Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

ipvm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 382 posts

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#31

Post by asveikau »

Manuel_D wrote: post #22
Avshalom wrote: post #12

>>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?

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-...

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.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#32

Post by Manuel_D »

devindotcom wrote: post #27
Manuel_D wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#33

Post by Manuel_D »

asveikau wrote: post #31
Manuel_D wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

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.

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?

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#34

Post by asveikau »

Manuel_D wrote: post #33
asveikau wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

What if what if what if?

That whole premise of "what if lots of crime happens" -- already false.

Did you know that most places in America are at historically low crime rates in most of our lifetimes? It is garbage to say this needs deep societal focus right now. I don't give a shit about the hypothetical hurt feelings of small town cops whining that they don't have always-on spy equipment.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#35

Post by rolph »

Avshalom wrote: post #12

>>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?

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.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#36

Post by Manuel_D »

b40d-48b2-979e wrote: post #29
jollyllama wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's the logical conclusion, that there will be a company with a drone following every individual in a public space at all times and that the government will pay for the data?

Considering how desperately that user is responding to every comment on this post, it seems they have a vested interest in playing blind for Flock, which makes me think they are paid by Flock.

Lol, I should be getting paid.

But no, I just like to dispel the myths people have about their imaginary right to not be filmed in public. Whether it's by the government or by other private people.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#37

Post by mingus88 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #26
mingus88 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

That’s really beside the point. It doesn’t matter what the 9th circuit or any other court says.

Our country is no longer a country of laws. Laws are only as good as they are enforced. The SCOTUS, the DOJ, the FBI, and congress have openly abdicated any constitutional responsibility to provide checks and balances to reign in the abuses we see posted to HN every day.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#38

Post by gattr »

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.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#39

Post by gigel82 »

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?

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#40

Post by caconym_ »

Manuel_D wrote: post #21
hilariously wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course that's a fair interpretation, I am saying there's some tension between mass surveillance and the fourth just because its "done in public" doesn't mean it automatically escapes scrutiny now or going forward.

No, the fact that it's recording people in public does make it escape scrutiny moving forward. In public you can be filmed by anyone - be they government or private citizens. I find a lot of people fail to realize this, both in regards to surveillance and otherwise. Recently in my city there was a big uproar about a nudist beach that was at risk of having nudity prohibited. So a bunch of nudists went out and paraded…

> No, the fact that it's recording people in public does make it escape scrutiny moving forward. In public you can be filmed by anyone - be they government or private citizens.

This is false. While there is no strongly established precedent yet, there are certainly serious and plausible legal arguments being made that unlimited collection and collation/cross-referencing/etc. of "public" information can under certain circumstances constitute a search. It will most certainly not "escape scrutiny moving forward".

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_theory_of_the_Fourth_Am...

Post reply on HN