Random people calling 911 on other people filming them is a staple of Youtube; banks, coffee store workers, hairdressers, most especially restaurant managers. I don't know why anyone would expect technicians from Flock to be different. It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.
You'd think from the response that this was like the VP/Sales of Flock Safety. But it's just some installer dude probably making $65k/year to climb poles and fasten cameras. I guess that's praxis for you though.
Well, when you’re on the clock, you’re an agent of that company. And when you’re installing an indiscriminate mass-surveillance camera, calling the police on someone that’s video recording you is kind of bananas. Perhaps you don’t find that to be an interesting event, but a lot of people who are rightfully angry at the non-consensual deployment of a mass surveillance network disagree.
It's not bananas. It happens all the time. The police show up, check things out, and inform the caller that the person recording has a right to do so. In this case, it's even less bananas, because the people recording him were literally following him around, which is not what generally happens in these "audit" scenarios where someone parks themselves on the street outside a restaurant or bank.
There's pretty clearly a vibe on this thread that calling 911 is itself a use of coercive force. It is not. 911 is how you're ordinarily supposed to reach the police. In my neighborhood, it's how you'd report a stolen bicycle. It's the job of the police to handle those calls appropriately, and I don't see any indication that the call was handled inappropriately here.
The story doesn't want to give you that context because their goal isn't to inform you, it's to get your blood pumping.
I've personally never come across a police department or sherrif in the U.S. that doesn't have a non emergency number. I'd assume thats what you should call for things that aren't an emergency? They've never told me to call back and call 911.
Just want to add that myself to the list of people who can't imagine calling 911 for a non-emergency. Never in my life have I heard anyone assume it's for that purpose.
Except that the reason that the YouTube “1A Auditors” get the attention that they do is that frequently it’s not a simple “check things out, and inform the caller that the person recording has the right to do so”, but the interactions often escalate to threats of unlawful arrest as police default to the side of the caller.
Calling the police, especially in America, can 100% be a coercive use of force. That’s why people threaten to call the cops/DHS/ICE all the time during arguments, and why things like SWATing are as big of a problem as they are. When the behavior of many policy officers is escalate first, ask questions second if at all, it does become a genuine threat.
I don't know what to tell you. I watch these videos all the time (it's one of my vices, bodycam footage in particular) and what I see every time --- when it's "auditors" harassing businesses, not when it's auditors confronting police at police departments --- is business owners being told to suck it up.
I know that in Summer 2020 there was a fashion for saying any call to the police was ipso facto a deployment of coercive force, but I'm rejecting that argument out of hand while also pointing out that in many regions 911 is exactly the thing you're supposed to do when you have uncertainty. It is simply not a demand for violence; it's a demand to have a trained authority come and resolve a situation, rather than having two private citizens with no training at all in the law confront each other and hope for the best.
> A person attaching hundreds of thousands of cameras to poles calling the police to report this act is what is noteworthy
That's one seriously impressive person. If they started as soon as Flock was founded and spend 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year installing cameras they would have to on average have installed a camera every 6 minutes.
> It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.
The technician was in public, bearing a company logo, performing an activity in which there is widespread public interest, and identified himself to law enforcement as an agent of Flock Safety. He is entitled to be unnerved but has no reasonable expectation of privacy here.
The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work. The bar should be higher for a company that's ostensibly being trusted to provide a law enforcement tool that's prone to misuse than for providing beverages or cosmetology.
>The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work.
Should other law enforcement contractors also be subject to the same higher standard? For instance, should dell get extra flak if one of their contractors called 911, because they were installing PCs for a police department? If not, this just seems like a way of applying a double standard, just because you hate flock. It's fine to hate flock, but it should be actually justified reasons (eg. "they're enabling mass surveillance" or whatever), not spurious ones like "they did a bad that's vaguely common, but we're gonna admonish them extra hard for it because we hate them")
I don't buy into your premise. A hairdresser, barista, Dell installer, etc are not out in the open public. These people are in places open to the public but not considered public. These people can deny your "right" to be there, and impose rules/restrictions on what you can do in their open to the public space. Go against those rules/restrictions and you are no longer welcome.
You are really trying to contort yourself into some very uninteresting twists.
If they called 911 because they were worried about privacy when publically installing a privacy-violating tool, then yes, they 100% should be. Having higher standards for higher impact things isn't somehow hypocritical.
>If they called 911 because they were worried about privacy when publically installing a privacy-violating tool, then yes, they 100% should be.
Seems like the installer was calling because he thought he was being harassed?
>As Keefe began to shoot video, the installer saw him and immediately packed up his equipment and drove away, so Keefe also returned to his car and followed several cars behind, hoping to document the next stop.
>...
>“I work with Flock Safety. And I called originally because I’m getting followed,” the installer can be heard telling a dispatcher after being transferred. “I was getting harassed, pretty much. Taking videos and pictures. And now, the same vehicle that pulled over where I was working at has been following me.”
Sure, you can try to equate "flock setting up a surveillance network" to "physically following flock employees", but what's the implication here? That anyone working for flock should be fair game as a stalking target? What about someone working for NSA? Should it be fine to look through their emails?
The implication is "setting up public security cameras in a city should be fair game to document by journalists". If anything, the solution here seems like it would be a requirement that the date, time, and location of each camera being set up should be public information, so then no one needs to get followed to be able to document what's happening.
> Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard.
It's not the same thing. Flock cameras have terrible privacy implications but at least when I pass by one of them they are also filming everyone else passing by. I'm not being singled out.
They are also sometimes used by stalkers that have access to improperly track people, so if I do acquire a stalker they might help my stalker.
If some person is following me personally around and filming me then I am clearly being singled out.
> one should be held to a different standard than the other.
harassing a worker is not the way to fix the problem. The worker has no agency to affect the changes desired by the harasser. It's an issue with the gov't, and needs civic procedures to change.
This behaviour is the same as harassing hospitality staff for bad prices. Harassers would be considered borderline committing terrorism if they go further.
The worker does have agency. They did not have to take a job installing mass surveillance systems. They're directly doing the bad thing, and the "harassers" are literally doing the same thing the worker is doing, but back to the worker.
Do they even have their own technicians? I believe there have been Dish Network technicians seen working on and setting up flock cameras and even those technicians are contractors of Dish network.
Mix of. Large metros they'll use their own staff to install, rural Americana they'll use Dish's OnTech division. Dish realized they have an entire 'trained' workforce of cable/dish techs that they can put to other technical use, so they pushed into more managed hands tech services.
I noticed a more prominently branded "OnTech" van roaming around my rural slice of life that had a smaller Dish brand logo on it that seemed to be more of that side of the business.
Guy is not just a technician, he's a technician working for Flock installing surveillance tech to monitor the public. Wrong life choices have consequences like being filmed being complicit in establishing a surveillance regime.
