| ▲ | etdznots a day ago |
| The best part is that flock owns the cameras and the poles so even when the contract expires the cameras keep running and recording data that flock can sell to e.g. CHP, LASD, FBI, Palantir; and LAPD can just call them and access the data the flock scam was engineered to be resilient to political pressure by giving departments and jursidictions this fake exit ability while the data continues to be harvested, it is a noose that only tightens; the amount of flock cameras recording only ever goes up not down. |
|
| ▲ | smalltorch a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yeah it's kinda crazy you can't legally take them down even if they are banned/contract expires. IKE Skelton, a county commissioner took it into his own hands and they were pressing felony charges on him. Not sure what ended up happening. Basically flock wouldn't respond to take them down, he felt it was his duty to remove them, he brought them back to his office, and then the state hunted him down. Here is a podcast about it. https://internationalflavor.podbean.com/e/the-surveillance-s... |
| |
| ▲ | glaslong a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm curious how they could prevent taking them down if the local gov doesn't renew the contract? Presumably they're installed under some works dept land/pole/utility access permits that allow them the space and electrical, which all goes away and requires their removal. Sorry if this is answered in the pod, don't have time for it immediately. | | |
| ▲ | smalltorch a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Id have to re-listen as well for all the details. But I think this is slightly different than the headline here. In this case, the county voted for an ordinance banning them. Ike was threatened saying your going to be charged this is potentially state property, he did a sunshine request to see that they were privately owned by flock. Then he requested flock take them down but they didn't. After a few months he decided he will enforce the ordinance as the sheriff refused too. He took them down brought them to his office. Then later 5 state officers (4 in plain clothing, one in uniform) were looking for him at his house. He brought them to the cameras and said here have them back. Still got charged with theft somehow... Moral of the story, that doesn't really sound like democracy to me. That sounds like kinda the opposite of democracy. Anyway it's worth a listen if you have time. This isn't how these things should go and shows there is a little more than meets the eye here. Even if citizens perfectly execute democracy, these things may not budge. And there is a larger net of protection keeping these in place. | | |
| ▲ | alhirzel a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Didn't know about sunshine request - the website[1] - until I searched for this term! [1]: https://www.sunshinerequest.com/ | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This is just FOIA. You don't need any special website or process; just Google [(your state) FOIA] or [(your municipality) FOIA officer]. In Illinois, you can simply email free-form requests for documents and start a 10-day clock on the public body's side. | | |
| ▲ | alright2565 a day ago | parent [-] | | The problem is following up. It's hard to understand the process, and what to do when the public body doesn't respond. If nothing else, the Sunshine Request site is a good place to get form emails for these requests from. | | |
| ▲ | chaps a day ago | parent [-] | | What you do is: you sue. On my 13th FOIA lawsuit and I have a couple more in the works ;) Depending on where you're from, it's pretty easy to find a pro bono attorney. In Illinois, the plaintiff's attorneys recoup their costs on a successful win. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | smalltorch a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Im not sure if there is a way to verify that the one he is talking about, but for public records request muckrock is great. https://www.muckrock.com | | |
| |
| ▲ | chasd00 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > he did a sunshine request to see that they were privately owned by flock. Then he requested flock take them down but they didn't. After a few months he decided he will enforce the ordinance as the sheriff refused too. yeah that's basically theft then. The cameras are probably a lot of money and so the dollar number put it in felony territory. | | | |
| ▲ | moron4hire a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Moral of the story: never talk to the police. Even if you yourself are police. | | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Still got charged with theft somehow... More equal animal acting in his official capacity gets treated like less equal animal.... basically. | |
| ▲ | nicechianti a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | ryukoposting a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I'm curious how they could prevent taking them down if the local gov doesn't renew the contract? IANAL but based on the facts available to me, they can't. It's a sham held up by intimidating local officials. The cameras were installed on public property, that's that. If they somehow keep this nonsense running for very long, I'd anticipate a Meigs Field-esque incident at some point. | | |
| ▲ | chasd00 a day ago | parent [-] | | If the cameras and poles are private property then, contract or not, taking them is theft is it not? You'll get in trouble taking lime scooters and throwing them in the lake regardless of whatever contract exists or doesn't exist. | | |
| ▲ | ryukoposting a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The cameras and poles are private equipment installed on public property. If the city terminates the contract and says "get rid of it" and the contractor says "no," well someone has to deal with it. Imagine if a power company got cleared to bury a bunch of power lines, but they left all the unused poles in the ground, on land they no longer have rights to. That's closer to the situation we're dealing with here. Wireless and solar make some of the more visceral approaches to this problem ineffective. In the past, the city could have strongarmed Flock by severing power or data service somewhere on the public side. I'd bet there are still tons of tricks LA can pull, though. These 1000 9-square foot patches of land have been rezoned as green space, we're clearing it for native plant life. Or, like I said, just pull a Daley and remove them. The city owns the land. Flock can complain, they can sue, and they might even win. But once the city removes the cameras, Flock can't put them back. The city owns the land, and Flock has no rights to it. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | adolph a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > installed under some works dept land/pole/utility access permits Another option might be right of way or easement permitting, similar to how utility poles and such are regulated as private property with an allowance to be in a public space. If the provider got a permit to use the right of way separate from the contract, then the provider would retain the same right to be there as any other infrastructure. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can definitely take the cameras down. We did, there was zero drama. On the other hand, it wouldn't be surprising if a single county commissioner got in trouble for just deciding by fiat to take civic infrastructure down himself. That's not a power county commissioners have. Was there a county board vote authorizing that action? | | |
