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

LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#291

Post by actionfromafar »

ihumanable wrote: post #242
dude741 wrote: post #143

[flagged]

Why couldn't the police, who you pay taxes to, do their jobs? Apparently a sophisticated robbery ring was operating with a well understood MO in a predictable location and the police couldn't figure out how to use those facts to effect an arrest? Instead of "protecting" one neighborhood by installing privately owned surveillance devices, seems like the police could have just sat there, waited for a BMW full of Tren d…

Funny how Tren de Araugua is behind everything nowadays, they're like the commies in the 1950s.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#292

Post by tptacek »

alhirzel wrote: post #184
smalltorch wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Id have to re-listen as well for all the details. But I think this is slightly different than the headline here. In this case, the county voted for an ordinance banning them. Ike was threatened saying your going to be charged this is potentially state property, he did a sunshine request to see that they were privately owned by flock. Then he requested flock take them down but they didn't. After a few months he decide…

Didn't know about sunshine request - the website[1] - until I searched for this term! [1]: https://www.sunshinerequest.com/

This is just FOIA. You don't need any special website or process; just Google [(your state) FOIA] or [(your municipality) FOIA officer]. In Illinois, you can simply email free-form requests for documents and start a 10-day clock on the public body's side.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#293

Post by bauldursdev »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #134
EthanHeilman wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because finding people that are 100% ethical is extremely difficult. Even if we are wildly optimistic and say 20% of the population is 100% ethical. You aren't likely to weed out unethical people, so you are hiring people, training them, and then firing them 4 out of 5 of them. There are many cases where an experienced but occasionally unethical worker is better than an unexperienced but ethical worker. When faced wi…

So revealed preferences of voters is that they just dont care that much about weeding out bad apples? From what it sounds like, it’s likely not on any sizable group’s top 10 priority list in LA.

They do, but unethical people don't announce themselves. In fact an ethical person is probably more likely to admit their faults, which usually doesn't play well in elections.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#294

Post by mminer237 »

declan_roberts wrote: post #83

I don't understand flock cameras in high crime areas. Every time somebody commits a heinous crime it's always like "they were arrested 72 times and were well known by the police" What's the point in helping the police catch criminals when they don't do anything after the fact!

Police don't do anything after the fact. The problem is with attorneys general and/or judges either not prosecuting people or giving them too light of sentences. All police do is arrest and collect evidence, and they're generally even more frustrated by the problem than most people.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#295

Post by cdrnsf »

What's really surprising is that it's the LAPD, of all agencies, that are making this decision while violating civil rights concerns. https://lapublicpress.org/2025/11/lapd-settlements/

> The top three payout categories totaled $345 million. Civil rights violations, police shootings, excessive use of force, and illegal searches collectively accounted for $183 million, almost half of the claim amounts.

Plenty of civil rights violations, but Flock is too much even for them.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#296

Post by saghm »

JamesSwift wrote: post #259
saghm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many instances of are there of qualified immunity actually resulting in an officer being found liable because of past precedent where someone else was considered to have had qualified immunity in the same circumstances? If it's not anywhere close to the number of times when they were found to be immune, then the distinction is theoretical only, and it's arguably more misleading to emphasize it as if it's a real l…

Well, I didnt bring it up but the other element of qualified immunity is that its purely for civil suits. So it would only show up if an officer was basically sued personally. It doesnt apply to criminal prosecution. Thats another can of worms though.

Sure, the issues there are also not particularly nuanced; prosectors rely on cops to arrest people and provide evidence for them to do their job, so they're incentivized to keep a good working relationship with them (i.e. by not prosecuting them, especially for things that end up helping them secure convictions, even if they're illegal)

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#297

Post by alex43578 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #205
alex43578 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you don’t have an expectation of privacy on a public roadway, public parking lot, etc.

This norm around privacy was kinda set before the concept of mass surveillance became a thing, though. Maybe we should revisit it and rethink what privacy means. People shouldn't expect privacy in public, sure. They should expect they may be overheard or witnessed. But that's not really equivalent to mass surveillance and long-term recording "You should not expect privacy in public" does not imply "you should expect…

I don’t see why you should expect any privacy in the middle of a public road. What are you doing there that is private?

I think everyone’s threat model is severely miscalibrated if they are threatened by being recorded driving somewhere via Flock, yet use a phone or social media account. There’s way more meaningful threats to actual private matters than Flock.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#298

Post by JamesSwift »

saghm wrote: post #296
JamesSwift wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I didnt bring it up but the other element of qualified immunity is that its purely for civil suits. So it would only show up if an officer was basically sued personally. It doesnt apply to criminal prosecution. Thats another can of worms though.

Sure, the issues there are also not particularly nuanced; prosectors rely on cops to arrest people and provide evidence for them to do their job, so they're incentivized to keep a good working relationship with them (i.e. by not prosecuting them, especially for things that end up helping them secure convictions, even if they're illegal)

I agree. The issues arent super nuanced (and are pretty "blatant")

But I do think the nuance of "who/what should we point our finger at" is important. Because like we see in this thread, the finger is being pointed at qualified immunity when it almost never is the actual issue for a given injustice, and fixing it will not get rid of the thing you are mad about. Fixing it would go a long way to resetting some cultural precedence though in my opinion.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#299

Post by remarkEon »

tptacek wrote: post #268
mistercheph wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unw…

I don't know much of anything about any other jurisdictions. I'm saying that my municipality took the cameras down with zero drama. I'm on one of its commissions with oversight on this. (More precisely: there was drama, but it was all public drama from residents who didn't want the cameras taken down.)

Curious. Why didn’t they want them taken down?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#300

Post by alex43578 »

chaps wrote: post #266
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.

Of course they can and of course they do. It gets much more complicated when you consider that each state has different laws about records sharing. And, lol, yes the 4th amendment extends to driving on a public roadway... roads aren't international waters. Probable cause and such are still important. I recognize what you're saying but -- details matter, dammit.

Details do matter: extensive case law supports a very low standard for privacy in cars and searches on the roadway. Pat downs, being ordered out of the car, free air sniffs via drug dogs, DUI or immigration checkpoints, etc.

Furthermore, just being recorded on a public roadway doesn’t constitute a search or seizure.

The strongest evidence in support of your position is that Boston aerial surveillance case, which is frankly a stupid extension of the idea of viewing = searching, and I’d like to see it or another case reach the Supreme Court for clarification.

Post reply on HN