Especially when chances are that this camera installation was the result of local government asking and paying Flock to put it up. I'm not sure why the anger is directed at the company instead of local elected officials, and I understand the plight of the installer who's worried about being labeled as a bad guy for executing public works contracts.
> I understand the plight of the installer who's worried about being labeled as a bad guy for executing public works contracts.
You do unpopular things, you gotta expect to be an unpopular person.
Sophisticated, educated types might understand that parking wardens are just doing their jobs, and they didn't make the policy they're enforcing. But to 70% of the population, the person putting a ticket on their car is an asshole.
The company could have rejected the government deal if they cared about the moral aspect of spying on citizens instead of money; by accepting the deal and executing the contract they are complicit.
This is the disconnect. You say that politicians are allowing them - that's not right. They're directing them to be set up, they're spending citizen tax money on buying them.
The blame lies entirely with government officials who sought out and purchased surveillance tech, and we should not blame the technologists who responded rationally to the incentive that local governments provided for them.
If someone were following around and filming someone who was posting anti-Flock fliers, I would also feel that crosses into harassment after a certain amount of time.
A TV news crew filmed me when I was a freshman setting up my old travel trailer in a new university trailer park. I hated it, but it didn't last long. If they had continued following and filming indefinitely despite my protests, I would have wanted some kind of legal protection from them.
Why do you think you can get legal protection just because the filming lasts longer? AFAIK you can film anyone however long you want as long as you do it exclusively on public property where there's no expectation of privacy and you don't harass them in anyway (maintain a safe distance). Isn't that what happens to celebrities & politicians? AOC doesn't get to complain that the press is following her with cameras everywhere she goes all day long.
I would feel the same way if these people weren't installing a permanent surveillance camera.
I don't think it's fair to cry harassment if you're getting filmed setting up the harassment machine.
If anything, Americans are being too nice to Flock. We're watching the villain and setup of a 1980s dystopian scifi horror, except there's no unlikely hero who can save the world by shooting a single weirdo in a suit on top of a skyscraper.
There was an organization I came across that was working with private property owners to set up cameras outside/pointed at politicians, etc and sharing the footage. I can’t recall the name though
yea it is similar to robot mark zuckerburg who purchased everything near his house to protect privacy, but his app is the biggest privacy nightmares, especially rayban glasses.
In my opinion, yes, that makes you a radical. I don’t want an armed organization with a trillion dollar budget stalking me. That’s the common stance in America. We even put it in our constitution.
A frequent argument made in Flock's favor is that if you are in public there isn't an expectation of privacy. That Flock can see where you go just like any other driver. Particularly since Flock is a private entity not the government. This is the Other Driver behaving antisocially towards one driver EXACTLY as Flock does to all drivers.
I agree that that is not a good argument. I am perfectly fine with the government having access to things, for instance taxation or armed enforcers + bodycams, that are illegal for the youtuber.
Well, the government can use Flock camera footage, and YouTubers can film with personal devices on public property. So I guess their capabilities are already pretty different
The government represents the public will of the people and has democratic legitimacy. The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd. I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will.
Due to the monopoly on violence, governments need additional more constraints in some areas. If your government dislikes you and they can track every step you take out in public, it becomes much easier for them to violate your rights without anyone stopping them. And because the government could fetch the same data from any company collecting it, companies too must be banned from doing so.
I think the long term solution to the privacy problem is going to be to switch to a vehicle marking system which can only be usefully used by law enforcement. Example, if instead of license plates you had a transponder that sends out encrypted metadata about the vehicle in a way that only law enforcement could decrypt it. Obviously there are still problems of abuse of law enforcement keys but it raises the bar significantly and it prevents private companies from building a business out of collecting the data.
You introduce a new problem, which is that eyewitness reports of crimes etc can’t identify the vehicles as easily, but that could be viewed as an acceptable loss. Or the problem could conceivably be solved with more technology if we can have dynamically changing license plates (which, again, require law enforcement keys to map back to a real identity for the vehicle).
The only other way I see is that we change laws so that a company like flock collecting this data and then offering it to the government is treated the same as if the government collected it itself. But now that the cat is out of that bag and there is big money behind it, I don’t really see it going back.
I think if you're worried about being harassed by your neighbours if they find out what you do during the day, you should be thinking hard about what you do during the day.
It's kind of ironic that US built the infrastructure(adtech, social media) to track people around the world on the Internet and now their own people are getting tracked in real life.
This post was #1 on HN and I clicked the link, watched the video, and then it was bumped down to #98 within that time. I've never seen that happen on HN before, but maybe I just didn't notice?
>The officer said the installer was also concerned about privacy.
"And his worry more than anything is that, you know, he's just an employee. Anybody like you and me. And now he's going to be in the news and he doesn't know if it's going to be targeted at him or his family."
Don’t you understand? He was just following orders.
Too bad somehow the face that ends up out there as the face of surveillance isn’t the CEO of Flock, not their coders, not the YC people who gave them money to do exactly what they’re doing. It’s the lowest of the low in the chain, the guy sitting in the sun to install the cameras on a post.
I've gotta mention it because everyone seems to have a learned helplessness with this type of thing. I went and spoke at my county commissioners meeting a couple times after the initial flock roll out (voted on with no discussion a couple years prior) started becoming apparent. The first meeting, the group of me and two other people were half of the people making public comment. Every single person was against it unless they worked for the county. At the second meeting there were a whole lot more people. Again, every single person who spoke who didn't work for the county was against it, this time they had eight+ police officers speak in favor of it.
We managed to swing a couple of the county commissioners who were in favor of it before and were not in favor of it after hearing about the constitutional issues as well as the cyber security issues that flock doesn't really care about.
Pasco county Florida is now removing all the cameras on the public right of ways at the end of this month.
> We managed to swing a couple of the county commissioners who were in favor of it before and were not in favor of it after hearing about the constitutional issues as well as the cyber security issues that flock doesn't really care about.
Do you not see the problem here?
Pasco County has a $2.2B annual budget. These county commissioners have the financial resources, organizational access to expertise, and time to focus on these problems.
Do they really need an under-resourced citizen to inform them about the constitutional issues after deployment? And then they just say “Aw shucks, whoopsies, now I see the light.”
I don’t think it’s fair to call this learned helplessness (a lingering belief after the threat has vanished) when we’re facing off against an active, persistent adversarial threat.
Your county commissioners didn’t make a “whoopsies” when they took a deliberate, informed action against your interests.
Furthermore, it’s unsustainable to require citizens to pour significant time and energy into forcing their representatives to faithfully represent them. That quite literally defeats the purpose of a representative governing body.
The real trick, is to stop going to these meetings, and start running against these politicians. Get the forms, stand out in front of your local post office, collect the signatures, and primary them. Run against them. That's the only thing they listen to
Would be nice, but we (in France) have plenty of cameras already. They may not be branded Flock, but they're there nonetheless. And as far as I'm aware, none of them are ablaze.
