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

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#311

Post by NoImmatureAdHom » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

nucleogenesis wrote: post #108

copper-float wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These high crime areas are predominantly in blue counties/states, and liberal judges are typically soft on crime.

The US has the highest per-capita rate of imprisonment I think we’re plenty “hard on crime”. What we lack is a principled stance that Americans deserve basic dignity and access to things that make people live less violent lives. It’s no secret that poverty is the key contributor to one’s likelihood of being in prison. People who are “soft on crime”, practically speaking, are the people and politicians so committed to…

Populations across the world are not comparable in a variety of ways, including in a "best-case" base criminality rate. So you can't compare per-capital rates of imprisonment and go, "Gee, that's high in Country X compared to Country Y and Country Z".

There's an old saw: A Scandinavian economist once said to Milton Friedman, ‘In Scandinavia, we have no poverty’. Milton Friedman replied, ‘That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either’ [0]

0: https://iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sw...

N.B.: there was selection for the worse-off in those coming to the U.S.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#312

Post by wilg » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

mcdonje wrote: post #228

wilg wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has below average middle class tax rates. But luckily we can just choose what our tax dollars are spent on through democracy! The main problem is nobody agrees about anything and lots of people are really dumb and can't handle the responsibility of electing competent people into government.

This is naïve. The US government is less democratic than advertised, and there are many factors for that. Not going to write a tome, but if you're going to point a finger at one group, it shouldn't be private citizens.

This is a common coping mechanism, but the US is quite democratic and almost any objection you have about corporate control or whatnot can be easily overridden by getting like 100,000 more people to agree with you.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#313

Post by wilg » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

the_real_cher wrote: post #261

wilg wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has below average middle class tax rates. But luckily we can just choose what our tax dollars are spent on through democracy! The main problem is nobody agrees about anything and lots of people are really dumb and can't handle the responsibility of electing competent people into government.

Im not sure I agree that a two party system for 400 million people allows us to choose what our taxes are spent on.

It does exactly that.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#314

Post by NoImmatureAdHom » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 9:30 PM UTC

kortex wrote: post #126

inahga wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you hold police accountable, they respond by refusing to work. That's a problem that, at this time, has no solution.

> they respond by refusing to work. That's a ~~problem~~ solution that, at this time, has no ~~solution~~ problem. If a police department reuses to accept accountability, and dig in their heels by refusing to work, "just" dissolve it. And while at it, half the calls could be handled by folks without guns. In practice that obviously would not go over well, people are too attached to the status quo. We just lack the po…

>half the calls could be handled by folks without guns.

Let me point out that you must know which half before the fact for this to be of any use.

Sometimes you might be 95% sure no guns are required. Is that good enough? What does that buy you? 10% of calls?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#315

Post by nicechianti » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 9:36 PM UTC

smalltorch wrote: post #170

glaslong wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious how they could prevent taking them down if the local gov doesn't renew the contract? Presumably they're installed under some works dept land/pole/utility access permits that allow them the space and electrical, which all goes away and requires their removal. Sorry if this is answered in the pod, don't have time for it immediately.

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…

[dead]

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#316

Post by gxs » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 9:36 PM UTC

wilg wrote: post #312

mcdonje wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is naïve. The US government is less democratic than advertised, and there are many factors for that. Not going to write a tome, but if you're going to point a finger at one group, it shouldn't be private citizens.

This is a common coping mechanism, but the US is quite democratic and almost any objection you have about corporate control or whatnot can be easily overridden by getting like 100,000 more people to agree with you.

Can you explain here without an LLM?

Really curious to hear more about this

Unless all of congress is included in that 100k, I’d love to hear a plausible scenario where this is actually achievable and not merely some clever edge case you found

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#317

Post by notatoad » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 9:37 PM UTC

deaton wrote: post #217

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #171

it needs to be illegal for the government to buy data or intelligence that it could not otherwise legally collect itself.

This wouldn't even help anyway. Flock sells to law enforcement, sure, but they also sell data to everyone else who wants to know everything about everyone.

they don't just sell to law enforcement, they install surveillance equipment under contract to law enforcement.

if they didn't get to have cameras everywhere, they wouldn't have as much to sell.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#318

Post by chaps » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 9:40 PM UTC

alex43578 wrote: post #300

chaps wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

You really sully your position when you call it a "stupid extension of the idea of viewing = searching."

Again, details matter: how is it stupid.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#319

Post by adolph » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 9:42 PM UTC

glaslong wrote: post #140

smalltorch wrote: post #120

Earlier 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…

I'm curious how they could prevent taking them down if the local gov doesn't renew the contract? Presumably they're installed under some works dept land/pole/utility access permits that allow them the space and electrical, which all goes away and requires their removal. Sorry if this is answered in the pod, don't have time for it immediately.

> installed under some works dept land/pole/utility access permits

Another option might be right of way or easement permitting, similar to how utility poles and such are regulated as private property with an allowance to be in a public space. If the provider got a permit to use the right of way separate from the contract, then the provider would retain the same right to be there as any other infrastructure.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#320

Post by ethagnawl » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 9:43 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #212

ethagnawl wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right and wrong. The first paragraph is absolutely accurate -- I live near some of these areas (SW Connecticut) and the contrast is stark. The second is not. There are absolutely people who take pleasure in the bullying behavior cops are often associated with. They're the ones who want the cushy jobs in Greenwich but don't get them (probably for the aforementioned reasons in many cases) and wind up being doubl…

Violent crime / property crime per 100k people: Bridgeport ~393 ~1,700 Greenwich ~9.4 ~867 More cops, more crime! In other news, wet sidewalks cause rain.

I actually don't disagree with that aspect of it.

What I was saying is that there are absolutely cops who do _like cracking heads_. I (very personally!) know cops and they're often attracted to the job primarily for the benefits (retire with a pension after ~20 years; the part they'll tell anyone) and because they get to treat people like they did ants on the playground or freshman on the football team with impunity (the part they'll tell whoever is around after 10+ drinks).