| ▲ | smalltorch a day ago | parent | next [-] | | In this case, law enforcement selectively enforced local laws. So the commissioner exhausted his options. And flock didn't seem to be bothered by breaking the local laws and their action was inaction. So what else are you suppose to do? I think it's reasonable to decide that if no one is enforcing the new local law, that it may be the commissioners purview and authority to enforce after exhausting all his options. Charging the commissioner with felony theft is clearly just bullying at that point. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > So what else are you suppose to do? I think it's reasonable to decide that if no one is enforcing the new local law, that it may be the commissioners purview and authority to enforce after exhausting all his options. County commissioners are generally legislative officers. While the legislative body is smaller, this really no different than a member of Congress deciding that the they don’t like the way DOJ is enforcing federal law and deciding that gives them arbitrary power to take whatever action they feel is appropriate to manifest the intent of the law. | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > So what else are you suppose to do? File a civil suit and get a court order for their removal. | | |
| ▲ | smalltorch a day ago | parent [-] | | Silliness. Who enforces it then? The local law banning it was already equally as valid as a court order would have been. Would the county need to ask the judge to take it down? Someone has to physically take it down and I'm guessing flock didn't put that in the budget. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Ultimately, as a member of a legislative body, if you don’t like the way the executive bodies charged with inplementing a law are doing so, your choices are: (1) Work with other members of the legislative body to hold the executive accountable for failures, via hearings, sanctions (often, if at the same level, including removal), etc., or (2) Work with the same body to file a lawsuit as a body to compel compliance, which has additional enforcement provisions (including contempt orders by the court for noncompliance) not available with the bare law and no court case, (3) Taking any avenue open to the public at large (including individual lawsuits, public advocacy including including electoral advocacy against any elected executive officers involved, etc.). What is not generally an option is unilaterally assuming the role legally assigned to the executive in inplementing the law, or simply assuming whatever other powers you imagine are best to realize the intent of the law even if they are outside of its letter. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree in general but on the other hand, isn't removal of unauthorized private property from public lands a routine duty of local government employees? So if anything I feel like flock is lucky the cameras weren't physically destroyed upon removal. For example, if a maintenance worker had been instructed to remove them how would this have played out? | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The cameras would have been removed. Munis don't generally destroy random tech infrastructure they pull off poles, though they might throw it in a big pile. Flock could invoice for the cameras, but most munis would probably tell them to go fuck themselves. |
|
| |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Who enforces it then? The executive can enforce judicial orders. This is civics 101. > The local law banning it was already equally as valid as a court order The ban is an ex post facto law. Rights holders to property have a legitimate reason to defend those rights across policy changes. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | An ordinance banning ALPRs that impacts previously-installed Flock cameras is not an ex post facto law. But a municipal ban on private Flock cameras poses constitutional problems --- and not because of post facto or takings. Generally, the ballgame here is over publicly-owned cameras, so none of this is really apposite. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The court enforces it. We're getting into movie plot politics here. The sheriff's department will not in fact ignore a district court ruling. These scenarios rapidly reach the point where the sheriff is removed from office and imprisoned for some amount of time. This is what happened to Joe Arpaio. This is much simpler in a municipality: the board simply fires the village manager and the chief. A sheriff is usually an elected though. Before you reach the point of suing, you cancel contracts, payments, IT infrastructure, and have public works remove the cameras from any county-owned infrastructure. I mean, all this is pretty silly, though, because what you really do is just turn the cameras off. | | |
| ▲ | beart a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Joe Arpaio was not removed from office. He was charged with contempt but was never incarcerated. He was pardoned and then lost his next election. | |
| ▲ | chasd00 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | or just start fining Flock per camera per day for a brazillion dollars. Sheriff compliance or not, that's still in their power. | | |
| ▲ | lokar a day ago | parent | next [-] | | And then get a order to take the camera to satisfy the debt | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | This is all very silly. Flock is not a scheme to install forever-cameras. They get paid primarily by municipalities. If your muni votes to shut the cameras off, they will shut the cameras off. If it votes to take the cameras down, nobody is going to stop public works from doing that. The problem is that the First Law Of Message Board dictates that the most interesting narrative wins, and the narrative where Flock has deviously come up with a surveillance "forever chemical" to attach to every municipal road is much more interesting than "this is a service and if you stop paying for it it goes away". | | |
| ▲ | lokar a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I thought what was going on was they would keep them up after the local contract as they could still get value from them as part of the national network. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't doubt that they will, if all your muni cares about is "not paying anymore", they'll take advantage of the easement or whatever. Kind of the same way DirecTV was happy for you to leave the dish installed. |
| |
