Why is it OK for everyone to carry a surveillance device (smart phone) everywhere they go, but installing a camera on a public roadway is not OK?

I don't understand the hatred for Flock. And I don't think the complainers see the irony of tweeting complaints about Flock from their iPhones.

▲

cogman10 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We have protections for smart phones which limit when a police department can search for them. Further, it's harder for police departments to get at the contents of a phone.

Flock cameras provide no barrier for police departments to use them (hence the police using them to track their exes). It provides cops with the ability to target and ruin the day of someone they don't like for whatever reason they like.

But further, these cameras are coordinated and the system is designed for easy access of the data for the entire network. Your cellphone and other's cellphones only track them. There is no easy access network that anyone could use (except for maybe apple/google) and the main information they'd get is location data, not footage. And critically, I can turn my cell phone off.

It gets further messed up in that flock can grant access to their surveillance system to private individuals, where there is absolutely no legal barrier to what they can look up. That means if they want to start building advertising profiles, make hiring decisions, or just want to stalk their exes, they can.

I don't really have a problem with a CCTV system. I have a problem with a giant network of cameras recording everything which is built for easy access and tracking of individuals.

Cellphones aren't that. But to the extent they could become that, I oppose that as well.

▲

ranger_danger 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Flock cameras provide no barrier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

> In 2026, the Supreme Court limited the application of the doctrine to digital location data as well. Chatrie v. United States held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it compels Google to provide a user's historical location information, even though the data is held by a third-party techonology company.

	▲	cogman10 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's not a refute. As I said, flock is providing no barrier. It's the responsibility of the cops to not use the system illegally. And the police don't really care [1]. You could almost certainly do that audit nationwide and find huge portions of the police force breaking the law routinely. That said, I'd certainly support legislation which forced these surveillance systems to require any who wants to use the system to present a search warrant. And to enforce the parameters of that warrant and not allow for searches exceeding it. But I imagine flock wouldn't like that. After all, their entire business model is providing fast and broad searches without requiring a warrant. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/georgia-cops-keep-get...

▲

ceejayoz 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Why is it OK for everyone to carry a surveillance device (smart phone) everywhere they go, but installing a camera on a public roadway is not OK?

I don't live-stream my phone's camera to people with guns empowered to shoot people?

	▲	pavel_lishin 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And the police can't use my phone camera to track down where their ex-girlfriend has been going for the past two weeks.

▲

fhdkweig 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In theory, the phone camera (and microphone) are not supposed to be on 24/7 and sending that info to a 3rd party. Whether that can be known for sure is probably known only to the hardware/software manufacturers. Supposedly, the Russian app Max randomly switches on the camera (can't find a citation for that now), so you can use that as an example of how far it could go.

▲

ChoGGi 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because I get to (ideally) control when the camera records?

The phone is fine anyways; Google/Apple knows what's best for me.

▲

Crosseye_Jack 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

imo, just because something bad exists doesn't mean other bad things are now allowed to exist, but instead focusing on improving "bad thing".

▲

tamimio 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not really comparable between the two:

Smartphone:

- camera mostly offline unless something is happening

- recording time is usually short and focused on that thing happening right now, not everywhere

- the point of view is usually close to ground, aka less things to capture

- mostly if not always is done with a human carrying it, so you are aware of that recording

- not connected to any analytical AI software that fingerprints everything passing by

Flock:

- cameras are always online

- recording is always on 24/7 and on a wide angle

- usually at high elevation so it exposes more (like a swimming pool in your house)

- stealthy compared to a human holding a cam, just another pole in the street.

- and most importantly, that differentiate flock from even other CCTV let alone smartphones, is the network and the AI analysis that are also directly connected to law enforcement who happen to abuse it.

So yeah it’s not it even close, if you see some stranger standing next to your house for few hours let alone with a smartphone recording your house and pool, sure hell you will report them or go and confront them, not the case with flock.