It's true that the order only impacts state highways. It removes approximately 700 license plate readers and then also leaves thousands still up locally. However, in my county, the Sheriffs dept is actually taking them down voluntarily, because of the positive political reception of the state-road ban. And its happening in other jurisdictions near me.
A lot of people instinctively believe Florida only does dumb stuff, but we really do have quite responsive people in charge here. From where I sit, I see good movement on the whole Flock issue in my state and county.
Yes, it really is. Florida is a cultural punching bag, and we take that in stride too. We have a balanced budget, no state income tax, and no flock cameras. We are close to abolishing property taxes as well. Our natural disaster response is some of the most robust anywhere in the world as well.
This is misleading. I'm not sure replacing income tax with sales tax is a positive change. The state is still collecting taxes, but the tools are pretty regressive.
Nope. Florida simply led the way and calmly banned Flock cameras from the entire state. Every other state that cares about individual liberty should follow suit.
I mean, let's not get carried away. Florida still has very oppressive anti-second-amendment legislation and laws on the books, and until they get rid of that, I wouldn't call them anywhere close to having individual liberty.
When I lived in FLA and it was super easy to get a concealed weapon permit. I carried a gun not infrequently just to exercise that right. I was serious about training with it as well.
The other states I’ve lived in haven’t been so straight forward.
Florida is also ironically how we may get cookie banners in line and to actually opt users out as they prosecute websites there as illegal wire taps if you still put cookies on the page after or before the opt out happens.
Absolutely horrible. They show up on Saturday's yelling at empty buildings. Very rarely does an American protest against a government body change policy. If you want to really do something, show up on a Tuesday morning, stop traffic, flood the phone lines, and the email systems, relentlessly day after day. Americans are far too comfortable to truly protest.
man, these guys bungled their PR so, so hard. What they should have done is pre-seeded a ton of stories about flock catching some notorious criminal, helping solve xyz serious crimes, helping solve abc minor nuisance issue crimes, and maybe some lines about reducing direct law enforcement interactions.
On the flip side, let Axon, Motorola take some of the heat, paint your enemies as "defund the police", and stop being so obviously branded. Take a page out of Phillip Morris/Altria playbook and keep a lower profile.
Instead, they've managed to unite left and right in hatred. Clown show.
Their problem is they believed their own bullshit and thought they were offering people a good deal that basically amounted to "the government 1984s you more than they already do but your package thief gets arrested, maybe".
Ignoring the fact that that deal is not necessarily good, if they had been slightly scummier, not given two shits about actually reducing petty crimes against the people and instead set out to help municipalities collect civil fines (which have basically no 4th-8th amendment protections these days) they probably could have gotten away without scrutiny for a very long time and gotten their systems deeply entrenched. The useful idiots would've eaten it right up with the flimsiest of pretexts so long as each segment of useful idiots was peddled to individually.
"The truck we saw carrying 2-tons of waste tires away from your tire shop is not owned by an entity on the state approved list, pay up"
"We saw you leaving home depot with a water heater but you didn't pull a permit, prove it didn't go into your house or pay the fine"
"we saw your 2004 Altima emit a puff of blue leaving a light. Per vehicle code XYZ any vehicle that emmits a visible cloud cannot pass emissions inspection, submit proof of passing withing 30d or your resigstration is revoked"
If they had done that a lot of people would have eaten it up and asked for more. But nope, they believed their own BS and built a system for "real" law enforcement. And of course that leads to a bunch of bad interactions with cops and the public doesn't like that.
> anti-recording without policy for use and retention
Not recording on its own, but the linking of data with other cities and making it all searchable by those with access is where it becomes unprecedented mass surveillance.
You’re right that we have to be specific.
> your phone may be recording
They are able to dodge these accusations by just selling voice command logs. “No we don’t record you or sell your audio data” and yet Siri’s AUL reads:
[PhraseSpotter] Detected wake word “Pepsi” with a score 0.942.
[com.apple.voiceactivation] Proceeding with full wake.
A lot of people don’t know there is a low power “always on” processor (AOP) that monitors a small audio buffer on-device.
So no need to sell the audio, just the unrelated logs of some app that uses the AOP.
It’s a smart tactic for governments to use private corporations to do stuff like this. Flock takes all the heat and the government can even make themselves look good by ditching Flock. 2 seconds later they’ll use a different company.
There is no practical difference between the government hiring people to do something and the government hiring a corporation to do the same thing, and if you find yourself blaming Flock instead of the government who funds them, you’re being manipulated by this tactic.
To be fair to people, TSA attracts people who live near airports and need jobs, doesn't it?
ICE, yes. At this point you cannot make an argument at all that you are going to join a fair-minded organisation that treats people decently while upholding a lawful function.
People who work for Flock should be considering their futures, but I suspect people who install Flock cameras are more in the TSA bracket: it is a job that will be near them that pays.
Flock has solved crimes in my state, including a few horrendous violent crimes.
We forget US society was configured (imperfectly) to allow families to raise their children in stability and safety, with guardrails around both sides of liberty. Surveillance has a legit role in protecting communities and their families - especially the most vulnerable.
Willing to be most of the Flock hate crowd doesn't have kids walking to school in areas where bad things happen - many probably don't have kids.
I tend to agree that when used correctly, a surveillance system like this could have benefits at a societal level.
The problem is the many stories we already have of misuses of this equipment, showing that people in power are not mentally capable of actually managing a surveillance system like this in a societally beneficial way.
If the use of the system was designated as only being allowed to stop heinous crimes and we had a track record and way to prove this was always the case, then I would be 100% in support. But given it has already proven to not be possible is likely why most people are against it.
I simply don't think Humans are capable of proper use of a system like this.
The problem is that these system are setup specifically to be able to be used incorrectly. Flock is getting all the rage right now but they aren't the only vendor. An acquisition and rename later and everyone will have forgotten this all. Police (others?) are setting up stingrays. Stalin's secret police had a maxim: "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime." Remember, everyone who installed a Ring doorbell camera paid to help set up these kinds of networks. (all so that a porch pirate might get caught even though Amazon will reship for free). These systems also set up a huge target for bad actors to hack outside of the law.
If these things were only ever used with the a valid search warrant, that would be a great step forward. But even that will only stop "honest" people from abusing the system.
There is also a large difference between local surveillance (home/business/area CCTV), public surveillance (openly accessible cameras like traffic cams), and dragnet surveillance- I generally trust my local police precincts but don't like the fact that the alphabet soup of federal agencies has warrantless access to track me on the way to and from church or work or Facebook marketplace deals
Does that matter? It's one where I share a common belief in a higher being with other people and we try to build a community and become better people and followers of our specific beliefs.
