Cops also could have checked other Flock cameras in the network to track Beltran’s car and verify Parra’s story.

Coolman told the Times of San Diego that “mass surveillance without any sense of skepticism, or common sense, is a recipe for disaster.”

“Law enforcement will come up with false positives all the time, the broader the surveillance net is cast,” Coolman said.

Flock misuse creates lasting harms

San Diego counts among cities that remain invested in Flock, spending $2 million annually to maintain access. Around the US, some communities have won fights to end such contracts and defund Flock, however, a mayor of a New York city recently showed how far some local officials might be willing to go to block defunding efforts.

In April, Carmella Mantello, the Republican mayor of Troy, New York, accused the Democrat-led city council of putting the city in “jeopardy” by working to halt Flock funding, The Washington Post reported. To keep Flock cameras running, she declared a state of emergency—which the Post noted is typically reserved for floods and blizzards.

In response, the city council sued the mayor and, as the battle lines have been drawn, is considering passing a law to permanently limit Flock’s use in the area.

Flock cameras are supposed to help catch violent criminals and exonerate the innocent. But for innocent people who get accused of crimes based on Flock data, the technology can create lasting harms. Parra and Beltran are both left in a particularly vulnerable position, the Times of San Diego emphasized, since they now anticipate their prior records will influence cops and courts reviewing Flock footage and perhaps make them more susceptible to wrongful arrests.

Since his arrest, Parra told the Times of San Diego that he now gets “paranoid whenever a police officer or patrol vehicle comes into view.”

“I remember all the horrible accusations being said by the [district attorney] and judge about me, and how I was a dangerous threat to the public,” Parra said. “I was able to experience being seen as guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around.”