Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you should have the liberty to do both but there should be no reason for anyone to do so. Your two instances are happening because that's what available for them.
Lets make it not available to them, deal?
No.
LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
231–240 of 439 posts
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#232The best part is that flock owns the cameras and the poles so even when the contract expires the cameras keep running and recording data that flock can sell to e.g. CHP, LASD, FBI, Palantir; and LAPD can just call them and access the data the flock scam was engineered to be resilient to political pressure by giving departments and jursidictions this fake exit ability while the data continues to be harvested, it is a…
City can eminent domain those pole locations to put up their own solution.
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a bizarre story, each detail more absurd and ridiculous than the last, that I can't believe HN is falling for it. Honestly there are a number of incredibly weird comments like this throughout the discussion. Is Flock astroturfing every discussion about the company?
You don't have to believe it. It happens to be true, but whatever. I'm not affiliated with flock, but not every issue is black or white.
I don't believe it. I mean, you might, but the story is fantastical nonsense.
Ignoring that the police "confirmed" suspects that they didn't catch, or that you claim the police would need a "court order" to look at cameras the HOA would own (and which require absolutely zero involvement of flock, with the enormous downsides that dystopian, busted company brings), or that you cited "manually going through footage" like it's 1997 and not 2026 where every security system flags every event -- car, person, line crossing -- with instant-accessible timestamps, the biggest problem with your comment is that gangs do not care about security cameras.
The preventative effect of cameras on such activity hovers around 0%. This ridiculous tale that a flock camera was a magic no crime shield is simply nonsensical.
Again, you might actually believe this. You might have misheard some things and come away with this impression. But it's ridiculous.
I'm a big fan of privately controlled, limited access-guarded and audited cameras, understanding that they're useful post facto to figure out what happened, and sometimes to catch criminals (but catching illegal immigrant SCARY GANG NAME criminals, usually in stolen cars and with masks...lol...utterly useless), but your post is 100% selling the tiger repellent rock, and it's simply incredible if anyone actually falls for that.
Flock's effect on crime has mostly been to increase it, by allowing sexual predator cops to stalk random women.
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#234They aren't crash compliant, aren't tagged with inspection stickers for signage, and the county/state road agencies could remove them for that alone.
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paintballs are even better, environmentally and effort-wise. Especially if the propellant tank is pressurized using a solar powered compressor. (Theoretically, of course. I wouldn’t advocate destroying private property.)
Destroying public property is bad in a general sense, but not enough to describe the situation here. Would you take the knife out of your robber? Or is that stealing private property? Surveillance endangers society/democracy and it's a threat too
Paintballs are destroying public property?
Flock cameras are public property?
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
What gives them the right to install and operate those cameras? I would have assumed that the license for placing them on public property was inherently linked to the services they provided to the local government. But if it's not tied to that, does that mean that anyone can install cameras anywhere ? What grounds would they have to give permits to Flock while refusing them to other interested parties, like StalkingM…
I don't have the answer, but I wonder if they are considered a utility and operate on utility easements. Then we have to look at the county and state, too. On the other side, I've read they operate a considerable number of private installations, too. Even that is suspect, too, in that there is existing case law affirming that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in "the whole of their public movements."
They’re not utility. But you don’t have to be a utility to construct in the right-of-way.
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you need flock to do this for you, though? I have cameras around my property, and they catch everyone entering and leaving my subdivision. If the police need access to the recordings, they can get a court order or ask nicely. What I don't do, is share the feeds with everyone willy-nilly so the police can cast wide dragnets and do god-knows-what-else with the data.
By the time you get a court order. The trail has gone cold at least that's what the police said at our HOA meetings. Maybe they're getting paid by big money to say these things but these were not head of police people. Low levels coming to HOA meetings.
Presumably a victim of a crime would provide the footage without a court order. A court order would be more applicable if it caught something unrelated to the actual property the camera was on.
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah it's kinda crazy you can't legally take them down even if they are banned/contract expires. IKE Skelton, a county commissioner took it into his own hands and they were pressing felony charges on him. Not sure what ended up happening. Basically flock wouldn't respond to take them down, he felt it was his duty to remove them, he brought them back to his office, and then the state hunted him down. Here is a podcast…
You can definitely take the cameras down. We did, there was zero drama. On the other hand, it wouldn't be surprising if a single county commissioner got in trouble for just deciding by fiat to take civic infrastructure down himself. That's not a power county commissioners have. Was there a county board vote authorizing that action?
re: the commisioner:
> In January of 2024, the Camden County Commission passed a county ordinance banning the use of all automated license plate readers in the county (a 2023 ordinance had banned all static license plate readers, but the 2024 ordinance expanded that to include all automated license plate readers). In that ordinance, commissioners cited "numerous complaints" about the cameras "and the potential of unwarranted/inappropriate monitoring of its citizens [sic] freedom of movement and travel in violation of their right of privacy, unreasonable search and seizure and other constitutionally protected rights[.]"
> The ordinance also stated, "Any Automated License Plate Readers currently in violation of this Ordinance shall be immediately removed. If identification of ownership is listed on any such device, the listed owner shall be notified to remove said device. Any device not removed within 30 days of notification to remove said device may be removed by Order of the Camden County Commission."
My understanding of this case was that the commissioner was charged with theft because even though the county had an ordinance requiring flock to take the cameras down, and they had failed to do so, it was not lawful for him to remove them himself and then take possession of them because they were the property of Flock.
https://www.lakeexpo.com/news/politics/felony-charges-droppe...
Re: zero drama taking down cameras, there has been quite a bit of drama:
https://www.wmtv15news.com/2026/06/05/dane-county-covers-flo...
https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/cities-covering-flock-surv...
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2025/09/28/top-stories/flock-c...
https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/verona-has-waited-...
And final re: in many if not most of these cases the jurisdictions don't actually want to take the cameras down, they just want public pressure to let up a bit, and agencies are known to share flock data between each other, so law enforcement, the public, and lobbyists are all made happy by terminating the contract without removing the cameras, it is the smart thing to do politically.
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
trade security for civil liberties and you wil lose both.
Yes, it's a nice catch phrase. Would you say that after a Tren de Aeagua gang member stole all your crap? At least I'm free you say. I don't think we've been free in the US for a long time. My tax bill says I'm in bondage.
Your tax bill says that you’re in bondage? That’s quite the tax system you have there. Or maybe you’re exaggerating?
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you trust the city more than Flock. One of the common claimed abuses of Flock data is city cops using it to stalk exes and crushes. The problem with Flock is not who owns the data, it's the potential for abuse.
I wonder why we aren't addressing the real problem which seems to be cops behaving completely unethically. Their job is about enforcing the system that codifies our societies agreed up and codified rules of ethics. They should be obsessed with this the same way people here obsess over system performance, correctness, etc! If we cannot trust them with the very basics of ethical behavior they are absolutely in the wron…
Cameras do address that problem. We live in a country where people go to jail for life because two witnesses they swear they saw pookie shoot dee dee. Where cops beat the hell out of citizens and say they were resisting arrest.
That Pookie can show a video from a flock camera showing him somewhere else is a massive boost to his civil liberties. Same with whatever poor sap gets beat by the cops.