> 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]

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].

0 - https://www.wtoc.com/2026/08/07/savannah-police-department-f...

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

If the answer is more than 1, that is too much. Cops shouldn't have access to surveillance cameras or data at all.

Meta and Google employees can't legally kill me or deprive me of my freedom. So they are completely irrelevant as a comparison.

If you think the average Google employee has as much access to PII or sensitive information as a cop, you're deeply mistaken.