| ▲ | mistercheph a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If your muni votes to shut the cameras off, they will shut the cameras off. That's simply not true: there are numerous instances of municipalities having to fight flock to get cameras removed or shut off, and instances where local governments pass ordinances that local law enforcement refuses to enforce because the cameras, which have been banned, are not off, as you allege is what happens, and law enforcement continues to use the data the cameras provide despite the contract being terminated. Just google e.g. "flock trash bag" to see how cities are having to deal with Flock. There are links elsewhere in this thread to a few of the many instances where this happens but I'll link to something that hasn't been mentioned yet, where flock cameras are turned back on and used by law enforcement in Springfield after contracts are cancelled, and cameras are left up that flock pinky swears are off that turn out to be on and accessible by law enforcement: https://www.kezi.com/news/local/stolen-car-found-in-springfi... And again, that is just talking about the instances where the municipality actually wants the flock cameras turned off or removed, there are many instances, like TFA, where the local government wants them on or doesn't care, and they remain on and used by other agencies, despite the termination of the contract with one of the client agencies. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | When a municipality passes an ordinance prohibiting ALPRs, and the municipal police force refuses to shut off the ALPRs, and the municipality does not then fire the chief (or the muni executive, if needed), then the muni was full of shit about being opposed to the ALPRs in the first place. I'm deeply involved in municipal politics and was for many years involved in national politics (and, more to the point, discussions of national politics online) and I see this all the time: people crossing the streams between the two, as if the levels of responsibility and accountability were comparable. A municipal sworn law enforcement official that ignores a duly passed ordinance that has gone into effect is breaking the law and their contract and can trivially be fired, not after a long drawn-out procedure but immediately. I watched us shut our cameras down. As I said: there was no drama, at least procedurally. If our chief had tried to prevent the cameras from coming down, she'd have been out on her ass the next day. I'm sure there are places where there was drama, but I'd need to see the full story before drawing the conclusion that you're drawing. What I see here is the more interesting narrative ("the cameras are impossible to take down, they're a virus!") asserting itself in its natural habitat, the online message board. I don't know what this story about a misconfigured camera (it strobed an "outage" alert after being deactivated) being reactivated by a technician is supposed to tell me. The theory here is that Flock is running a scam where they're rolling trucks to surreptitiously enable individual cameras? | | |
| ▲ | mistercheph a day ago | parent [-] | | Flock's value proposition is having a national surveillance network, local PD are not their only customers, here is yet another instance where oops, a camera that they promised was off, turned out to be on in Eugene: https://www.klcc.org/crime-law-justice/2025-12-09/eugene-pol... And here is flock getting caught installing cameras in Cambridge after contract termination: https://www.cambridgema.gov/news/2025/12/statementontheflock... Here is flock getting caught installing cameras in Evanston after contract termination: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/09/29/after-evanston-fir... And obviously these are only the cases where they were caught making convenient mistakes, there is very little incentive for the likeliest parties to know (Flock, law enforcement) to bring to light the fact that flock cameras are still on, being serviced, and the data is still accessible despite local ordinance. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't know what you think these links are accomplishing for you. I'm not talking about Flock in the abstract; I have firsthand experience with it. I'm part of a group of people who ultimately got the cameras taken down in my municipality, and before that, I spent years helping craft local rules and ordinances limiting them. There are tens of thousands of Flock cameras all over the country. It would be weird if there weren't misconfigurations. The Evanston story is a great example: the reinstallation of cameras happened the week the contract was expired, and Flock notified the city of Evanston (which, for what it's worth, is our twin sibling city in Chicagoland), at which point Evanston said "you've made a mistake" and Flock said "ok we'll take them down". | | |
| ▲ | mistercheph a day ago | parent [-] | | You seem a bit distracted by the links instead of the content that can be accessed by clicking on them, they show that in tens of instances, your personal anecdote about how flock removal went don't hold. Flock drags their feet, makes legal threats to cities that cancel, forgets to turn cameras off, turns cameras back on, claims cameras are shut off when they are on, installs new cameras after cancellation, leaves cameras up after promising to take them down, etc. etc. And you are representing the situation in Evanston disingenuously here's the timeline AFAICT: - Aug 26, 2025 Evanston issues a termination notice to Flock, effective Sep. 26 2025 after it learns that Federal law enforcement and immigration enforcement are able to access license plate data from the Flock cameras in Evanston, something the city claims Flock lied about. (https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/08/26/evanston-shuts-dow...) - Notably at this point EPD believes the cameras are off: An EPD officer: "The last read on an Evanston Flock camera was logged shortly before 1:00 p.m. on August 26th, which is consistent with the City’s request for de-activation,",
- Aug 27, 2025 Flock writes a reply letter claiming that Evanston has no legal basis to terminate the contract. (https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/08/28/flock-challenges-c...)- Sep. 8, 2025 Flock has removed 15 of 18 cameras. - Sep. 18, 2025 Flock reinstalls the uninstalled cameras. Evanston sends Flock a letter asserting that they are in violation of the contract and Illinois law. (https://evanstonroundtable.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/25...) - Flock did not inform Evanston, a technician unintentionally informed the city: "[City spokesperson] Vargas said the city learned that Flock reinstalled new cameras after a Flock technician called the Evanston Police Department to ask questions on where to find a camera’s power source." (this is from the tribune article I linked above)
- Sep. 23, 2025 Flock says that they are willing to remove the cameras (https://evanstonroundtable.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Ha...)- Sep. 24, 2025 The city issues a cease-and-desist to flock. (https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/24/flock-safety-reins...) - Despite the city's belief that the cameras have been off since the termination letter on Aug. 26th, RoundTable journalists show that the cameras are still on and logging locations.
