TechPulseTechPulse
Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

60% Positive

Analyzed from 987 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#flock#cameras#license#plate#data#public#crime#need#where#https

Discussion (37 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

Avshalom•about 1 hour ago
>>Flock and law enforcement regularly cite documented cases where LPR helped solve violent crimes, recover stolen vehicles, and locate missing persons. Those outcomes are real.

My opposition wouldn't change regardless but are those outcomes real?

Manuel_D•31 minutes ago
In Seattle at least, the majority of homicide cases are solved with the assistance of surveillance cameras (though what % of said cameras are specifically Flock, I'm not sure): https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2026/03/05/new-analysis-rtcc-...
asveikau•18 minutes ago
Cops can politely ask owners of private cameras for access for things like murder investigation. If the polite answer is no (most people will say yes), they can go to court for a subpoena. This has happened for a long time. This is how it should work. If the cops are too lazy or chicken to ask a judge while investigating a murder, they don't deserve the footage.
Manuel_D•16 minutes ago
Right and what if lots of crime happens in a place where there are not many businesses? Hardly an implausible scenario given that crime is bad for business.

The city can set up its own camera for its own use. Is that really that wild of a proposal?

rolph•14 minutes ago
guess what prolific career criminals do with crime cars?

they look for a car that is very similar if not exact make and model of thier stolen vehicle, then they "clone" the victims license plate with a sheet of embossment copper and a stylus, apply paint at thier shop and affix the imposter to the crime vehicle. that buggers the whole LPR thing.

they can replicate dozens of plates in a day and offer the service for contras.

mingus88•27 minutes ago
I have no doubt that provided a vast camera network covering every ingress and egress into a city, and every major intersection, plus a database of when and where a license plate was last seen, cops can find their suspect

It used to be that news articles would claim that the police used “CCTV from local businesses” to catch a crook. Even back then I knew this was cover for Ring, Flock and who knows what else. they just didn’t want the bad press.

At this point you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that parallel construction happens all the time. They have more tools that we know about, and they want to keep it that way.

Everyone should throw some money to 404 media. They are independent and doing the best work right now to keep these things in the public eye.

apothegm•43 minutes ago
The AI slop in that quote sure is real.
gattr•8 minutes ago
Remember that scene from "Men in Black" where K watches surveillance video feed of his ex? In the movie it was meant to be wistful and cute, I guess. Now that such systems are getting closer to reality, you realize the potential for abuse in enormous.
arjie•18 minutes ago
Ultimately, there’s a sort of homeostasis in people’s tolerance for crime. If you need video evidence for prosecution, those who want it prosecuted will produce video cameras. If you make warrants impossible to produce in a timely manner, the camera search will be warrant exempted.

Attempts to damage state power to ensure crime isn’t prosecuted will be likely met with methods that are immune to them.

Given the constraints we operate under, the ideal number of unsolved crimes is not zero and the ideal number of crimes committed using state apparatus is also not zero. So being informed that either is non-zero is not of use to decision making in my opinion.

willis936•about 1 hour ago
Check your town's website for correspondence with your state's chapter of the ACLU in regards to Flock cameras. If your police chief (not an elected official) is installing them then contact your local ACLU chapter about it. These are 4th amendment violations.
Manuel_D•about 1 hour ago
To the contrary, little of what Flock does would be restricted by the 4th amendment. The cameras are in public, and neither the government nor individual citizens need authorization to film people in public.

Many Flock cameras are also privately owned, too.

hilariously•about 1 hour ago
https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-suprem... https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones There has been plenty of past rulings that indicate long term collection of data is not something that the fourth amendment had baked in.
Manuel_D•43 minutes ago
The case you linked isn't about the government filming people in public, though. Carpenter vs. US was a case about the government demanding private information about users' locations from cell service providers. By comparison, the 9th circuit concluded that the plain view doctrine means electronic license plate readers are legal :https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/05/04/1...

An officer doesn't need a warrant to sit at a cross section and write down license plate numbers. A device doing the same thing is also legal.

reactordev•about 1 hour ago
All flock cameras are privately owned, by flock. They install them at a charge per the jurisdiction that orders them and pays the subscription costs… those subscription fees allow Mr Local Law Abuser to lookup any license plate it has read, when, where, with a picture of the vehicle.

https://deflock.org

You’d be surprised how many there are.

devindotcom•22 minutes ago
it's not about filming in public. it's about systematic data collection by law enforcement, using private infrastructure present by its nature in public. that's why the Carpenter decision is relevant.
Manuel_D•17 minutes ago
The Carpenter decision was about the US government compelling mobile data providers to hand over private use information. It's really not relevant to flock. That's why the 9th Circuit decided that automated license plate readers don't need a warrant. A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant. A device can do the same.
mingus88•25 minutes ago
The year is 2026 and the 4th amendment only means what the currently sitting justices say that it means, and the executive branch was literally given a pass to violate any law on the books that they want.
Manuel_D•23 minutes ago
The 9th circuit upheld that the police do not need warrants to operate and access data from license plate readers. The 9th Circuit isn't exactly a conservative stronghold.
qmr•about 1 hour ago
Wrong. See Carpenter v US.
Manuel_D•about 1 hour ago
That's not applicable to Flock, though. That case pertained to the government requesting that mobile service providers give historical location data on users.
throwaway85825•about 1 hour ago
When flock data was FOIAd the state just exempted the data from FOIA.
qmr•about 1 hour ago
So glad we got them kicked out of Mountain View.
gigel82•8 minutes ago
Can I set up my own camera on the side of the road (in a public place) to scan people's faces and license plates, link them up to one of the many data brokers (or leaks) and use a big display to show the drivers' pictures and something like "Hey Rick Larsen, it's the 24th time we've seen you this week. We'll let our clients know there's no one home at 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Everett most weekdays between 8 and 4!", and then place them somewhere like oh, I don't know, in close proximity to a capitol building?

We can pay the regular fees that advertisers pay to have billboards up.

And if we're not allowed to do that, why is Flock?

cdrnsf•about 1 hour ago
Regular reminder that their CEO called Deflock a terrorist organization. I hope they go out of business and their cameras end up as e-waste.
npunt•40 minutes ago
> Important subject

> Uses slop AI art

Fastest way to make something into a farce.

richwater•about 1 hour ago
acab
josefritzishere•about 2 hours ago
As far as I can tell from the news, Flock is only used to commit crimes.
Advertisement