LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire • Hacker News Board

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#281

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 8:22 PM UTC

mistercheph wrote: post #279

tptacek wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Flock contract I read from Oak Park, where we designed what I think are the country's most restrictive ALPR rules and ultimately took our cameras down, did not allow Flock to continue running, recording, and selling data after we turned the cameras off. In fact: they explicitly didn't allow them to sell the data at all . Can I ask where you got this idea from?

reproducing the same links as above: https://www.lakeexpo.com/news/politics/felony-charges-droppe... 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 these are just the cases where the municipality wants the c…

Please don't paste walls of links into threads, especially not when they're copies from the same thread.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#282

Post by mistercheph » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 8:25 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #281

mistercheph wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reproducing the same links as above: https://www.lakeexpo.com/news/politics/felony-charges-droppe... 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 these are just the cases where the municipality wants the c…

Please don't paste walls of links into threads, especially not when they're copies from the same thread.

You made the same claim based on a personal anecdote in multiple places in this thread, giving it the same reply seems reasonable, but I'll grant there's probably a better way than a wall of links.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#283

Post by cj » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 8:29 PM UTC

smalltorch wrote: post #190

alex43578 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think the government couldn’t collect this information themselves? ALPRs are legal, cameras covering a public roadway are legal, and the 4th amendment doesn’t extend to driving on a public roadway.

Could the government set up 80,000 cameras to spy on everyone? No, they are not aloud to create dragnets or conduct mass surveillance. They need warrants. Thats the loophole that flock capitalized on.

How many highways and bridges charge tolls via license plate reading cameras? A lot, it's legal, and I would be surprised if that data was used only for processing tolls.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#284

Post by mchusma » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 8:35 PM UTC

I stayed in downtown LA recently and looked like the set from the walking dead. Literally blocks of people wandering in traffic. I guess you could argue you definitely don't need flock cameras to see the problem, but also I don't know how anyone would not do everything possible to stop it.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#285

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 8:36 PM UTC

etdznots wrote: post #96

The 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…

Do they have the resources to consistently clear camera obstructions, or are they relying on police to do that? The wind can be just devilish in its ability to coincidentally tangle opaque films up with cameras and solar panels.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#286

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 8:37 PM UTC

crote wrote: post #130

etdznots wrote: post #96

The 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…

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…

And what's standing in the way of cleaning them up as litter?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#287

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 8:40 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #277

smalltorch wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silliness. Who enforces it then? The local law banning it was already equally as valid as a court order would have been. Would the county need to ask the judge to take it down? Someone has to physically take it down and I'm guessing flock didn't put that in the budget.

The court enforces it. We're getting into movie plot politics here. The sheriff's department will not in fact ignore a district court ruling. These scenarios rapidly reach the point where the sheriff is removed from office and imprisoned for some amount of time. This is what happened to Joe Arpaio. This is much simpler in a municipality: the board simply fires the village manager and the chief. A sheriff is usually a…

[deleted]

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#288

Post by the_sleaze_ » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 8:40 PM UTC

kotaKat wrote: post #79

Fun fact: When they switch to Axon Outposts instead, just know that they have Amazon Sidewalk modules inside them, too for backdoor C2 to Axon. (Go check the FCC docs for X4GS06009 and note that there's a Quectel KG100S sitting on the power supply board. https://fccid.io/X4GS06009 )

This means that they connect to Ring and Amazon devices too right?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#289

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 8:40 PM UTC

mistercheph wrote: post #282

tptacek wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't paste walls of links into threads, especially not when they're copies from the same thread.

You made the same claim based on a personal anecdote in multiple places in this thread, giving it the same reply seems reasonable, but I'll grant there's probably a better way than a wall of links.

It is never reasonable to copy and paste on threads.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#290

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 8:40 PM UTC

someperson wrote: post #8

Are there any privacy-first security camera provider where it's the city that manages data access and uses it purely for local law enforcement purposes?

The city can buy cameras and install them an operate them, but I don't think there's really space for an ethical SAAS play here.

Companies are either out of the loop, or they're in the loop and the only way to do right by their shareholders is to exploit that data in every way they can.