- Sep 25, 2025 Evanston covers the cameras with plastic bags (https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/25/city-covers-up-flo...)- Mar 3, 2026 Journalists notice that two of flock's cameras are still up in Evanston and contact Flock asking for comment, Flock does not reply but removes the cameras. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | Again, not sure what you're trying to prove here. By your own timeline the cameras were inactive by the deadline in the termination notice. But even if they weren't, what do you think the plot was? That they were just going to keep the cameras up forever, come what may from Evanston? I take it you don't live in Evanston, so let me fill you in: that's not plausible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | They'll never do it because Flock has the money and lawyers to fight it and friends in high places. Textbook "high risk of setting precedent you don't like" situation. They don't want to lose the ability to do the same to hundreds of dollars per violation per day routine (something that's constitutionally kind of sketchy to begin with) to normal people. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | They'll never do what? Flock has taken cameras down all over the place. They're a company we don't trust, but they're not Bond villains. |
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Again: if it's one commissioner, he doesn't have any options. The only power a county commissioner has that you don't is voting on motions. |
| |
| ▲ | mistercheph a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | re: the commisioner: > In January of 2024, the Camden County Commission passed a county ordinance banning the use of all automated license plate readers in the county (a 2023 ordinance had banned all static license plate readers, but the 2024 ordinance expanded that to include all automated license plate readers). In that ordinance, commissioners cited "numerous complaints" about the cameras "and the potential of unwarranted/inappropriate monitoring of its citizens [sic] freedom of movement and travel in violation of their right of privacy, unreasonable search and seizure and other constitutionally protected rights[.]" > The ordinance also stated, "Any Automated License Plate Readers currently in violation of this Ordinance shall be immediately removed. If identification of ownership is listed on any such device, the listed owner shall be notified to remove said device. Any device not removed within 30 days of notification to remove said device may be removed by Order of the Camden County Commission." My understanding of this case was that the commissioner was charged with theft because even though the county had an ordinance requiring flock to take the cameras down, and they had failed to do so, it was not lawful for him to remove them himself and then take possession of them because they were the property of Flock. https://www.lakeexpo.com/news/politics/felony-charges-droppe... Re: zero drama taking down cameras, there has been quite a bit of drama: https://www.wmtv15news.com/2026/06/05/dane-county-covers-flo... https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/cities-covering-flock-surv... https://dailynorthwestern.com/2025/09/28/top-stories/flock-c... https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/verona-has-waited-... And final re: in many if not most of these cases the jurisdictions don't actually want to take the cameras down, they just want public pressure to let up a bit, and agencies are known to share flock data between each other, so law enforcement, the public, and lobbyists are all made happy by terminating the contract without removing the cameras, it is the smart thing to do politically. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't know much of anything about any other jurisdictions. I'm saying that my municipality took the cameras down with zero drama. I'm on one of its commissions with oversight on this. (More precisely: there was drama, but it was all public drama from residents who didn't want the cameras taken down.) | | |
| ▲ | remarkEon a day ago | parent [-] | | Curious. Why didn’t they want them taken down? | | |
| ▲ | Spooky23 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | They do have a legitimate purpose and help to solve crimes. The network effect, funded by federal grants to make a surveillance infrastructure nationally is the biggest issue. | | |
| ▲ | lokar a day ago | parent [-] | | This is the part that upsets me. They really could help solve crimes without sacrificing privacy. | | |
| ▲ | krupan a day ago | parent [-] | | How? Whatever the system is now is clearly not preserving privacy | | |
| ▲ | Spooky23 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Closed loop systems that require explicit consent to share outside the organization. Flock is like 50x worse than NSA stuff like PRISM that everyone freaked out about. The Feds have full access to search everything, are no doubt exempt from any transparency on the platform, and ICE is already using it to abuse and intimidate political enemies. It’s a nationwide surveillance system posing as a local police tool. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | They're pretty comparable in that the people most het up about them tend not to know what either actually was. The feds do not have full access to search everything on Flock's platform except through the same mechanism by which they'd have access to search literally anything (a court order). |
| |
| ▲ | lokar a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Have an independent non-profit with strong oversight manage the data. Grant access with a warrant. The police should show that a crime has likely been committed, and get access to just the data that probably has evidence. | | |
| ▲ | krupan a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You still have people with very tempting access to a whole lot of data. I don't see how this is different from the current situation other than it's just different (corruptible) people with access. | | |
| ▲ | lokar a day ago | parent [-] | | I think motivations matter. Putting a for-profit company hired by the police, and the police in charge is just the worst. There are many other contexts where we trust properly supervised people who lack an immediate and obvious incentive to abuse the system. Combined with good overall software design, auditing and transparency almost all of the harms could be mitigated. And the tech does have some pretty major benefits. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Every piece of technology deployed by the police is provided by a for-profit company. | | |
| ▲ | lokar 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m against flock the company. I’m in favor of a narrower form of plate recorders. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | How do you do a warrant for a device that alerts when a car on a hotlist transits an intersection? | | |
| ▲ | lokar a day ago | parent [-] | | Record the plates. Don’t alert, search. And just for a specific crime. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | The whole pitch for the cameras is alerting! The point is to interdict the cars right after they pass the camera. | | |
