Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

63% Positive

Analyzed from 1190 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#flock#gdpr#news#compliance#local#https#why#dunwoody#camera#revenue

Discussion (41 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

goldenarm•about 11 hours ago
Why is this site blocked in the EU ? Was disabling cookies on your static page that hard ?
1970-01-01•about 11 hours ago
You're not missing anything. Here is the full text: (this could have been an email:)

On Sept. 30, 2025, a Flock vice president logged into the Dunwoody PD’s Flock system and looked at a camera in the children’s gymnastics room of a private community center here in Dunwoody.

He did not look at any other cameras in the entire 400-camera network that day.

The community center shared their cameras directly to the PD under the pretense that access was “solely for real-time critical incident response.”

Flock and Dunwoody elected officials both say this was for a “sales demo.” They claim this was “part of authorized activity approved under the city's demo partner agreement.”

The problem with that is that the city cannot provide any information that that demo partner agreement exists.

What kind of sales demo would require looking at one camera in a children’s gymnastics room? Can anyone rationally explain why a police agency that is interested in Flock would like to see one third-party camera integration that is in a children’s gymnastics room?

Jason Hunyar lives in Dunwoody.

sterlind•about 9 hours ago
why are private community centers installing Flock cameras indoors?
arjie•about 11 hours ago
No one is going to go around complying with random rules from other countries, man. If you don't serve that population, just opt them out.
goldenarm•about 10 hours ago
They complied by building a blocking system, instead of just disabling cookies with a flag, which would have taken exactly the same effort.
mandevil•about 9 hours ago
This would be true if they were working from a baremetal Apache server. But they seem to be using a vendor, Cloudflare, for their CDN. And so I strongly suspect that they used their existing Cloudflare account to do it. Just type the countries you want to block into a field in the Cloudflare UI and you're done. I've used that UI myself (not for GPDR reasons but for compliance with my countries sanctions). Significantly easier than controlling the cookies and data retention and getting an audit to certify compliance, which I've also done.
Jtarii•about 10 hours ago
And by "no one" you mean almost everyone.
urbandw311er•about 11 hours ago
Except that it’s an entire continent and loads of people do comply with it. You just sound ignorant.
baby_souffle•about 10 hours ago
I've been in meetings where this was discussed.

"It's just a checkbox in cloudflare to not show up there" is so effortless that you need a compelling reason to ignore how easy it is.

And if you don't already have traffic analysis showing that 30% of your readers and thus 30% of your ad revenue is coming from the European continent... You spend the 45 seconds it takes to find the check box and you click. Then worrying about maybe possibly getting screwed by some far away legal something or other is irrelevant.

manytimesaway•about 11 hours ago
So we're supposed to deal with your bullshit Patriot Act while GDPR is too "random" for you?
dghlsakjg•about 11 hours ago
They are a hyper local business. The chance of making any revenue off EU users is close to 0, which is much higher than the cost of figuring out EU compliance.

The conversation went like this:

IT director: “If we serve ads or collect data from EU users we have to be GDPR compliant. That’ll cost several thousand dollars worth of employee time”

Exec: “how much revenue is attributable to EU users.”

IT: “Single digit dollars per year”

Exec: “is there a cheaper solution?”

mywittyname•about 10 hours ago
GDPR compliance is good IT practice. It's easy to do, good for users, and states are rolling out similar laws.

But now, instead of their story being read by people all over the world, having gone viral, it's just going to pirated. Not only losing them out on revenue, but recognition as well.

This is part of the long death of online local news. They can't be bothered to do the simplest things for their site (make personal data collection optional). But they have tons of time to fill them with online cancer and make them unusable without ad blocking.

dghlsakjg•about 7 hours ago
Going viral doesn’t really matter to them.

A small local news agency prioritizes serving small local news needs. I used to work at a small local newspaper. Spending four or five figures of limited money on IT overhauls means that something else has to be sacrificed. It isn’t that they can’t be bothered, it’s that it costs money and doesn’t serve their community or customers. Being GDPR compliant hinders their ability to do local news since it literally takes resources to accomplish.

