Obviously an unpopular opinion on this site, but I wish we had speed cameras, red-light cameras, and ALPRs everywhere. Cars are incredibly dangerous and large numbers of people drive them like absolute lunatics. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets. That position doesn't even account for the footage helping immensely with other investigations.

▲

tverbeure 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

They are great for tracking criminals who cross state lines for medical care.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas...

▲

vaylian 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets.

Strong disagree. Life in public areas is often still part of private life. And we should treat it with the respect and privacy that it deserves. You going to the doctor? That's part of your private life. You meeting with an old friend to catch up? Also private, even though you do it in a public cafe.

▲

fusslo 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I also disagree with OP.

It seems like (to my very uneducated mind) the founders were worried about the tyranny of government. We have the bill of rights and a constitution designed to limit government powers.

But then there are people who weaponize rights against the people in favor of the government.

A private company creating a mass-surveillance network of tracking everyone in public is absolutely a weaponization of rights. Rights designed to keep our government accountable. Our rights that give us tools to prevent government from weaponizing privacy against us (secret juries, secret trials, secret government employees, records etc citing 'privacy' as a reason for secrecy).

▲

veec_cas_tant 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In the USA? Any café you go to is reasonably likely to have cameras, both inside and outside. If you mean driving to a doctor's office, you probably pass by hundreds of cameras along the way: video doorbells, dash cams, Teslas, Waymos, gas stations, ATMs, traffic-flow cameras, etc. If you are in one of the many cities with tens of thousands of existing non-Flock cameras, you are likely passing many more.

▲

dbetteridge a day ago | parent | next [-]

Not USA based so do with that what you will.

Independent cameras, often not networked let alone internet connected are not the same thing as a single entity controlling a huge, internet capable, always on, cloud recording panopticon.

Logistically the first limits things like police access by units of both access and time (is it recording? Does the memory card overwrite? Did it expire before a warrant was issued?)

Putting that all in a convenient console and handing direct god eye view to police with a "oh you need a warrant first, wink wink", massively reduces friction for abuse of power.

	▲	veec_cas_tant a day ago \| parent [-]
		When the police ask for video evidence, they simply ask. They do not need a warrant. They might need a subpoena to force someone to hand it over, but I’m guessing that’s incredibly rare because people and businesses with cameras generally want to help. The issue is the incredible waste of time and money. It is incredibly inefficient to send a team out to collect footage instead of simply checking Flock, Axon, etc. No doubt, that hurdle prevents abuse, but it also hinders legitimate investigations. I would prefer strong safeguards against abuse while still allowing for real investigative wins.

▲

vaylian 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

To put it bluntly: That's dystopian.

▲

basch 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Part of the problem is the people reacting to the data. Cops coming at an innocent someone, guns drawn, because of database and human error. If that person weren't so calm and level headed in the moment, when they were attacked by confused and mistaken aggressors, would they still be alive?

https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-flock-cameras-wrongly-trac...

▲

veec_cas_tant 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't disagree: bad policing is a terrible issue. That does not mean we should prevent investigating stolen vehicles because a human might enter the characters incorrectly. I don't even understand how this story happened:

> In fact, four other 34 ## DTM cars were being tracked around Minnesota that week, according to Officer Ganshyn

Maybe we need even more AI, because I think Claude would probably flag this as goofy. No human involved thought that it was wild they would stop something like 100 or 1,296 vehicles?

	▲	basch a day ago \| parent [-]
		>No human involved thought that it was wild they would stop something like 100 or 1,296 vehicles? Because each city or county is doing its whole thing. Which comes back a bit to, it's one thing for my county to be tracking its residents, but should officers in Texas have carte blanche? If anything, the local county should have to "release" before search results are opened up to someone foreign. My officers should be protecting me from invasions abroad.

▲

moritonal 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You managed to say everything but the difficult bit. People don't generally have a problem with cameras, all our computers and phones have one. The problem is who can use them and when.

	▲	dredmorbius 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		There are some of us who do have problems with cameras on computers/phones, and will take steps to disable or obscure them, if removal or purchase without such a feature isn't an option.

▲

barbazoo 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Personally I have nothing against municipally operated red light/speed camera system because those are triggered by a sensor rather than continuous so privacy is less of an issue.

▲

arjie 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree. I was able to talk to my local SF supervisor the other day and congratulate him on his work with speed cameras and red-light cameras. He shares the same position as you: there is no constitutional right to drive one's car on public streets without enforcement of the rules.

We recently got permission to expand red-light cameras and I'm hoping that this kind of neutral machine-based enforcement of laws helps move us to a more law-abiding society. Civil liberties require civilization. Abdicating public space to the anti-social only allows for a de-facto rule by the uncivilized.

