> Please compare the number of officers doing such a thing to the number who did not.
Please compare the number of people who committed burglary at a location to the number who did not.
The act of violating laws has nothing to do with the number of those whom do not. Furthermore:
SPD’s administrative investigation determined the employees
violated department policies governing the authorized use
of law enforcement technology and departmental resources.
Investigators found that employees were running searches on
personal acquaintances and family members. One officer was
found to have given someone from an outside law enforcement
agency access to SPD’s Flock Safety system, which they
weren’t authorized to do.[0]
> Also compare it to the number of incidents where the cameras helped capture criminals and pursue other illegal activities.
Non sequitur and irrelevant to the abuse documented.
> I'm betting that the number of officers who used it this way compared to the value it provides is minute to almost nil.
This is a variant of the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" fallacy. Or a nihilistic perspective of "the ends justify the means."
> It would be interesting to find the number of Meta employees or Google employees who do similar activities.
Again, non sequitur, irrelevant, and an assertion which can only be interpreted as a quintessential strawman[1].
> If you think some Google employees doesn't have MORE access than a cop, you are WILDLY mistaken.
This is a conspiratorial position at best. If you can cite from a reputable source similar abuse attributed to those organizations, then do so. Otherwise, the position you are championing lacks both fact and reason.
Additionally, as others in this thread have made clear, both Google and Meta are not police departments authorized to inflict lethal force.
Lol, brother, you started this comment chain. You're trying to assert a position, but insisting others do the homework on providing data for said position. If said data is so strong as you believe it to be, just post the fucking numbers and shut everyone up.
Also, not everyone has the same values system. Your post implies that you value minimizing criminality over civil liberties, which, fine, everyone has their own value system. But, other people clearly use different weights in their values, and view this as an unacceptable trade off.
> Please have everyone cite their sources and I will cite mine.
I did not ask "everyone." I asked you to do so.
> That Google and Meta employees are not law enforcement completely misses the point I'm making but I never expect people on liberal social media sites to see that
You wrote, and I quote:
If you think some Google employees doesn't have MORE access
than a cop, you are WILDLY mistaken.
That you chose to invoke the trope "people on liberal social media sites" speaks not to a sound position so much as an intrinsic bias evident to all.
Please stop. If you keep this up we'll have to ban the account. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to participate in the intended spirit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We can only moderate HN according to the guidelines, not in service of any side or position. We don’t “allow” or “disallow” posts for or against any argument, and it’s important that this is a place where all points of view can be represented, yours as much as anyone else’s. We work hard every day to keep it that way. But the guidelines are critical for keeping discussions healthy and worthy of people’s time to participate in and read. You’re welcome here if you want to engage in curious conversation.
Do you have any, like, evidence or something? There are enough other past and current Google employees here that know just how much you can't just go into log files and databases to look at PII without filling out forms that will get you fired if you're snooping on your ex-girlfriend. People have been fired over this, at both Google and Meta.
