this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
505 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

85243 readers
4168 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
 

A San Diego police department is facing a lawsuit after jailing a man for a month based on a Flock camera alert that cops allegedly should have known, based on the timestamp, did not depict the car that they were looking for.

Last November, Hugo Parra was arrested on felony charges after San Diego police relied on Flock data and a witness statement to wrongly connect him to an attempted carjacking at gunpoint, the Times of San Diego reported. Cops were looking for a red Alfa Romeo car with tinted windows and a man wearing a gray hoodie, and Parra happened to be wearing a white hoodie while riding in a friend’s car that roughly matched the vehicle description.

Although Flock cameras can capture license plate data, cops did not have even a partial plate to help them verify if the car was involved in a violent crime. But the Flock data cops used to justify the arrest actually showed that Parra was five miles away at the time of the crime, Parra’s attorney, Alex Coolman, told the Times of San Diego. Rather than arrest him, cops could have used that data, as well as Parra’s cellphone location data, to corroborate Parra’s statement that he was innocent, Coolman said.

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 17 minutes ago* (last edited 16 minutes ago)

When I lived in San Diego, I got a ticket for not paying the toll on an LA freeway I wasn't within 100 miles of.

This shit is a fucking trend, everyone. Lucky for me, the person driving that car didn't murder anyone.

Edit: the car wasn't the same as mine, and the plate was visibly wrong. Just full on fucking bullshit.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 34 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

“For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer"

-Sir William Blackstone

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 points 34 minutes ago* (last edited 34 minutes ago)

monkey paw curls

due to the injustice stated in the post, 10 random prisoners will be released

[–] AlphabeticalDisorder@lemmus.org 7 points 4 hours ago

This is an excellent quote for the context.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 27 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Police should be held individually accountable

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 23 points 4 hours ago

Make em get practice insurance just like doctors and nurses, and I think lawyers are also insured for their jobs.

Most professions where you hold the future of another human in your hands require some kind of insurance, except for police. Yet a cop can mistakenly arrest you, drag your name through the newspapers and the mud, hell even shoot you for no good reason, and then walk away like that didn’t just ruin your life just as badly as a surgeon cutting off the wrong leg, or a nurse overdosing you cause they fucked up the math.

Make cops carry insurance. If they can’t afford the premiums or get dropped for being to risky, well then they can go pound sand.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 148 points 10 hours ago (4 children)

These systems are meant to be used against you. Police will never volunteer information that helps you.

[–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

In theory the police want to investigate crime and eliminate suspects, but in practice they give up after making an arrest. The access to new technology or information change nothing about this practice.

This is why it’s important to curb these kinds of dystopian surveillance systems in the first place. They change nothing and give reach for further unwarranted intrusions into the lives of citizens. This has been seen as cops using these systems to stalk people.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 6 points 3 hours ago

Sort of. They are required to provide exculpatory evidence... but they only have to provide that information for the trial so you can prepare your defense, not during the active investigation.

[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 6 hours ago

Look no further than your Miranda rights: "anything you say can and will be used against you."

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 4 hours ago

Police: Here to do jack shit, since the start!

[–] mecen@lemmy.ca 49 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Sue the shit out their incompetent asses

[–] r0ertel@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago

...and then sue the camera company and then sue the city or property owner that allowed the cameras to be in use and then use the money to buy a politician to write and pass a law to disallow warrantless surveillance.

[–] iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app 30 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The police exist to protect capital and the capital class. They're not incompetent, they're doing their job just fine.

[–] almost_genocide@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours ago

Hence: All cops are bastards.

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 92 points 11 hours ago

This is an interesting corollary to the "anything you say can only be used against you in court" adage.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

The irony is off the charts.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 24 points 11 hours ago
[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 hours ago (1 children)