| ▲ | lokar a day ago | parent [-] | | That may be what police like, but in my town it’s sold to residents on solving crimes. | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee a day ago | parent [-] | | A stolen car is a crime though. | | |
| ▲ | lokar a day ago | parent [-] | | Sure. So file a request with a judge including evidence that the car has been stolen, and a reasonable time window and location. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Everybody is filter-bubbled and people on HN are profoundly filter-bubbled. Wait'll you find what a huge number of ordinary people think about NSA surveillance. The cameras apprehend criminals. I can show with evidence that the juice isn't worth the squeeze, and in fact that the cameras had the effect of tasking our police force with doing municipal debt collection for Melrose Park and Maywood, at the cost of 5-7 hours of sworn officer time per "failure to appear warrant" arrest. But supporters of the cameras will point to multiple stolen car interdictions and recovered firearms. If you go into these kinds of things assuming that the median resident of a municipality is anti-policing, you're already way, way off. And I find when I talk to anti-Flock advocates (that is: people who have "anti-Flock" as part of their personal identity, not just a person chosen at random who would happen to answer "no" to "should we ALPR") that many of them are operating from anti-policing premises, and so these kinds of responses are very surprising to them. (Totally reasonable for your reaction to this to be "whoah, that was a lot more than I asked for", I just feel like I've been in these kinds of conversations a lot. It's not personal.) |
|
| |
| ▲ | alistairSH a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sounds like his only recourse was to sue the county as a private citizen for failing to enforce their laws? Or something like that. Going vigilante, as much as I like it in this case, is still illegal. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | My thing with this story is that no part of it has anything to do with him being a county commissioner; it's just added to the narrative because it makes it sound like he should have been authorized to do this. | | |
| ▲ | amlozano a day ago | parent [-] | | I share the same thing. In fact, being a commissioner he was probably explicitly warned against taking any action into his own hands. A commissioner can easily mess things up and get sued trying do work on their own. Say they try to “repair a playground” by replacing a missing bolt. Well, were they qualified to do that? Do they have insurance? Was the action approved by a properly filed motion? Etc etc etc I learned this is why it costs my town egregious sums to do simple maintenance work; the only companies willing to put up with all the red tape of working with the government have to charge a premium. The part about him being a commissioner smells like a simple publicity stunt. | | |
| ▲ | smalltorch a day ago | parent [-] | | I think the interview goes in good depth in all the details of the scenario it doesn't sound like you listened.. Publicity for what? The publicity comes from a elected government official getting charged with felonys for stealing when he didn't steal anything. The playground analogy doesn't really hold up here I don't see the connection between the two. | | |
| ▲ | alistairSH 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Except he did steal the cameras. He only returned them when confronted by law enforcement. You don't get to rob a bank and then say "oopsie! my mistake, here's the bag of cash" when the police come knocking. | | |
| ▲ | smalltorch 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah I don't think you understand the full context. He took them down and told flock to come pick them up. And obviously didn't deprive flock from their property in any form. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bmau5 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If Flock can put them up, can I/my city just decide to put signs or lasers in front of the cameras? | | |
| ▲ | butlike a day ago | parent | next [-] | | There's instagram stories of people riding around destroying them, so yes, it's possible. | |
| ▲ | drdaeman a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or just cut the power? | | |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | crote a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What gives them the right to install and operate those cameras? I would have assumed that the license for placing them on public property was inherently linked to the services they provided to the local government. But if it's not tied to that, does that mean that anyone can install cameras anywhere? What grounds would they have to give permits to Flock while refusing them to other interested parties, like StalkingMyEx LLC. and CopTrack Corp.? |
| |
| ▲ | ibejoeb a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't have the answer, but I wonder if they are considered a utility and operate on utility easements. Then we have to look at the county and state, too. On the other side, I've read they operate a considerable number of private installations, too. Even that is suspect, too, in that there is existing case law affirming that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in "the whole of their public movements." | | |
| ▲ | engineer_22 a day ago | parent [-] | | They’re not utility. But you don’t have to be a utility to construct in the right-of-way. | | |
| ▲ | ibejoeb a day ago | parent [-] | | Good point. Then, if the contract lapses, who is responsible for that infrastructure? Does flock have to tear it down? | | |
| ▲ | kulahan a day ago | parent [-] | | Probably some legal question that won’t get answered until there is a strong pressure to do so. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And what's standing in the way of cleaning them up as litter? | |
| ▲ | engineer_22 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, the right-of-way is not anything-goes. The property is legally owned by the deed holder of the real property thru which it passes, but practically the right-of-way is managed and maintained by the jurisdiction claiming the right-of-way, i.e. municipal, county, state government agencies. Installations need to be permitted by the agency. |
|
|
| ▲ | ericjmorey a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dane County, Wisconsin Sheriff's Office took steps to prevent unauthorized surveillance. "With the contract set to expire on May 31st, the Sheriff’s Office informed Flock Safety that all 26 cameras must be removed by that date. When removal did not occur, the Sheriff’s Office took steps to ensure the cameras were not in use and placed covers over them." https://www.danecounty.gov/PressDetail/11899 |
|
