Authorities say Flock cameras' data allegedly used for immigration enforcement

ppseudolus 1 day ago 51 commentsRead Article on ohio.news

FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

100% Positive

Analyzed from 677 words in the discussion.

Discussion (51 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

gleenn•1 day ago

It's surprising to me this is news. Governments buy and install this equipment and it flags license plates and anyone thought that wouldn't be used for things like immigration control? I'm not saying it's right, just that it's shocking people wouldn't realize that.

JohnMakin•1 day ago

No one is surprised, but the news is that Flock’s agreement with these pd’s said this was not happening and it’s now been shown it has.

JumpCrisscross•1 day ago

> it's shocking people wouldn't realize that

It's really not. These systems are bought and paid for predominantly by local governments. Most of whom don't spend any resources on immigration enforcement. Some of which have policies prohibiting such co-operation.

runjake•1 day ago

It's likely on the backend that this is "completely lawful" and was used for "lawful purposes" as deemed by the current US administration. There's probably even subpoenas on the backend.

Flock is required to comply with "lawful" requests and seems happy to do so.

This is largely the same for all major cloud camera operators. See also: Verkada and their facial recognition. These things are installed all over the place in public areas. And you think their facial recognition is compartmentalized to their specific tenant?

ocdtrekkie•1 day ago

In the case of Illinois, this is not lawful, I'm not sure about the laws in Ohio, but if a village in Illinois buys a Flock camera and that data is accessible to ICE, than they have violated Illinois law. So they either need Flock to provide assurances that ICE cannot use the data, otherwise they have to remove the cameras entirely.

dghlsakjg•1 day ago

I suspect that the supremacy clause makes this a grey area.

Simplified: you can make something illegal locally, but federal law will almost always win out.

ocdtrekkie•1 day ago

Sure but the end result of that is simply that local agencies could not legally use this technology, not that they can just ignore local laws because the federal government wants them to. The federal government can maybe force Flock to turn over data, but local governments then cannot use Flock in accordance with Illinois law. In the case of Illinois, this is indeed causing some local governments to reconsider their Flock contracts.

kloop•1 day ago

That probably just means it's illegal for local governments to use cloud based cameras in Illinois

JumpCrisscross•1 day ago

> probably just means it's illegal for local governments to use cloud based cameras in Illinois

Probably not. A state can regulate how its own resources are used. It can't block a federal warrant.

tencentshill•1 day ago

Ohio dot news doesn't sound credible. Nothing on the About page. https://www.ohio.news/about/. One email contact for statenewsdesk.com, the only indication about who might run this website. WHOIS entirely redacted. I'll assume it's a foreign influence operation until they put some names and faces out there.

JohnMakin•1 day ago

If only people assigned such strict scrutiny to AI blogslop "news." From a 30 second google search shows plenty of other similar results:

https://www.courierpress.com/story/news/local/2025/07/22/eva...

https://www.wyso.org/news/2026-05-01/dayton-suspends-automat...

https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/dayton-suspends-licens...

JohnMakin•1 day ago

This should not be flagged. @dang

tencentshill•1 day ago

ohio.news is not credible.

JohnMakin•1 day ago

Ok? So change the URL to any number of credible sites that are reporting this same information:

https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/dayton-suspends-licens...

I think it's fairly obvious why this got so aggressively flagged.

JumpCrisscross•1 day ago

Does Flock have a competitor who can undercut it on price and provide entirely local data storage and management (or a zero-knowledge cloud)?

jancsika•1 day ago

If I understand correctly, a police query to Flock makes inferences from the set of all municipality/HOA/BigBogStore flock cameras. Or at least the ginormous subset who haven't opted out of the default settings that make Flock appealing to police in the first place.

If your imagined competitor doesn't offer that feature, then how is it a competitor?

If your competitor does offer it, then why would it even matter whether ICE gets access to inferences derived from the cloud vs. some federation of local storage devices?

ocdtrekkie•1 day ago

Any security camera product can do this, Flock is winning on having an integrated cloud solution with an all in once price that integrates with a lot of other law enforcement tools.

You can put a camera on a pole with a cell router and enable the LPR plugin in your recording software pretty darn cheap. But you probably can't do that with a single subscription apart from Flock.

JumpCrisscross•1 day ago

> Any security camera product can do this, Flock is winning on having an integrated cloud solution

Flock provides a fire-and-forget service. The city contracts Flock, and then the cameras are put up and managed. I'm asking if anyone else does this without Flock's baggage.

mahmoudhossam•1 day ago

Allegedly?

josefritzishere•1 day ago

Flagged? It's genuinely market relevant that Flock is used so frequently for crime.

ChrisArchitect•1 day ago

Source: https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/dayton-suspends-flock-...

Other coverage:

Dayton mayor demands accountability after plate-reader data breach

https://www.wdtn.com/news/mayor-commissioner-demand-alpr-dat...

dayyan•1 day ago

Good.