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...