| ▲ | njovin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| IANAL but if this is actually true then they're violating California law. I submitted a CCPA request to them to give me and delete everything they had on me. Their response is that they own no data, and I have to make the request to their customer, whomever that may be. If they're retaining any identifying data about me and then selling it to new customers, they are explicitly violating CCPA. |
| |
| ▲ | bix6 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s nice you got a response from them. I did not. | |
| ▲ | mistercheph a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | IANAL, but making some assumptions to fill in gaps, it seems they are avoiding having to comply with CCPA and other privacy laws like this: they harvest camera data and retain the images probably forever, but only turn it into identifying data on demand for customers. So you really do have to go talk to the customer, because Flock never "has" any identifying data about anyone, they just have anonymous images that when mixed with a model happen to produce identifying data. This allows them to promise that they don't keep any data and have strict retention policies etc. to jurisdictions that are on the fence or where the contract-purchasers are constrained by law in some way, but they can transfer identifying information at any point in the future to any customer, by mixing raw data and a model. | | |
| ▲ | bix6 a day ago | parent [-] | | > but only turn it into identifying data on demand for customers. How could this seriously hold legal weight? The data is identifiable. Just because it’s gated by some transformation doesn’t mean they are magically not holding my identifiable information. | | |
| ▲ | mistercheph a day ago | parent [-] | | Reading the definition of personal information from CCPA (https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/ccpa_statute.pdf), I'll produce the relevant parts: 1798.140 (v) > “Personal information” means information that identifies, relates to, describes, is
reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly
or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. Personal information
includes, but is not limited to, the following if it identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could be reasonably linked, directly
or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household." The phrase "reasonably capable of being associated with" seems like it would apply against this transformation argument, but later: > (2) (A) “Personal information” does not include publicly available information or
lawfully obtained, truthful information that is a matter of public concern. > (B) (i) For purposes of this paragraph, “publicly available” means any of the
following: > (II) Information that a business has a reasonable basis to believe is lawfully made available to the general public by the consumer or from widely distributed media. So I think the above comment was wrong, this might be the actual way around it, AIUI courts have long established that individuals don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy from being photographed or recorded when in public, so it seems like public surveillance footage is actually exempt from CCPA even if it can be reasonably linked with personally identifying information. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jonahx a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is there any realistic road to having them outlawed nationwide? Eg, ignoring probabilities here, could a wildly successful grassroots program where it became an issue as politically salient as immigration or abortion eventually lead to legislation banning them? |
| |
| ▲ | thesuitonym a day ago | parent | next [-] | | A national ban is unlikely to happen. Big companies like Flock are incredibly experienced at paying off enough of the Congress to stop legislation they don't like. You're better off trying to focus your efforts on your local municipalities and the state. | | |
| ▲ | kulahan a day ago | parent [-] | | This is true for almost every issue, for what it’s worth. Almost. |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > an issue as politically salient as immigration This is more likely to lead to making them ubiquitous; people will demand a camera network linked to a database of valid faces of US nationals. | |
| ▲ | NewJazz a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Probably? Would be easier to develop drones to rip off the solar panels. | | |
| ▲ | snovv_crash a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Black spray paint is less effort | | |
| ▲ | jachee a day ago | parent [-] | | Paintballs are even better, environmentally and effort-wise. Especially if the propellant tank is pressurized using a solar powered compressor. (Theoretically, of course. I wouldn’t advocate destroying private property.) | | |
| ▲ | dietr1ch a day ago | parent [-] | | Destroying public property is bad in a general sense, but not enough to describe the situation here. Would you take the knife out of your robber? Or is that stealing private property? Surveillance endangers society/democracy and it's a threat too | | |
| ▲ | malfist a day ago | parent [-] | | Paintballs are destroying public property? Flock cameras are public property? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ethagnawl a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hypothetically, of course, it would be even easier to just sneak up from behind and drop contractor bags over them. | | |
| ▲ | NewJazz a day ago | parent [-] | | There is no sneak up from behind in this system, or at least it can be very hard to target. You must know the full extent of the network, emerge from the blind spots, dismantle pieces, then return to the blind spots. Faster than they repair the machines. | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 a day ago | parent [-] | | Ride there on an e-bike with a full motorcycle helmet. Cut down the pole. Cut off the camera. Throw the camera head in the river. GoFundMe if they catch you. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bell-cot a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Is there any realistic... SCOTUS could hand down another surprise decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatrie_v._United_States | | |
| ▲ | jonahx a day ago | parent [-] | | If phone companies' geofence info requires a warrant, it makes zero sense that flock info does not. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Flock contract I read from Oak Park, where we designed what I think are the country's most restrictive ALPR rules and ultimately took our cameras down, did not allow Flock to continue running, recording, and selling data after we turned the cameras off. In fact: they explicitly didn't allow them to sell the data at all. Can I ask where you got this idea from? |
| |
| ▲ | cadamsdotcom a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Thank you for pointing this out, I would just assumed the parent commenter was correct. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | We didn't really negotiate the contract, either; these were just their stock terms. Does someone have a Flock contract that says something else? A reminder: for most munis deploying Flock, these contracts are public record; you can just ask for them. |
| |