	▲	dTal 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not "neutral machine-based enforcement", it's a general purpose panopticon that tracks and logs everything, ready to be queried later by arbitrary people for arbitrary reasons.

▲

bdamm 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Personally I agree with the desire for more traffic enforcement, even if it means I personally would suffer because frankly I like driving fast. But as a cyclist who also likes riding fast, and a parent to likes giving freedom to children, safer roads would be great.

The problem is that these systems, always and without fail, come with government and police overreach and then the "guilty unless proven innocent" paradigm creeps in, which we have already seen happen with flock. You have police using the technology to spy on their lovers and friends of their wives and husbands, and you have political campaigns finding ways to spy on their opponents, and activists getting special attention from prosecutors, etc. Which always happs, but with totalitarianism is an absolute train wreck for an open, fair, and power-balanced government.

▲

steviehicks78 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would totally agree with you if I trusted the government

▲

Groxx 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah - this is the important part. With a truly benevolent government I think this may in fact be the best option...

But not only do you have to trust the government now (and you likely should not), you also need to trust the government far into the future (which you absolutely cannot do) because the tools will still exist.

Don't accept tools that are also strong weapons for oppression.

▲

barbazoo 2 days ago | parent [-]

OP made the mistake and included ALPRs in their list IMO. Because I'm having a hard time imagining how a sensor triggered red light camera could be used for oppression.

▲

Groxx 2 days ago | parent [-]

Have them take pictures of every car, now you've got half of what flock offers.

It's the widespread remote camera installs that are the main problem there. If they kept data locally and had to be collected by hand, it might be fine - that's difficult enough to grow to monitor everyone all the time. Aside from using film though, I'm not sure how that would be achieved.

(To be clear, I really do think we should be prosecuting speeding (and tailgating) MUCH more than we do. Far more death and damage occurs from it than we should allow. But ubiquitous networked cameras are not the way we should do that.)

▲

ranger_danger 2 days ago | parent [-]

> But ubiquitous networked cameras are not the way we should do that

How else should it be done? I think they're going to pick the cheapest option most of the time.

	▲	Groxx 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Which is why you don't install them widely enough to enable broad surveillance, yes. Temporary additions to problem-areas can be fine though. Scale is part of the "should this be allowed" equation, we allow extremely intrusive things when they're tightly scoped (and court approved).

▲

iAMkenough a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Let's take this to the next level, given the current reality.

Binge alcohol consumption is incredibly dangerous and contributes to a large number of national fatalities.

Governments should purchase a contract for a citizen tracking platform operated by a private company that monitors alcohol usage to ensure you're drinking responsibly and quickly detain those that aren't, given the threat they pose to themselves or the public. Governments should make tracking a requirement for legal alcohol consumption.

The private company expands to a nationwide network that allows the federal government, private contractors, and other people that gain access to monitor your environment (or your young kids) whenever they feel motivated, where ever you are.

For the name of safety, let's write legislation that gives the government's private contractors unfettered access to your microphones and cameras to help law enforcement be more efficient.

▲

veec_cas_tant a day ago | parent [-]

Slippery slope from cameras on public streets to giving contractors unfettered access to your phone’s camera! Why even let the government investigate crimes at all if something bad might happen in the future?

Instead of indulging in hyperbole, why not talk about the great evidence an ALPR outside a bar could provide with current technology? It’s absolutely a great idea. I hope that AI gets good enough to tell whether someone is plastered; that would save a lot of lives lost to selfish assholes.

	▲	iAMkenough a day ago \| parent [-]
		My point is if you trust the people on the other side of the camera, you should trust them with a camera that’s always on you. Let’s put them outside Gay bars and Planned Parenthoods, just in the name of safety. Think of all the college age women some guy halfway across the country can stalk.

▲

totallygeeky 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The cameras have categorically not helped with investigation, as is shown time (1) and time (2) and time (3) again. This is just a vibe that supporters like and Flock loves to spin data however it can to support their continued expansion. Also, people do absolutely still have an expectation of privacy when it comes to regular travel, what an insane thing to say.

(1) https://futurism.com/future-society/flock-surveillance-atlan... (2) https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2024/02/29/flock-a... (3) https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/tulsas-surveillance-gam...

	▲	veec_cas_tant 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Do you think every store in the Western world is just dumb for installing cameras? Cities like NYC, London, Singapore, etc.? I can't believe the number of people who want to argue that video footage is useless. If you drive through any commercial area, you're captured by dozens of cameras. There are over a dozen doorbell cameras on my residential block alone. Cameras are absolutely ubiquitous, for good reason. In the United States, at least, it would be foolish to assume that driving on a public street is anything resembling privacy.