It just doesn't feel good or sit right with me to be tracked all over the place, and even though none of what I do is illegal (besides taking speed limits as suggestions from time to time, as is the American way /s) just being nearby can get you stuck with charges for things you didn't do.
The fed govt in the US has been doing questionable things on and off American soil for a long time:
- bad analysis
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/09/the-cowboy-of-the-nsa
- not to mention the massive surveillance state exposed by Edward Snowden
> Honest question: If the feds were actually tracking you on your way to church, how does that impact you?
Why do you suppose that stalking is illegal?
Before you write up any "clever" retorts, remember that many illegal activities (theft, kidnapping, murder, etc) are permitted when permission is obtained from a judge.
Except there was literally just a piece a few days back here on HN where a Mom was arrested for letting her kid walk half a mile alone in a gated community with active security patrols. The guardrails you describe aren’t for child safety so much as adult persecution. Surveillance may help solve some crimes, but its goal isn’t safety of the people surveilled as much as protecting the power of those doing the surveilling. Research continues pointing out that cameras don’t do shit to deter crime, and its actual ability to solve crimes is limited to the humans using said tools - and with a longer history of abuses than successes, it’s a fairly safe conclusion that mass surveillance does fuck all to actually protect the populace.
"This technology can be abused" and "this technology provides no public-safety value" are two entirely different claims.
Saying their ability to solve crimes is "limited to the humans using the tools" isn't much of an argument against the technology. That's true of fingerprints, DNA databases, radios, firearms databases, and virtually every other investigative tool.
A police officer can misuse a DMV database to stalk an ex. That means the officer should be prosecuted and access to the database tightly controlled. It doesn't demonstrate that DMV records have no legitimate investigative purpose. The same reasoning applies to LPRs.
By the way, that mom that was arrested? The kid was 5 years old, and was intentionally sent to a pond.
I'm 100% in favor of LPR cameras. Any technology can be abused. The handful of corrupt officers that were caught using the cameras for nefarious reasons shouldn't overshadow the incredible benefit these are.
> Willing to [bet] most of the Flock hate crowd doesn't...
...have a reason at all to worry about LPR cameras tracking their car. Just "something something government."
If someone came up to me and started filming me while I was in public, and then when I got in my car they followed me, I would also call the police.
The double standard demonstrated by Flock isn't the issue, they are the pieces of shit and of course they have no moral consistency.
But "He who fights with monsters should be careful, lest he thereby become a monster." I thought we were united that people have a reasonable sense of temporal privacy in public - that being in public is ephemeral and not some permanent record to be analyzed in perpetuity. We should not be fine stalking people and making them feel threatened, even those that want to build the panopticon state.
But you're not working for Flock, are you? We could go on much further until we reach the what Popper called the Tolerance Paradox: "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
The point is that total surveillance is like the destruction of tolerance or in thie case privacy, and it makes watching the watchmen impossible. There's a point of no return and before that one is reached resistance IS allowed or else you lose everything.
Random people calling 911 on other people filming them is a staple of Youtube; banks, coffee store workers, hairdressers, most especially restaurant managers. I don't know why anyone would expect technicians from Flock to be different. It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.
You'd think from the response that this was like the VP/Sales of Flock Safety. But it's just some installer dude probably making $65k/year to climb poles and fasten cameras. I guess that's praxis for you though.
I think this is just a ragebait piece.
Well, when you’re on the clock, you’re an agent of that company. And when you’re installing an indiscriminate mass-surveillance camera, calling the police on someone that’s video recording you is kind of bananas. Perhaps you don’t find that to be an interesting event, but a lot of people who are rightfully angry at the non-consensual deployment of a mass surveillance network disagree.
It's not bananas. It happens all the time. The police show up, check things out, and inform the caller that the person recording has a right to do so. In this case, it's even less bananas, because the people recording him were literally following him around, which is not what generally happens in these "audit" scenarios where someone parks themselves on the street outside a restaurant or bank.
There's pretty clearly a vibe on this thread that calling 911 is itself a use of coercive force. It is not. 911 is how you're ordinarily supposed to reach the police. In my neighborhood, it's how you'd report a stolen bicycle. It's the job of the police to handle those calls appropriately, and I don't see any indication that the call was handled inappropriately here.
The story doesn't want to give you that context because their goal isn't to inform you, it's to get your blood pumping.
TIL that 911 (Emergency Services) is how one should report a stolen bicycle.
Happy to help. 911 is the primary "call for service" channel for most police departments.
I've personally never come across a police department or sherrif in the U.S. that doesn't have a non emergency number. I'd assume thats what you should call for things that aren't an emergency? They've never told me to call back and call 911.
Just want to add that myself to the list of people who can't imagine calling 911 for a non-emergency. Never in my life have I heard anyone assume it's for that purpose.
Except that the reason that the YouTube “1A Auditors” get the attention that they do is that frequently it’s not a simple “check things out, and inform the caller that the person recording has the right to do so”, but the interactions often escalate to threats of unlawful arrest as police default to the side of the caller.
Calling the police, especially in America, can 100% be a coercive use of force. That’s why people threaten to call the cops/DHS/ICE all the time during arguments, and why things like SWATing are as big of a problem as they are. When the behavior of many policy officers is escalate first, ask questions second if at all, it does become a genuine threat.
I don't know what to tell you. I watch these videos all the time (it's one of my vices, bodycam footage in particular) and what I see every time --- when it's "auditors" harassing businesses, not when it's auditors confronting police at police departments --- is business owners being told to suck it up.
I know that in Summer 2020 there was a fashion for saying any call to the police was ipso facto a deployment of coercive force, but I'm rejecting that argument out of hand while also pointing out that in many regions 911 is exactly the thing you're supposed to do when you have uncertainty. It is simply not a demand for violence; it's a demand to have a trained authority come and resolve a situation, rather than having two private citizens with no training at all in the law confront each other and hope for the best.
The key point here is hypocrisy. The very evident double standard.
A person holding a camera and following you around is an emergency or at the very least a suspicious act worthy of investigation and possible arrest.
A person attaching hundreds of thousands of cameras to poles calling the police to report this act is what is noteworthy.
Its not clickbait in the normal sense of overselling a series of un-noteworthy events IMHO.
> A person attaching hundreds of thousands of cameras to poles calling the police to report this act is what is noteworthy
That's one seriously impressive person. If they started as soon as Flock was founded and spend 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year installing cameras they would have to on average have installed a camera every 6 minutes.
> It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.
The technician was in public, bearing a company logo, performing an activity in which there is widespread public interest, and identified himself to law enforcement as an agent of Flock Safety. He is entitled to be unnerved but has no reasonable expectation of privacy here.
Nobody disagrees, though "calling 911" is exactly what he's supposed to do if he thinks he's being followed.
Who do I call if I think Flock is stalking me, and who will the police show up to intimidate when I do?