| ▲ | mistercheph a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | reproducing the same links as above: https://www.lakeexpo.com/news/politics/felony-charges-droppe... https://www.wmtv15news.com/2026/06/05/dane-county-covers-flo... https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/cities-covering-flock-surv... https://dailynorthwestern.com/2025/09/28/top-stories/flock-c... https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/verona-has-waited-... And these are just the cases where the municipality wants the cameras taken down, GP also talks about the cases where they just want to sate the public while keeping law enforcement and lobbyists happy. LA is a great example, the inaction of letting the contract expire in no way means that the cameras will be taken down, if no further action is taken, those cameras stay up, and law enforcement will continue to have access to all flock's alpr data. And further it's unclear if the "data" governed in these contracts applies to the CCTV footage or the data produced for the customer by transforming the footage with models into identifying information. Given that flock has a profit incentive, it's reasonable to assume these contracts are written adversarially to maximize Flock's ability to persuade jurisdictions to sign the contracts and Flock's ability to use all of the data they harvest to maximize profit, we have enough examples of this in the 21st century to know this isn't paranoid, this is the basic playbook of all surveillancetech/adtech companies and they have all used language in contracts that is confusing to nonexperts that affords them maximum leverage to store all the data they harvest permanently and use it however they want. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | Please don't paste walls of links into threads, especially not when they're copies from the same thread. | | |
| ▲ | mistercheph a day ago | parent [-] | | You made the same claim based on a personal anecdote in multiple places in this thread, giving it the same reply seems reasonable, but I'll grant there's probably a better way than a wall of links. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tedggh a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| With Marc Andreessen, the boy from rural Wisconsin, major investor and ambassador of Flock Safety, now part of the federal government, expect the number of Flock civil surveillance systems to increase even more. |
| |
| ▲ | sirsinsalot a day ago | parent [-] | | In the UK the government put up ANPR cameras to enforce a clean air zone. People with electric saws love pulling them down. They're only as permanent as their protection. |
|
|
| ▲ | riedel a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just out of curiosity: doesn't the US have any laws against private surveillance of public spaces? As a European I find this quite irritating (not saying we do not have problems as well with more and more cams installed and risks related to an increasing number of e.g. parking lot cams) |
| |
| ▲ | MikeTheGreat a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not a lawyer and I think this varies state by state, but I think that in general anyone is allowed to record in public spaces. I think the general idea is that if you could (legally) go stand in that public space (sidewalks, roads, parks) and watch something happen then you're allowed to record what you see. This is probably good - I think it's the basis of being able to record misbehavior (by private citizens and/or the police), for example. In contrast you're generally not allowed to record stuff happening in a private space unless everyone's been informed that this will happen. This is why you'll see signs saying "Warning - this place is under surveillance" signs on every single door going into a corporation that wants to use security cameras. | | |
| ▲ | riedel 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In Germany we have the concept of informational self-determination for a long time, so that I am not able to follow those scaling laws easily. The problem is not the single image or video (which can be legal), but the extension over space and time. This creates a situation where you can create information profiles. I as a subject have the right to control this information (actually the same goes for the pure online stuff). | |
| ▲ | stackskipton a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are allowed to record stuff happening in private spaces depending on the situation and state you are in. For example, you could photograph or record the dance floor in nightclub since dance floor is very public. However, the bathroom would not be allowed. Of course, the venue could make up rules and eject you for doing so. Most of "Warning signs" are deterrence, maybe someone will behave better if they know cameras are watching. Also, it's cheap insurance dictate by the lawyers who think "Signs are 100 bucks total but someone filing privacy lawsuit is thousands, put up the signs." | | |
| ▲ | MikeTheGreat a day ago | parent [-] | | "You are allowed to record stuff happening in private spaces depending on the situation and state you are in." The part about "depending on the situation and state you are in." is doing _a_lot_ of work there. Here in WA state, for example, if you go into a private meeting and record the thing without getting folks consent first then you're guilty of a misdemeanor. Another example: in my old neighbor we had a nuisance neighbor who we all thought was engaged in Crimes, Plural. The immediate neighbor wanted to put up a video camera to catch them in the act but was told that they can't film the neighbor's yard directly. Filming their own yard and the field of view happens to catch something in the adjacent yard might get by a judge, maybe. So even if you can stand on the sidewalk and see past the trees into someone's backyard that doesn't mean you can film it. (To be clear - I think this probably a good rule. I don't want folks filming me in my backyard :) ) Clearly, the tl;dr is that if this really matters to someone then they should check with a lawyer first. |
|
| |
| ▲ | alex43578 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, you don’t have an expectation of privacy on a public roadway, public parking lot, etc. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This norm around privacy was kinda set before the concept of mass surveillance became a thing, though. Maybe we should revisit it and rethink what privacy means. People shouldn't expect privacy in public, sure. They should expect they may be overheard or witnessed. But that's not really equivalent to mass surveillance and long-term recording "You should not expect privacy in public" does not imply "you should expect no privacy and you should expect everything you do is recorded and stored forever" | | |
