China? The UK did this long before China.

Yes you missed something big. A little too excited to get in the America dig, didn’t even bother reading the article to realize it happened in Canada.

> Balance of power. Not only can the cops watch you - you can watch them.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49995885

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49995811

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49995932

[2] As did many others, of course.

>The St. Charles County Police Department said the incident began when a car was stolen in Kirkwood at around 7:30 a.m. Cpl. Barry Bayles with St. Charles County police, said a license plate reader in the county identified the car at around 9:50, and a second reader spotted it at around 9:30.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/crime/6-minors-arrested-ca...

Keep up the good work!

People are mostly objecting to government misuse of security tech to accelerate unconstitutional enforcement.

Flock, at the core, isn't a public entity. They aren't a government. So they're a private entity, just like an individual, tracking who they want, when they want.

This person is doing the exact same thing as Flock, and suddenly it is a problem? Seems like a double-standard.

I like Dan G, Paul G, Gary T and all the lads but this is a fuck up. YC are supposed to be disruptive not borderline Stasi.

[1] https://blu-eye.eu/en

This is why you have to codify in law accountability and oversight.

Tldr: Don't talk to the police. Another reminder - familiarize yourself with your 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights and remember to invoke them audibly (for an example of the risk of failing to do so - see Salinas v. Texas [1]) and then shut your mouth. When possible, record every interaction. Cops will lie. Do not argue or be belligerent. Invoke your rights, record, comply with any legal orders, and never physically resist. But do not agree to talk or consent to doing so. A cop on the street is neither judge nor jury. Do not surrender your rights under the pretense of a "voluntary" or "consensual" visit.

Nothing can be more patriotic in a country that fought off a King and passed the Bill of Rights than telling an armed agent of the state without a warrant who "just wants to talk" to get off your property.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas

In a functioning state, anyway.

So yeah, of course rules are different for normal people compared with people that have a special role as assigned by the democratically legitimized system.

I'm not saying flock is good or anything like that, but arguing against it because the public can't do what the police can isn't a good argument.

A city member coming to your house to ask you about your intentions for something is different from you going to city council meeting. Police, city official, elected officials etc are public servants, they work for the public. The public does not work for public servants and public servants are expected only to ask members of the public their intentions under specific circumstances (common circumstances but specific circumstances - the cops can pull you over for a number of things but they, officially cannot pull you over at random or based on you exercising your 1st amendment rights, etc).

Build plugins for common doorbell or surveillance systems consumers use - Ring, Ubiquiti, Frigate, whatever - and have it look for official vehicles (cops, diplomat plates, government plates, etc). When detected, publish the data to an open database searchable by the general public that includes location, time, date, direction of travel, make, model, and occupants of vehicle.

After all, if this data is really not protected by privacy laws as the cops/Flock/Axon/etc claim, then obviously it’s in our best interest to keep such a database ourselves to track those who track us. We may not have the right of way or easements or budgets to build out a network like these corporate spooks, but an open community database could cover a wide swath pretty quickly.

Surely someone out there has the time and expertise willing to take the heat for such a project.

https://store.ui.com/us/en/category/physical-security-nvr/pr...

https://store.ui.com/us/en/products/uvc-ai-lpr

https://help.ui.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058867233-UniFi-Pro...

Do I like Flock cameras? No. Do I like mass surveillance? No. Do I see a difference between an agent of the state doing something involving law enforcement or surveillance activities, and a private individual doing the same? Yes. You can't run around in uniform handcuffing people either.

I don't want HN'ers setting up surveillance networks anymore than I want them strapping a pistol to their hip and fighting crime. It's an asymmetry by design because the alternative is an unworkable nightmare, whereas the sad reality is that if people keep voting for people who openly spy on us, they're going to keep doing it.

What if I wanted to record the cops to schedule my lemonade stand?

Basically, the answer to “Who gets to surveil?” is: Everyone but you

You have to ask if you want more of that until we reach parity with Google and THE POLICE, or if you're reacting out of a sense of fairness that's taught to children.

"Officer, do you have any expectation of privacy in public?"

"That's different."

You're an unregulated, unsupervised, and frankly unknown factor with no real accountability through any realistic chain of command to the results of the democratic process. However far from your imagined ideal, cops are.

The same is at least less true for private citizens that are not being accused of a crime.

You don't actually have to worry about "HN'ers setting up surveillance networks".

Who do you think does all of this if not a bunch of people in the world of tech who mostly act as mercenaries?

In exactly equal measure: I don't want cops setting up surveillance networks any more than I want HN'ers doing it (less so, actually). So this post, bringing attention to that issue, is good, imo.

As long as random joe dropout with a badge from boss hogg can do it, and vc-backed visionary mr misanthrope can do it, so can the rest of the people. Cops and corps are only special to the degree that We The People want them to be. And speaking for the plurality of We The People [0]: we do not want them to be special in this way.

0 – https://www.reuters.com/world/us/who-likes-flock-ai-cameras-...

Stunts for attention so that libertarians on HN can get a smugrection? Nah.

> no a serious idea

> a simplistic model

> how children see the world

> stunts for attention

Your reply is mostly insults and shallow dismissals, so I don't see any reason to meaningfully respond to those parts. I'll check back later to see if you've edited insults out and substance in.

As for your separate ideas of community organization: good on you for spearheading that. The world could use more yous doing that, too. If there are any specific asks you have of the community to help you there, HN is full of capable folks.

Of course the worst of those are still doing something, perhaps not something maximally effective, but something nonetheless. Tragically on the internet people don't even attempt that, they skip straight to the scolding, posturing, ideological competition and recruitment phases of a movement. The result is what we see here, individuals sharing their often ill-informed opinion (still valid of course, although not worth much) based on an ideological leaning they've never meaningfully interrogated.