> Who do I call if I think Flock is stalking me
Your local representative who signed a contract with Flock to install and operate the cameras?
So, complain to the stalker?
> it's just some installer dude probably making $65k/year to climb poles and fasten cameras
I find it hard to be persuaded by the salary idea. A hitman who works for $100 is just as bad as one who works for $10,000.
In fact other immoral activities work the opposite, bizarrely (a whore who works for $100 is worse than one who works for $10,000)
Most jobs are imoral. If we were to do only the moral ones… we’d have probably 75% unemployment or something like that.
This is the kind of thing that someone knowing they are doing bad things at their job says to justify it to themselves.
It’s not true. You can go find something worthwhile to do instead.
If the only job you find is working for a healthcare provider and your KPI is denying as many claims as you can, what do you tell yourself?
And probably I could find many more extreme examples and some not so extreme.
How would hackernews visitors support their lifestyle then?
"there's no ethical production under capitalism"?
The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work. The bar should be higher for a company that's ostensibly being trusted to provide a law enforcement tool that's prone to misuse than for providing beverages or cosmetology.
>The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work.
Should other law enforcement contractors also be subject to the same higher standard? For instance, should dell get extra flak if one of their contractors called 911, because they were installing PCs for a police department? If not, this just seems like a way of applying a double standard, just because you hate flock. It's fine to hate flock, but it should be actually justified reasons (eg. "they're enabling mass surveillance" or whatever), not spurious ones like "they did a bad that's vaguely common, but we're gonna admonish them extra hard for it because we hate them")
I don't buy into your premise. A hairdresser, barista, Dell installer, etc are not out in the open public. These people are in places open to the public but not considered public. These people can deny your "right" to be there, and impose rules/restrictions on what you can do in their open to the public space. Go against those rules/restrictions and you are no longer welcome.
You are really trying to contort yourself into some very uninteresting twists.
If they called 911 because they were worried about privacy when publically installing a privacy-violating tool, then yes, they 100% should be. Having higher standards for higher impact things isn't somehow hypocritical.
>If they called 911 because they were worried about privacy when publically installing a privacy-violating tool, then yes, they 100% should be.
Seems like the installer was calling because he thought he was being harassed?
>As Keefe began to shoot video, the installer saw him and immediately packed up his equipment and drove away, so Keefe also returned to his car and followed several cars behind, hoping to document the next stop.
>...
>“I work with Flock Safety. And I called originally because I’m getting followed,” the installer can be heard telling a dispatcher after being transferred. “I was getting harassed, pretty much. Taking videos and pictures. And now, the same vehicle that pulled over where I was working at has been following me.”
Sure, you can try to equate "flock setting up a surveillance network" to "physically following flock employees", but what's the implication here? That anyone working for flock should be fair game as a stalking target? What about someone working for NSA? Should it be fine to look through their emails?
The implication is "setting up public security cameras in a city should be fair game to document by journalists". If anything, the solution here seems like it would be a requirement that the date, time, and location of each camera being set up should be public information, so then no one needs to get followed to be able to document what's happening.
Do you think Flock is in the same category of installing PCs for police departments, when it comes to public impact?
> It's worse for the technician in this case, because he really was being followed --- that's not unlawful but it's unnerving.
Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard.
I actually agree it is unnerving, I just don't agree that one should be held to a different standard than the other.
> Isn't that exactly what Flock are doing to tens of thousands of people a day? So why the double-standard.
It's not the same thing. Flock cameras have terrible privacy implications but at least when I pass by one of them they are also filming everyone else passing by. I'm not being singled out.
They are also sometimes used by stalkers that have access to improperly track people, so if I do acquire a stalker they might help my stalker.
If some person is following me personally around and filming me then I am clearly being singled out.
> one should be held to a different standard than the other.
harassing a worker is not the way to fix the problem. The worker has no agency to affect the changes desired by the harasser. It's an issue with the gov't, and needs civic procedures to change.
This behaviour is the same as harassing hospitality staff for bad prices. Harassers would be considered borderline committing terrorism if they go further.
The worker does have agency. They did not have to take a job installing mass surveillance systems. They're directly doing the bad thing, and the "harassers" are literally doing the same thing the worker is doing, but back to the worker.
It legally wasn't harassment. If it was, he would have not been let go. That word means a real thing and this was not it.
Filming them at work, or following them to the next job so you can film them at work, is not in any way, shape, or form "harassment".
> technicians from Flock
Do they even have their own technicians? I believe there have been Dish Network technicians seen working on and setting up flock cameras and even those technicians are contractors of Dish network.
Mix of. Large metros they'll use their own staff to install, rural Americana they'll use Dish's OnTech division. Dish realized they have an entire 'trained' workforce of cable/dish techs that they can put to other technical use, so they pushed into more managed hands tech services.
https://www.ontechsmartservices.com/
I noticed a more prominently branded "OnTech" van roaming around my rural slice of life that had a smaller Dish brand logo on it that seemed to be more of that side of the business.
Guy is not just a technician, he's a technician working for Flock installing surveillance tech to monitor the public. Wrong life choices have consequences like being filmed being complicit in establishing a surveillance regime.
Well then everyone is innocent except CEO's or management lol.
This isn't how world works.
Especially when chances are that this camera installation was the result of local government asking and paying Flock to put it up. I'm not sure why the anger is directed at the company instead of local elected officials, and I understand the plight of the installer who's worried about being labeled as a bad guy for executing public works contracts.
> I understand the plight of the installer who's worried about being labeled as a bad guy for executing public works contracts.
You do unpopular things, you gotta expect to be an unpopular person.
Sophisticated, educated types might understand that parking wardens are just doing their jobs, and they didn't make the policy they're enforcing. But to 70% of the population, the person putting a ticket on their car is an asshole.
The company could have rejected the government deal if they cared about the moral aspect of spying on citizens instead of money; by accepting the deal and executing the contract they are complicit.
What? Is that not their whole business?
Well, politicians are to pay for the fact they have allowed something like Flock cameras to be put up and spy to egregiously on their constituents.
But Flock itself should not be spared . They are building things that are going against widely accepted values.
Since when Americans are okay with that level of erosion of their privacy?
Same thing with Meta building pervert glasses.
This is the disconnect. You say that politicians are allowing them - that's not right. They're directing them to be set up, they're spending citizen tax money on buying them.
The blame lies entirely with government officials who sought out and purchased surveillance tech, and we should not blame the technologists who responded rationally to the incentive that local governments provided for them.
Flock (YC 2017) missing from title.
We never see, "Flock (YC S17) Is Hiring an Engineer of Mass Surveillance" on the jobs.
If someone were following around and filming someone who was posting anti-Flock fliers, I would also feel that crosses into harassment after a certain amount of time.
