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

71–80 of 382 posts

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

#71

Post by wil421 »

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?

Yes. Prior to flock, my city trialed LPRs attached to the local power company’s poles. In the first month, they recovered more stolen cars than any prior years total recoveries. I’ve got mixed feelings about Flock, LPRs, and what it allows people and governments to do.

I’m 100% sold on the results.

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

#72

Post by dw_arthur »

ACCount37 wrote: post #62
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.

This is very doable when what you're dealing with is a Major Crime That Gets Full Institutional and Individual Attention. What about a bike theft, a jacked car or a stolen parcel though? There is a price to having information easily available to the law enforcement. There is a price to not having this information easily available to the law enforcement too.

The majority of crime is committed by a relatively small number of individuals. If citizens feel crime is out of control they need to vote in politicians and judges who sentence repeat offenders to long sentences or involuntary commitment.

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

#73

Post by etchalon »

Manuel_D wrote: post #65
etchalon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You understand why that's worse, right?

No? If someone broke into your car as stole your luggage, the surveillance camera might not directly capture the thief breaking into your car. But if the camera recorded someone entering the parking garage and then exiting the garage carrying your luggage a few minutes later, that's strong evidence is it not?

You're missing the part where, for that to work, we have a government with access to a massive surveillance system capable of identifying and tracking the population at scale.

And you're missing that, instead of specifically identifying a specific individual doing a specific thing, this network would be used to place under suspicion, investigation and possible arrest, people who's only documented action was "being somewhere."

Oh, and while your example is "committed a crime", that same network could easily be used to identity and track people who were, say, coming and going from protests. Or libraries. Or voting.

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

#74

Post by conception »

wil421 wrote: post #71
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?

Yes. Prior to flock, my city trialed LPRs attached to the local power company’s poles. In the first month, they recovered more stolen cars than any prior years total recoveries. I’ve got mixed feelings about Flock, LPRs, and what it allows people and governments to do. I’m 100% sold on the results.

Imagine if the police had the names and faces of every marcher in every protest. They too would be (are) 100% sold on the results.

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

#75

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

reactordev wrote: post #6
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.

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.

So when I put a bag over the camera, it's up to flock to remove it? I haven't stuck around to find out who shows up. Sometimes it takes a week or so, other times it's next day.

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

#76

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#77

Post by [deleted] »

conception wrote: post #74
wil421 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Prior to flock, my city trialed LPRs attached to the local power company’s poles. In the first month, they recovered more stolen cars than any prior years total recoveries. I’ve got mixed feelings about Flock, LPRs, and what it allows people and governments to do. I’m 100% sold on the results.

Imagine if the police had the names and faces of every marcher in every protest. They too would be (are) 100% sold on the results.

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by Gigachad »

dw_arthur wrote: post #72
ACCount37 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very doable when what you're dealing with is a Major Crime That Gets Full Institutional and Individual Attention. What about a bike theft, a jacked car or a stolen parcel though? There is a price to having information easily available to the law enforcement. There is a price to not having this information easily available to the law enforcement too.

The majority of crime is committed by a relatively small number of individuals. If citizens feel crime is out of control they need to vote in politicians and judges who sentence repeat offenders to long sentences or involuntary commitment.

Long sentences are far less effective than reliable enforcement. Something that seems to be very true in practice. If you steal or vandalise something in China, there is an extremely high chance you will get caught, you won't get a massive penalty, but it will be enough to cover the damages + some.

If you for example knew that stealing had a penalty of 100% of the item value + 10% fine, with a 100% chance of getting caught, you'd never steal anything again even though the penalty is so much smaller than what it is currently in most countries. And then if you make a dumb decision as a teenager or in a lapse of judgement, it won't ruin your life.

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

#79

Post by willis936 »

ACCount37 wrote: post #62
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.

This is very doable when what you're dealing with is a Major Crime That Gets Full Institutional and Individual Attention. What about a bike theft, a jacked car or a stolen parcel though? There is a price to having information easily available to the law enforcement. There is a price to not having this information easily available to the law enforcement too.

If only we had an amendment in the original bill of rights that drew the line here.
Post reply on HN