| ▲ | mullingitover 3 days ago |
| I worry that Flock is going to take the fall, and some other bad actor with political connections (my money would be on Palantir) will just quietly pick up where they left off while everyone's patting themselves on the back for defeating Flock. The stuff Flock is doing is going to be standard AI-driven surveillance in the future, and unless the actual practices are made into political third rails and made into criminal code violations, they will absolutely be legalized on some party line vote in the middle of the night. Don't make it 'stop Flock,' make it 'criminalize AI-driven surveillance.' Denounce 'conspiracy to implement ai-driven surveillance' as an inherently immoral activity punishable by prison time. |
|
| ▲ | nancyminusone 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| My money would be on Axon. They at least have a claim to the "hold police accountable" angle with bodycams and less-lethal weapons. Compared with Flock's "we'll watch you and what're you gonna do about it" |
| |
| ▲ | lokar 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | NPR reported they are already moving in with a competing product . https://www.npr.org/2026/08/22/nx-s1-5931446/flock-fallout-c... | |
| ▲ | stonogo 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Axon's had ALPRs long before Flock existed, and the data management story is completely different. Flock was essentially a data warehouse with dark patterns around sharing settings that led to a lot of places defaulting open. Axon started out in bodycams and other direct-investigative tools, and their data management is very much focused on "the agency keeps its data" -- by default, data sharing requests have to be individually approved. You can't just type a plate number in and get hits nationwide. The question is: will Axon enshittify their mature products in order to pursue that panopticon money? | | |
| ▲ | queenkjuul 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >The question is: will Axon enshittify their mature products in order to pursue that panopticon money? It would be an historic first if they didn't |
| |
| ▲ | idiotsecant 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Same problems long term with better marketing. | |
| ▲ | chinathrow 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fuck them both. |
|
|
| ▲ | Dig1t 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is still a useful first step. Once “flock” becomes eponymous and a toxic political football, it can be applied to all future companies who do the same thing. The word “Flock” is quickly becoming toxic, in the future we’ll be able to use it as a shorthand for all companies of this type. e.g. if I call something a cleanex everyone knows what I’m talking about regardless of whether Cleanex the company actually made the item being referred to. Similarly we’ll be able to just say “flock camera” and everyone will know what it is regardless of who makes the camera. |
| |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think the point you're trying to make is undermined slightly by the fact that the word I think you're looking for is "Kleenex" not Cleanex. It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about, and I did some searching online to make sure I wasn't missing something about "Cleanex" in particular I still agree with you though ."Flock Camera" is very likely to become the general term for "public surveillance camera" and it will carry a negative weight. | | |
| ▲ | snypher 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Sometimes a misspelling is for avoiding social media vampire lawyers. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mcphage 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > and some other bad actor with political connections (my money would be on Palantir) will just quietly pick up where they left off while everyone's patting themselves on the back for defeating Flock At that point, though, there will be a large group of people trained on how to defeat a company like Flock. |
|
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Legislation guardrails around surveillance technology are a necessary component to defend against future corporate surveillance apparatus establishment and operation, as this surveillance could take many forms (video, audio, geolocation, RF signatures, etc). Flock and Axon today, whatever unsavory folks come along in the future. “Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all.” —- John Maynard Keynes Guardrails because we cannot trust the human. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Gov. Abbott blocks state agencies from spending money on Flock cameras - https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-greg-abbott-fl... - August 28th, 2026 > The order came as The Texas Tribune was preparing to publish an investigation detailing how a state agency has devoted at least $30 million to building the state’s Flock surveillance network. Lawmakers added $1 to Texans’ car insurance policies. That money paid for thousands of Flock cameras. - https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-flock-cameras-... - August 28th, 2026 Pennsylvania state senator planning bill to ban Flock, ALPR cameras - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49482256 - August 2026 https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/pa-state-senato... | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Lawmakers added $1 to Texans’ car insurance policies. That money paid for thousands of Flock cameras. In this thread, two posts up: people who want more powerful governments claim that "capitalism" is to blame for this state of affairs. |
| |
| ▲ | 15155 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | As an exercise, write the statute: how do you legally prevent Home Depot or Wal-Mart from videotaping their parking lots and adjacent streets as they've been doing for the past 3+ decades? I'm genuinely curious how whatever you propose wouldn't be prior restraint. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I’m currently working with a representative on draft legislation, and will return once I have it and they move to introduce it. “You can just do things.” The video capture is not the issue, but the data processing, retention, and sharing, which can trivially be regulated. CCTV for theft prevention and safety with a restricted retention period and no data sharing off the premises can remain legal. Data broker legislation adjacent. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent [-] | | > the data processing Maybe? > restricted retention period Prior restraint. > no data sharing off the premises 1000% prior restraint. In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press? Good luck. | | |