| ▲ | alex43578 a day ago | parent [-] | | I don’t see why you should expect any privacy in the middle of a public road. What are you doing there that is private? I think everyone’s threat model is severely miscalibrated if they are threatened by being recorded driving somewhere via Flock, yet use a phone or social media account. There’s way more meaningful threats to actual private matters than Flock. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand a day ago | parent | next [-] | | People tracking your in-person movements and behaviors is way more threatening than people tracking your online behaviors You are seriously clueless if you think otherwise | | |
| ▲ | alex43578 a day ago | parent [-] | | The police observing your car driving down a road is not threatening, and acting as if it is is hysteria. Furthermore, if you’re worried about that, have you considered that “they” could get even more comprehensive tracking data just by requesting it from a data-broker? There’s no divide between the online and real world if you have a phone or an online presence. | | |
| ▲ | mistercheph a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > The police observing your car driving down a road is not threatening, and acting as if it is is hysteria. Yeah, but a national license plate surveillance system that lets a single police officer observe all of the movements you and your family members make every day for the past few years is not a single police officer making a plainview observation of you driving down the road. And it's clearly a power that threatens liberties, you cannot have a free society when a government has that power. "Palantir, what are the names and home addresses of all of the people that were at the pro-Mamdani rally, show me places that many of them go to in common, I want to find where these criminals are having their secret meetings." Probably not in voice-to-text form, but this power is already in the hands of some US agencies, in part thanks to the national ALPR system. | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > There’s no divide between the online and real world The divide is that someone can't murder you by knowing your online activity |
|
| |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I miss the old style small government conservatives that understood the threat that mass surveillance is. |
|
| |
| ▲ | TxFkdZ a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ibejoeb a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >LAPD can just call them and access the data Can they? Does anyone know the terms of these contracts? Does flock just look the other way if a licensee just gives away the data to some other entity without getting a fee for it? I can see arguments on both sides from flock's perspective, i.e., revenue vs lock-in. |
| |
|
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do they have the resources to consistently clear camera obstructions, or are they relying on police to do that? The wind can be just devilish in its ability to coincidentally tangle opaque films up with cameras and solar panels. |
|
| ▲ | petcat a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > lock owns the cameras and the poles Flock may own the camera and the physical pole, but I find it hard to believe that they own the ground the poles are installed in. Almost definitely owned by the Department of Transportation. |
|
| ▲ | Eextra953 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If this is the case then people can pressure their representatives to make this against the law. The people have agency here. |
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | xbar a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| City can eminent domain those pole locations to put up their own solution. |
|
| ▲ | mcdonje a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Does the city own the land the poles are on? |
|
| ▲ | gxs a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I didn’t know this but it’s the kind of stuff our tax dollars pay for and ultimately why I’m so disgruntled about the high taxes we pay - especially in the middle class No problem paying taxes - my entire gripe is with what what the moneys spent on |
| |
| ▲ | wilg a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The US has below average middle class tax rates. But luckily we can just choose what our tax dollars are spent on through democracy! The main problem is nobody agrees about anything and lots of people are really dumb and can't handle the responsibility of electing competent people into government. | | |
| ▲ | mcdonje a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This is naïve. The US government is less democratic than advertised, and there are many factors for that. Not going to write a tome, but if you're going to point a finger at one group, it shouldn't be private citizens. | | |
| ▲ | wilg a day ago | parent [-] | | This is a common coping mechanism, but the US is quite democratic and almost any objection you have about corporate control or whatnot can be easily overridden by getting like 100,000 more people to agree with you. | | |
| ▲ | polshaw a day ago | parent | next [-] | | >Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... especially note figure 1. | |
| ▲ | gxs a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you explain here without an LLM? Really curious to hear more about this Unless all of congress is included in that 100k, I’d love to hear a plausible scenario where this is actually achievable and not merely some clever edge case you found |
|
| |
| ▲ | clickety_clack a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It would be a mistake to assume that people who don’t agree with you are really dumb. | | |
| ▲ | loeg a day ago | parent | next [-] | | No, no, almost everyone is really dumb, including the people who do agree with me. | |
| ▲ | wilg a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | True sometimes, but not always. It's unlikely dumb people are equally split between political parties. |
| |
| ▲ | the_real_cher a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Im not sure I agree that a two party system for 400 million people allows us to choose what our taxes are spent on. | | |
| |
| ▲ | bmau5 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Would love to see someone vibecode an explorer for seeing how their jurisdiction spent their taxes. Denver has a decent explorer here: https://www.denvergov.org/transparency/checkbook#/home?year=... | | |
| ▲ | thesuitonym a day ago | parent [-] | | Why do you need to vibecode an explorer when financial analysis tools are a dime a dozen? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | inemesitaffia a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Palantir ? |
|
| ▲ | shevy-java a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is that legal though? Usually the poles stand on public ground, so
there is no way, in my opinion, that the ground on which the poles
stand are owned by that company. |
|
| ▲ | fsckboy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >The best part is that flock owns the cameras and the poles so even when the contract expires the cameras keep running and recording data that flock can sell if the cameras continue recording, LA can subpoena those recordings on an as needed basis. |
|
| ▲ | mmmlinux a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What prevents another group from installing a sign directly in front of a flock camera. |