Fortunately this site is full of serious people willing to engage with a topic beyond the performative, and don't feel the need to engage in condescension and lofty dismissals. Lets never talk again.

They're just most probable tokens. Either most probable to exist after the previous set of tokens, or most probable to get a specific outcome.

I am being sarcastic of course, as HN has still to some degree managed to avoid this, but even HN is struggling. The rest of "social media" operates exactly like that.

You gain those at iirc 10 million or so? Even comes with a decorative plate for your wall.

Why deal with annoying oversight and restrictive governance and audits and usage monitoring when you can just offload it to a private company and stalk women without restraint?

What I saw was cops making up laws and trying to intimidate people into following them. Wouldn't be the first time.

>“One of [the officers] took the time to specifically mention how scary it would be for them, because people would be able to find out where they lived, when they got on their shift and what they were doing throughout the day, and that that type of powerful information could put them personally at risk [from] any bad apples that might want to track them down.”

I know we're supposed to distill everything down to a "them vs us" mentality. But cops have been tracked down and killed by people using apps like Waze so it's not a completely unwarranted fear.

This also isn't an apples and oranges situation. A Flock database isn't public - police have access but at least ostensibly have oversight from the legal system. That's a much different set of concerns than the "UNO reverse card" the TikToker is trying to make it to be.

Police visiting a home is form of intimidation. That's not something to brush off.

Gemini tells me it's 100% legal everywhere in the USA, to swap, modify, or conceal vehicle branding on privately-owned vehicles.

This is paired with a rather alarming but "more harmless than it appears" fad where people modify their "exhaust tune" to sound like backfire/gunshots. And they drive past all night long. I hear them everywhere. I had an LLM chat about it, and it's really something people deliberately do. I feel it is mostly to spam people with these percussive noises so that we get fatigued with them, so that "Shotspotter" is spammed with false positives, and so that boomer Karens fatigue the cops in turn with calling in "gunshots heard" when there were no gunshots at all. If you get so fatigued with hearing car exhaust backfires all night, you'll probably be duly surprised, and unlikely/unable to promptly react, when a real drive-by shooting goes down.

I like it even more when you put it like that, lol

I live where we both have the kind of people with the machine gun tune on their car and we have real gunshots. It's actually pretty obvious which is which. The cars aren't that bad. You don't notice them unless they're "novel" like misfiring or a grossly out of round semi trailer tire or something.

Is it though?

I live in a weird location, but it's not uncommon to get a couple of police visits for random things in a year.

Why would police visit people periodically?

- Altercation at a neighbor's house and they come inform us what was going on

- A neighbor called the police and they're looking for the address

- Coordinating parking for a medical incident down the road

- Welfare check on the kids because the neighbors heard screaming

Just a bunch of little stuff over the years.

In my case, IIRC, once like 15-20 years ago for some paperwork that needs an adress verified by the police, or something like that. I don't remember if it was for me or my wife. I don't remember the details.

Is visiting a civil servant's home a form of intimidation?

Sure, but you haven't made the case for why the fear is anyone else's problem. If a person is too scared to be a cop there's an easy fix: stop being a cop. Unfortunately, regular citizens who can't afford to up and move to a country that has civil rights (that is, most of them) don't have the same recourse.

They 100% have not actually been tracked down and killed by people using apps like Waze

Imagine the danger and legitimate fear a stalking victim would face if there was a public real-time tracker for any license plate query you can imagine.

I am no fan of Flock but there is more than one problem here.

On average over 1000 people are killed by police each year. A police officer is by far the most dangerous person you'll likely interact with on a day to day basis.

This says police killings are at about 1200 per year.

https://policeviolencereport.org/

This is not a real datapoint. We quite a few cases of wrongful stops or arrests, but there is only one case where it escalated to physical damage (Brandon Upchurch).

Only about 10% of officer involved shootings come from traffic stops, which is what we're talking about when we're talking about Flock license plate readers.

That is shockingly bad. Where police officers can be identified, about 10% have shot someone before.

https://policeviolencereport.org/

Citation needed.

Has this actually happened, or is it something you made up? Because I found articles with police spokesmen saying it _could_ happen, but nothing suggesting it has.

Police are heavily indoctrinated as part of their training to be very paranoid, and are usually required to read up on (or watch) footage of every officer who dies in duty. So it should be no surprise that they are incredibly reactionary on this stuff.

Regardless of whether app assisted or not, actual ambush or unprovoked attack is actually very rare (only 5 cases last year).

Is there a specific (confirmed) case you're referencing?

Do you have a source for that? I can only find 2 examples vaguely similar but neither are really what that statement claims. Specifically one of them was just cops making stuff up about wayze which was factually incorrect.

> police have access but at least ostensibly have oversight from the legal system

We've already seen plenty of examples of cops tracking ex-wives and such similar abuses with no real accountability - nobody's lost their job over it

Cops know exactly what they do when they show up like this, it's meant to intimidate, there are also plenty of cases where cops have repeatedly crossed the line harassing citizens breaking no laws, it's disgusting

As I said, its one story of several I'm aware of in Georgia alone where people are both losing their job over it and, in some cases, being prosecuted.

Cops are (supposed to be) public servants. Risk is part of the job. If they don’t like it, they are free to pursue a different career.

And that risk is heavily overblown. Cop isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/and-the-...

We know about them because they were caught.

> Cops SHOULD be tracked because American cops are simply the worst bullies on the planet.

Cops are tracked. Part of the reason the above were caught because their searches were logged in Flock and used against them in criminal proceedings.

But I'm not sure where you got that I am against police being tracked?

The body cam was faulty during the interaction.