A TV news crew filmed me when I was a freshman setting up my old travel trailer in a new university trailer park. I hated it, but it didn't last long. If they had continued following and filming indefinitely despite my protests, I would have wanted some kind of legal protection from them.
Why do you think you can get legal protection just because the filming lasts longer? AFAIK you can film anyone however long you want as long as you do it exclusively on public property where there's no expectation of privacy and you don't harass them in anyway (maintain a safe distance). Isn't that what happens to celebrities & politicians? AOC doesn't get to complain that the press is following her with cameras everywhere she goes all day long.
flock's business model is recording people. they do not get to complain about being recorded.
I would feel the same way if these people weren't installing a permanent surveillance camera.
I don't think it's fair to cry harassment if you're getting filmed setting up the harassment machine.
If anything, Americans are being too nice to Flock. We're watching the villain and setup of a 1980s dystopian scifi horror, except there's no unlikely hero who can save the world by shooting a single weirdo in a suit on top of a skyscraper.
Privacy for me but not for thee - Flock
A really interesting experiment would be to give the public access to all of Flock's data, in real time. I say we try it and see how that goes.
There was an organization I came across that was working with private property owners to set up cameras outside/pointed at politicians, etc and sharing the footage. I can’t recall the name though
yea it is similar to robot mark zuckerburg who purchased everything near his house to protect privacy, but his app is the biggest privacy nightmares, especially rayban glasses.
I love a good taste-of-their-own-medicine story like anyone else, but the headline is false.
It seems that this is about a YouTuber stalking a Flock employee's vehicle through traffic for 10-15 minutes, which is why the police were called.
That’s literally exactly what Flock does. I can’t find sympathy for the company on this.
Maybe I’m a radical but I am okay with the government having capabilities that are different from what a youtuber is allowed to do.
In my opinion, yes, that makes you a radical. I don’t want an armed organization with a trillion dollar budget stalking me. That’s the common stance in America. We even put it in our constitution.
A frequent argument made in Flock's favor is that if you are in public there isn't an expectation of privacy. That Flock can see where you go just like any other driver. Particularly since Flock is a private entity not the government. This is the Other Driver behaving antisocially towards one driver EXACTLY as Flock does to all drivers.
I agree that that is not a good argument. I am perfectly fine with the government having access to things, for instance taxation or armed enforcers + bodycams, that are illegal for the youtuber.
Not sure if I'd use the term radical but there are other words which come to mind.
Well, the government can use Flock camera footage, and YouTubers can film with personal devices on public property. So I guess their capabilities are already pretty different
Yes, they should be different. In almost all cases, they should be less.
But what I really wanted to mention is that flock is not the government, and flock's services are not exclusively available to governments.
Same goes for their competitors.
The government represents the public will of the people and has democratic legitimacy. The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd. I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will.
Due to the monopoly on violence, governments need additional more constraints in some areas. If your government dislikes you and they can track every step you take out in public, it becomes much easier for them to violate your rights without anyone stopping them. And because the government could fetch the same data from any company collecting it, companies too must be banned from doing so.
...no. flock doesnt have robot cars weaving through traffic. Its not the same thing literally or figuratively.
So their tracking is OK because it's immobile. That's an interesting and novel defense of a surveillance state which I hadn't heard before.
Not illegal, and like all the other comments here, isn’t this exactly what Flock does? But they do it indiscriminately to all vehicles at all times?
It's not the same because it is indiscriminate.
Flock cameras do the same thing to me so I guess I'd better call the cops.
Not a YouTuber, a local reporter in Atlanta
Yeah! Nobody should be able to track your movements along public roads.
Watching and following everywhere someone drives is stalking? Damn, that's crazy.
I think the long term solution to the privacy problem is going to be to switch to a vehicle marking system which can only be usefully used by law enforcement. Example, if instead of license plates you had a transponder that sends out encrypted metadata about the vehicle in a way that only law enforcement could decrypt it. Obviously there are still problems of abuse of law enforcement keys but it raises the bar significantly and it prevents private companies from building a business out of collecting the data.
You introduce a new problem, which is that eyewitness reports of crimes etc can’t identify the vehicles as easily, but that could be viewed as an acceptable loss. Or the problem could conceivably be solved with more technology if we can have dynamically changing license plates (which, again, require law enforcement keys to map back to a real identity for the vehicle).
The only other way I see is that we change laws so that a company like flock collecting this data and then offering it to the government is treated the same as if the government collected it itself. But now that the cat is out of that bag and there is big money behind it, I don’t really see it going back.
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49618447
I think if you're worried about being harassed by your neighbours if they find out what you do during the day, you should be thinking hard about what you do during the day.
Yeah! If you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear!
looks at you suspiciously
Are those… curtains?
You don't think there's a difference between recording somebody on the street installing mass surveillance devices and peering into person's window?
It's kind of ironic that US built the infrastructure(adtech, social media) to track people around the world on the Internet and now their own people are getting tracked in real life.
“Just an employee” isn’t trained to not say full name on 911 so you can’t be identified in future publishing. That’s a member.
This post was #1 on HN and I clicked the link, watched the video, and then it was bumped down to #98 within that time. I've never seen that happen on HN before, but maybe I just didn't notice?
This is normal on HN
>The officer said the installer was also concerned about privacy. "And his worry more than anything is that, you know, he's just an employee. Anybody like you and me. And now he's going to be in the news and he doesn't know if it's going to be targeted at him or his family."
Don’t you understand? He was just following orders.
Totally wild that someone installing a surveillance camera is "concerned about privacy." Only his privacy is important I guess.
Milgram agrees
Too bad somehow the face that ends up out there as the face of surveillance isn’t the CEO of Flock, not their coders, not the YC people who gave them money to do exactly what they’re doing. It’s the lowest of the low in the chain, the guy sitting in the sun to install the cameras on a post.
No empathy for fascists or fascist collaborators.
I've gotta mention it because everyone seems to have a learned helplessness with this type of thing. I went and spoke at my county commissioners meeting a couple times after the initial flock roll out (voted on with no discussion a couple years prior) started becoming apparent. The first meeting, the group of me and two other people were half of the people making public comment. Every single person was against it unless they worked for the county. At the second meeting there were a whole lot more people. Again, every single person who spoke who didn't work for the county was against it, this time they had eight+ police officers speak in favor of it.
We managed to swing a couple of the county commissioners who were in favor of it before and were not in favor of it after hearing about the constitutional issues as well as the cyber security issues that flock doesn't really care about.
Pasco county Florida is now removing all the cameras on the public right of ways at the end of this month.
I don’t understand your point.
> We managed to swing a couple of the county commissioners who were in favor of it before and were not in favor of it after hearing about the constitutional issues as well as the cyber security issues that flock doesn't really care about.
Do you not see the problem here?
Pasco County has a $2.2B annual budget. These county commissioners have the financial resources, organizational access to expertise, and time to focus on these problems.