Local news is dying, but it is not because of GDPR. That trend started well before then, and is very well understood. The amount of news content is a direct function of advertising revenue not actual news to be reported. Craigslist and google undercut them and that’s really the only relevant part of the story. GDPR noncompliance has nothing to do with the success or failure of a news outlet in middle America.

Do you make sure that your work is fully compliant with all Chinese laws? Why not? They are the world’s largest market, after all. Do you even know if your work is possible to access in China? Or is it the case that compliance with Chinese laws is irrelevant to your business models so it’s easier to just do nothing. Same logic…

compiler-guy•about 9 hours ago
"We might, maybe, have some article go viral some day. With unknown revenue implications." is a weak argument for trying to figure out and maintain GDPR compliance, which costs real money right now, today. And you have to be sure to maintain that compliance as the web site evolves.

It's such a low-probability event that I don't blame them for just saying, "Nah. Not gonna hassle with that."

The recognition argument is also quite weak--it's not like recognition pays the bills.

advisedwang•about 11 hours ago
This website is a small, local company. They have a newsletter signup page so they do collect user info. Quite likely they are not GDPR compliant (e.g. take longer than 30d to delete records, don't have a process for answering data requests etc). It is reasonable for them not to want to invest in getting the legal advise to know whether they are compliant or process improvements to become compliant, as there is no ROI on that.

I love GDPR, but it's understandable for folks with no connection to the EU to just nope-out.

jazzyjackson•about 11 hours ago
I’m still not clear why US companies with no business units in Europe feel the need to make any changes at all to be in compliance with a law that has no jurisdiction over them, but agree that Geofencing is a cheaper solution than asking a lawyer.
devilbunny•about 10 hours ago
Because they have identifiable owners who might wish to travel to Europe and not risk someone deciding to make an example of them.
jdlshore•about 11 hours ago
The GDPR states that websites that serve EU citizens are subject to it, no matter where they are. Many US news organizations chose to geo-block the EU rather than going to the trouble of figuring out compliance.
krater23•about 10 hours ago
This website and topic is protected by a SEP field. Who cares about U.S. problems?
_carbyau_•about 9 hours ago
On the one hand, sure, it is a US problem. On the other hand, US culture has a way of travelling.

IE surveillance dickheads see what is in the US and decide to enact it in their local country.

In this case, it is handy to see how the conversation about such surveillance is going.

bko•about 10 hours ago
> Can anyone rationally explain why a police agency that is interested in Flock would like to see one third-party camera integration that is in a children’s gymnastics room?

I could think of one reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

skinfaxi•about 9 hours ago
The cops stood outside Uvalde. There was an army of police and they stood outside. There is no duty to protect in the US.
PunchyHamster•about 9 hours ago
At what current govt is doing the assumption it's for the pedophiles is far more likely.

Companies push not only age verification (in way that usually is not anonymous) and cameras everywhere will give any pedophile with access to that location of any child they can get their hands of, their daily habits and when it's easiest to nab one of them.

They are creating Pedo Nexus, whether knowingly or not.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

You don't need 24/7, online, searchable, AI enabled video feed to stop any of that

wxw•about 11 hours ago
Is there more information available? This article is effectively one sentence long:

> On Sept. 30, 2025, a Flock vice president logged into the Dunwoody PD’s Flock system and looked at a camera in the children’s gymnastics room of a private community center here in Dunwoody.

And there is a lot being implied in this sentence.

yakmol•about 10 hours ago
wxw•about 9 hours ago
Thank you.
jdlshore•about 11 hours ago
It’s a letter to the editor.
RicoElectrico•about 11 hours ago
https://archive.ph/mpNEN for us EU peasants (:
ireflect•about 10 hours ago
Flock is such a scummy company. One must just read a bit of the coverage from 404 Media [1] or Benn Jordan [2] and get a whiff of how this company is handling pretty legitimate criticism about privacy and basic device security.

[1] https://www.404media.co/tag/flock/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/@BennJordan/search?query=flock