| ▲ | xahrepap 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press? Why does that freedom supersede all other guaranteed freedoms? For example the US constitution tries to protect its citizens from unlawful searches, etc. just as strongly as protecting the presses. Why do I have to sacrifice my freedom from searches to preserve Home Depot’s freedom to tape others? | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Good luck. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >they will absolutely be legalized on some party line vote in the middle of the night. Or they'll be legalized piecemeal and you'll get sneered at by the useful idiots for opposing each incremental step based on principal. |
| |
| ▲ | superxpro12 2 days ago | parent [-] | | they'll find a particularly violent crime and use that as the strawman... "Oh you dont want this? well i guess you support violent immigrant mass murderers then!" and then before you know it the state has implemented its mass surveillance apparatus across the entire country. And we though china's social credits were bad? just IMAGINE what those predatory tech bros are cookin up. | | |
| ▲ | nemosaltat 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | As a higher level comment points out, my fear is that Flock will end up being the straw man, happily torn down in favor of more outwardly palatable but privately onerous player(s). | |
| ▲ | tyingq 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They could even start identifying "pre-crime" :) Not as far fetched as it sounds even. Plenty of not-quite-a-crime things they could track if desired. | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not far fetched. They usually dress it up in dogwhistle words like "at risk individuals" to make it seem like help rather than the threat it is. Go look at what HN was saying and upvoting during the big data era. Endless scheming about orwellian ways to identify and "dispatch enforcement resources" on the pettiest thing. We're talking like buy a spool of romex get a letter in the mail from the .gov reminding you about code compliance. Or combing through small business financial to try and identify businesses that probably aren't high margin enough to be complying with all the rules. Real "I'm watching you" crap like that. And we're all supposed to go along with it because these people have our best interests at heard and/or mean well. You take these same evil individuals and replace database integrations with pervasive cameras and AI and they will impoverish us all by grinding us under the thumb of government and say it's for our own good. |
| |
| ▲ | jquery 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I mean, is that even a strawman? You can oppose mass AI surveillance and acknowledge the price of that is more crime. | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Exactly. Freedom isn't free. If I have to pay for it with locks on my doors and having to be discerning about which truck I buy $5 steaks out of the back of lest my house get burgled or I get ripped off that seems like a pretty fair deal. | | |
| ▲ | stackbutterflow 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Better five guilty people free than one innocent in prison. I'd like a national poll on this principle. My guess is a vast majority would disagree with it. | |
| ▲ | cindyllm 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nemosaltat 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Exactly my thoughts. Flock has been brazen on so many things, that second-movers with a modicum of political savvy can come assuage all the major Flock-FUD, while in fact being significantly worse. |
| |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 2 days ago | parent [-] | | After watching the public flaying of Flock, they're certainly welcome to step into the spotlight next and convince the public that they're different. |
|
|
| ▲ | Manuel_D 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > they will absolutely be legalized on some party line vote in the middle of the night. What would be legalized? You realize that recording people in public is already legal, right? I'm puzzled where people are getting the idea that Flock is doing something illegal. |
| |
| ▲ | rc5150 2 days ago | parent [-] | | you're being deliberately daft. Its not the recording, its the surveillance dragnet with zero regulation or oversight that creates an instant dossier on whatever datapoints are searched for, by whomever decides to search for them who has paid for access. Honestly the nuance isn't that intellectually taxing and having to explain it to people in the tech space is tiresome. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You're calling me daft yet you couldn't be bothered to answer the question. What is going the be legalized, as the above commenter wrote? What law is Flock breaking presently? Like it or not recording and photographing people in public, then selling that information is not illegal. Paparazzi do it all the time. You can point a webcam out your window, run ALPR software on the video feed, and sell access to query that information. Nothing about that is illegal. If it is, then please reference the laws that prohibit this. People talk about privacy laws being violated, but in general privacy laws do not cover public activity. Privacy laws mostly focus on protecting communications and activities carried out in private. | | |
| ▲ | joquarky a day ago | parent | next [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D a day ago | parent [-] | | Pointing out the incorrect assumption that Flock is doing something illegal is not sealioning. There's a reason why none of the replies actually point to the law that Flock is supposedly breaking: because there isn't one. | | |
| ▲ | joquarky 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sealioning is a style of trolling, not a logical fallacy. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | And what about pointing out the fact that Flock's activities are legal, contrary to what people claim, is trolling? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | refactorAbraxas 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That will notion of an individual’s right to photograph a person in public held against the rights of the person being photographed, to conduct their business and affairs undisturbed, is likely to be challenged successfully before the Supreme Court when it can be shown a majority of people are under perpetual persistent technical surveillance. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You assume that some future Supreme Court case will rule that governments' use of Flock violated the Fifth Amendment, but at present Flock is violating now laws. Like I said in the my original reply: nothing is good to be legalized because nothing Flock is doing violates the law. There's a big difference between "X is illegal" and "X is presently legal, but my prediction is that the Supreme Court will, in the future, rule that X is illegal." | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|