Do they really need an under-resourced citizen to inform them about the constitutional issues after deployment? And then they just say “Aw shucks, whoopsies, now I see the light.”
I don’t think it’s fair to call this learned helplessness (a lingering belief after the threat has vanished) when we’re facing off against an active, persistent adversarial threat.
Your county commissioners didn’t make a “whoopsies” when they took a deliberate, informed action against your interests.
Furthermore, it’s unsustainable to require citizens to pour significant time and energy into forcing their representatives to faithfully represent them. That quite literally defeats the purpose of a representative governing body.
Oh I absolutely see the issue. These people are honestly beneath contempt after talking to them and seeing their responses.
Regardless, I'd rather tailor my message to people who I fundamentally disagree with, and make a little bit of progress.
Edit: anyways, the point is that a group of less than 15 or 20 people can sway decisions.
The real trick, is to stop going to these meetings, and start running against these politicians. Get the forms, stand out in front of your local post office, collect the signatures, and primary them. Run against them. That's the only thing they listen to
US citizens are bad at protesting. In my area these cameras would be on fire weekly.
French? I was impressed by:
Yellow vests knock out 60% of all speed cameras in France
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46822472
Would be nice, but we (in France) have plenty of cameras already. They may not be branded Flock, but they're there nonetheless. And as far as I'm aware, none of them are ablaze.
This story isn't related this issue at all. This was about a fuel tax, not actually about the cameras themselves
What country?
In Florida, we just talked to our reps and got them banned from the entire state. It was easy and didn’t require protests at all.
Florida did not ban Flock cameras from the entire state.
They revoked permits for all license plate readers, including Flock, from state roads.
Local roads are unaffected by this order.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/florida-bans-flock-li...
> Monday’s order did not affect cameras on private property or on local rights-of-way — where 98% of the surveillance cameras are located
It's true that the order only impacts state highways. It removes approximately 700 license plate readers and then also leaves thousands still up locally. However, in my county, the Sheriffs dept is actually taking them down voluntarily, because of the positive political reception of the state-road ban. And its happening in other jurisdictions near me.
A lot of people instinctively believe Florida only does dumb stuff, but we really do have quite responsive people in charge here. From where I sit, I see good movement on the whole Flock issue in my state and county.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/SeminoleSheriff/posts/update-on-flo...
Florida is a model democracy that all states should look up to.
Yes, it really is. Florida is a cultural punching bag, and we take that in stride too. We have a balanced budget, no state income tax, and no flock cameras. We are close to abolishing property taxes as well. Our natural disaster response is some of the most robust anywhere in the world as well.
This is misleading. I'm not sure replacing income tax with sales tax is a positive change. The state is still collecting taxes, but the tools are pretty regressive.
Did they switch to Axon?
Nope. Florida simply led the way and calmly banned Flock cameras from the entire state. Every other state that cares about individual liberty should follow suit.
I mean, let's not get carried away. Florida still has very oppressive anti-second-amendment legislation and laws on the books, and until they get rid of that, I wouldn't call them anywhere close to having individual liberty.
When I lived in FLA and it was super easy to get a concealed weapon permit. I carried a gun not infrequently just to exercise that right. I was serious about training with it as well.
The other states I’ve lived in haven’t been so straight forward.
Florida has permit-less, constitutional open-carry. Not sure what more you could ask for from a 2A perspective.
Florida is also ironically how we may get cookie banners in line and to actually opt users out as they prosecute websites there as illegal wire taps if you still put cookies on the page after or before the opt out happens.
US Citizens have been tamed by “social” and other media propaganda by the people in power. But we got 2A handy to you know, hunt for rabbits and shit
na, we are just more civilized.
Absolutely horrible. They show up on Saturday's yelling at empty buildings. Very rarely does an American protest against a government body change policy. If you want to really do something, show up on a Tuesday morning, stop traffic, flood the phone lines, and the email systems, relentlessly day after day. Americans are far too comfortable to truly protest.
man, these guys bungled their PR so, so hard. What they should have done is pre-seeded a ton of stories about flock catching some notorious criminal, helping solve xyz serious crimes, helping solve abc minor nuisance issue crimes, and maybe some lines about reducing direct law enforcement interactions.
On the flip side, let Axon, Motorola take some of the heat, paint your enemies as "defund the police", and stop being so obviously branded. Take a page out of Phillip Morris/Altria playbook and keep a lower profile.
Instead, they've managed to unite left and right in hatred. Clown show.
Their problem is they believed their own bullshit and thought they were offering people a good deal that basically amounted to "the government 1984s you more than they already do but your package thief gets arrested, maybe".
Ignoring the fact that that deal is not necessarily good, if they had been slightly scummier, not given two shits about actually reducing petty crimes against the people and instead set out to help municipalities collect civil fines (which have basically no 4th-8th amendment protections these days) they probably could have gotten away without scrutiny for a very long time and gotten their systems deeply entrenched. The useful idiots would've eaten it right up with the flimsiest of pretexts so long as each segment of useful idiots was peddled to individually.
"The truck we saw carrying 2-tons of waste tires away from your tire shop is not owned by an entity on the state approved list, pay up"
"We saw you leaving home depot with a water heater but you didn't pull a permit, prove it didn't go into your house or pay the fine"
"we saw your 2004 Altima emit a puff of blue leaving a light. Per vehicle code XYZ any vehicle that emmits a visible cloud cannot pass emissions inspection, submit proof of passing withing 30d or your resigstration is revoked"
If they had done that a lot of people would have eaten it up and asked for more. But nope, they believed their own BS and built a system for "real" law enforcement. And of course that leads to a bunch of bad interactions with cops and the public doesn't like that.
Nah, what they should have done is called themselves the UK government and then all of HN would be praising them instead
Alternative title: “Torment Nexus technician complains about local mass surveillance resistance”.
Irony is dead.
The audacity.
the weird thing about anti-flock is they are just replaced with another brand
also they are just putting 24/7 recorders now in police vehicles and even delivery services
so you can't just be anti-flock, you have to be anti-recording without policy for use and retention
your phone and even your watch may be recording your audio right now
> anti-recording without policy for use and retention
Not recording on its own, but the linking of data with other cities and making it all searchable by those with access is where it becomes unprecedented mass surveillance.
You’re right that we have to be specific.
> your phone may be recording
They are able to dodge these accusations by just selling voice command logs. “No we don’t record you or sell your audio data” and yet Siri’s AUL reads:
A lot of people don’t know there is a low power “always on” processor (AOP) that monitors a small audio buffer on-device.So no need to sell the audio, just the unrelated logs of some app that uses the AOP.
It’s a smart tactic for governments to use private corporations to do stuff like this. Flock takes all the heat and the government can even make themselves look good by ditching Flock. 2 seconds later they’ll use a different company.
There is no practical difference between the government hiring people to do something and the government hiring a corporation to do the same thing, and if you find yourself blaming Flock instead of the government who funds them, you’re being manipulated by this tactic.
Except the Gov can't buy services from corps to do things they are not allowed to do: Pinkerton Act. None of this is legal
Outfits like TSA, ICE, Flock attract all the wrong people.
To be fair to people, TSA attracts people who live near airports and need jobs, doesn't it?
ICE, yes. At this point you cannot make an argument at all that you are going to join a fair-minded organisation that treats people decently while upholding a lawful function.
People who work for Flock should be considering their futures, but I suspect people who install Flock cameras are more in the TSA bracket: it is a job that will be near them that pays.
Government jobs attract all the wrong people.
To be clear, that doesn't mean everyone working for the government is the wrong people.
Oh the irony
Flock is YC
Flock has solved crimes in my state, including a few horrendous violent crimes.
We forget US society was configured (imperfectly) to allow families to raise their children in stability and safety, with guardrails around both sides of liberty. Surveillance has a legit role in protecting communities and their families - especially the most vulnerable.
Willing to be most of the Flock hate crowd doesn't have kids walking to school in areas where bad things happen - many probably don't have kids.
I tend to agree that when used correctly, a surveillance system like this could have benefits at a societal level.
The problem is the many stories we already have of misuses of this equipment, showing that people in power are not mentally capable of actually managing a surveillance system like this in a societally beneficial way.
If the use of the system was designated as only being allowed to stop heinous crimes and we had a track record and way to prove this was always the case, then I would be 100% in support. But given it has already proven to not be possible is likely why most people are against it.
I simply don't think Humans are capable of proper use of a system like this.
The problem is that these system are setup specifically to be able to be used incorrectly. Flock is getting all the rage right now but they aren't the only vendor. An acquisition and rename later and everyone will have forgotten this all. Police (others?) are setting up stingrays. Stalin's secret police had a maxim: "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime." Remember, everyone who installed a Ring doorbell camera paid to help set up these kinds of networks. (all so that a porch pirate might get caught even though Amazon will reship for free). These systems also set up a huge target for bad actors to hack outside of the law.
If these things were only ever used with the a valid search warrant, that would be a great step forward. But even that will only stop "honest" people from abusing the system.
There is also a large difference between local surveillance (home/business/area CCTV), public surveillance (openly accessible cameras like traffic cams), and dragnet surveillance- I generally trust my local police precincts but don't like the fact that the alphabet soup of federal agencies has warrantless access to track me on the way to and from church or work or Facebook marketplace deals
Honest question: If the feds were actually tracking you on your way to church, how does that impact you? Is that a real fear you have?
Yes, I often wonder if Martin Luther King felt at all concerned by the Feds tracking him on his way to church.
What kind of church…?
Does that matter? It's one where I share a common belief in a higher being with other people and we try to build a community and become better people and followers of our specific beliefs.
It just doesn't feel good or sit right with me to be tracked all over the place, and even though none of what I do is illegal (besides taking speed limits as suggestions from time to time, as is the American way /s) just being nearby can get you stuck with charges for things you didn't do.
The fed govt in the US has been doing questionable things on and off American soil for a long time: - bad analysis https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/09/the-cowboy-of-the-nsa - not to mention the massive surveillance state exposed by Edward Snowden
And then more specifically, Flock cameras:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/one-alpr-camera-hit-e... https://reason.com/2026/08/13/flock-cameras-and-license-plat... https://www.riaclu.org/news/flock-safety-image-led-to-false-... https://ij.org/dozens-of-innocent-motorists-have-been-pulled... https://ij.org/the-ij-database-of-alpr-abuse/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/08/02/how-pol... https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/26/us/flock-kentucky-police-offi... https://www.aol.com/articles/milwaukee-police-officer-charge... https://ij.org/police-have-reportedly-used-license-plate-rea...
> Honest question: If the feds were actually tracking you on your way to church, how does that impact you?
Why do you suppose that stalking is illegal?
Before you write up any "clever" retorts, remember that many illegal activities (theft, kidnapping, murder, etc) are permitted when permission is obtained from a judge.
We could solve even more crimes if the police were allowed to install cameras in everyone's homes.
Sum up the number of kids harmed or murdered by the state (pick the top n dictators in the last 100 years for example).
Sum up the number of kids harmed or murdered by random people (remember that, for example, non-family abductions are 1% of abductions).
Compare.
I guarantee you that an empowered state is worse for child welfare than random criminals.
Oh, yes, "think of the children", nobody has ever explored this angle to push unpopular things before.
"Won't someone think of the children" has become the rally cry of authoritarians.
Except there was literally just a piece a few days back here on HN where a Mom was arrested for letting her kid walk half a mile alone in a gated community with active security patrols. The guardrails you describe aren’t for child safety so much as adult persecution. Surveillance may help solve some crimes, but its goal isn’t safety of the people surveilled as much as protecting the power of those doing the surveilling. Research continues pointing out that cameras don’t do shit to deter crime, and its actual ability to solve crimes is limited to the humans using said tools - and with a longer history of abuses than successes, it’s a fairly safe conclusion that mass surveillance does fuck all to actually protect the populace.
"This technology can be abused" and "this technology provides no public-safety value" are two entirely different claims.
Saying their ability to solve crimes is "limited to the humans using the tools" isn't much of an argument against the technology. That's true of fingerprints, DNA databases, radios, firearms databases, and virtually every other investigative tool.
A police officer can misuse a DMV database to stalk an ex. That means the officer should be prosecuted and access to the database tightly controlled. It doesn't demonstrate that DMV records have no legitimate investigative purpose. The same reasoning applies to LPRs.
By the way, that mom that was arrested? The kid was 5 years old, and was intentionally sent to a pond.
I'm 100% in favor of LPR cameras. Any technology can be abused. The handful of corrupt officers that were caught using the cameras for nefarious reasons shouldn't overshadow the incredible benefit these are.
> Willing to [bet] most of the Flock hate crowd doesn't...
...have a reason at all to worry about LPR cameras tracking their car. Just "something something government."
If someone came up to me and started filming me while I was in public, and then when I got in my car they followed me, I would also call the police.
The double standard demonstrated by Flock isn't the issue, they are the pieces of shit and of course they have no moral consistency.
But "He who fights with monsters should be careful, lest he thereby become a monster." I thought we were united that people have a reasonable sense of temporal privacy in public - that being in public is ephemeral and not some permanent record to be analyzed in perpetuity. We should not be fine stalking people and making them feel threatened, even those that want to build the panopticon state.
But you're not working for Flock, are you? We could go on much further until we reach the what Popper called the Tolerance Paradox: "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
The point is that total surveillance is like the destruction of tolerance or in thie case privacy, and it makes watching the watchmen impossible. There's a point of no return and before that one is reached resistance IS allowed or else you lose everything.