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

381–390 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#381

Post by bflesch »

sobkas wrote: post #343
bflesch wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to say these anti-capitalistic platitudes, but do you really want to live in a society where the concept of private ownership is not supported by the state? Society is not starting at zero right now, it has developed for 10.000 years with many genocidal wars. As a result, 1% of the population has achieved generational wealth due to some sort of "value creation" by their ancestors. Through trial and error an…

> It's easy to say these anti-capitalistic platitudes, but do you really want to live in a society where the concept of private ownership is not supported by the state? > There is a country that allows police to just take your stuff and then demands you to prove it wasn't illegal. Also such property can be used/sold/spent by police force it was stolen by. Does it sound like private ownership is supported by the state…

I know. I'm not saying it is good, it is just the best system that humanity has found so far. Because back in the day any representative of the monarch could rob you blind at will.

Realistically civil forfeiture only affects small fish because old money first sets the tariffs, then uses their legal invincibility to circumvent them for maximum profit, all while flying in their product directly to US military bases because some racists think it's a good idea to feed drugs directly to black people in order to derail their civil rights movement. Profits are moved through offshore accounts in the financial system overseen by the British monarch and managed by people like Epstein.

That's the system, we won't be able to change it, our only option is to get a small slice of the pie by creating a win/win situation for an heir of old money who claims to be self-made billionaire.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#382

Post by mistercheph »

tptacek wrote: post #368
mistercheph wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your muni votes to shut the cameras off, they will shut the cameras off. That's simply not true: there are numerous instances of municipalities having to fight flock to get cameras removed or shut off, and instances where local governments pass ordinances that local law enforcement refuses to enforce because the cameras, which have been banned, are not off, as you allege is what happens, and law enforcement cont…

When a municipality passes an ordinance prohibiting ALPRs, and the municipal police force refuses to shut off the ALPRs, and the municipality does not then fire the chief (or the muni executive, if needed), then the muni was full of shit about being opposed to the ALPRs in the first place. I'm deeply involved in municipal politics and was for many years involved in national politics (and, more to the point, discussio…

Flock's value proposition is having a national surveillance network, local PD are not their only customers, here is yet another instance where oops, a camera that they promised was off, turned out to be on in Eugene:

https://www.klcc.org/crime-law-justice/2025-12-09/eugene-pol...

And here is flock getting caught installing cameras in Cambridge after contract termination:

https://www.cambridgema.gov/news/2025/12/statementontheflock...

Here is flock getting caught installing cameras in Evanston after contract termination:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/09/29/after-evanston-fir...

And obviously these are only the cases where they were caught making convenient mistakes, there is very little incentive for the likeliest parties to know (Flock, law enforcement) to bring to light the fact that flock cameras are still on, being serviced, and the data is still accessible despite local ordinance.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#383

Post by orthecreedence »

rekttrader wrote: post #49
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?

Can we normalize a healthy 4th amendment posture? It’s wild that the Peter Thiel “don’t tread on me” folks are so cool with a China like police state.

It's almost like the American Libertarian to fascist pipeline is a real thing.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#384

Post by cucumber3732842 »

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…

>Still got charged with theft somehow...

More equal animal acting in his official capacity gets treated like less equal animal.... basically.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#385

Post by MikeTheGreat »

stackskipton wrote: post #263
MikeTheGreat wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer and I think this varies state by state, but I think that in general anyone is allowed to record in public spaces. I think the general idea is that if you could (legally) go stand in that public space (sidewalks, roads, parks) and watch something happen then you're allowed to record what you see. This is probably good - I think it's the basis of being able to record misbehavior (by private citizens an…

You are allowed to record stuff happening in private spaces depending on the situation and state you are in. For example, you could photograph or record the dance floor in nightclub since dance floor is very public. However, the bathroom would not be allowed. Of course, the venue could make up rules and eject you for doing so. Most of "Warning signs" are deterrence, maybe someone will behave better if they know camer…

"You are allowed to record stuff happening in private spaces depending on the situation and state you are in."

The part about "depending on the situation and state you are in." is doing _a_lot_ of work there. Here in WA state, for example, if you go into a private meeting and record the thing without getting folks consent first then you're guilty of a misdemeanor.

Another example: in my old neighbor we had a nuisance neighbor who we all thought was engaged in Crimes, Plural. The immediate neighbor wanted to put up a video camera to catch them in the act but was told that they can't film the neighbor's yard directly. Filming their own yard and the field of view happens to catch something in the adjacent yard might get by a judge, maybe. So even if you can stand on the sidewalk and see past the trees into someone's backyard that doesn't mean you can film it.

(To be clear - I think this probably a good rule. I don't want folks filming me in my backyard :) )

Clearly, the tl;dr is that if this really matters to someone then they should check with a lawyer first.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#386

Post by tptacek »

mistercheph wrote: post #382
tptacek wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a municipality passes an ordinance prohibiting ALPRs, and the municipal police force refuses to shut off the ALPRs, and the municipality does not then fire the chief (or the muni executive, if needed), then the muni was full of shit about being opposed to the ALPRs in the first place. I'm deeply involved in municipal politics and was for many years involved in national politics (and, more to the point, discussio…

Flock's value proposition is having a national surveillance network, local PD are not their only customers, here is yet another instance where oops, a camera that they promised was off, turned out to be on in Eugene: https://www.klcc.org/crime-law-justice/2025-12-09/eugene-pol... And here is flock getting caught installing cameras in Cambridge after contract termination: https://www.cambridgema.gov/news/2025/12/state…

I don't know what you think these links are accomplishing for you. I'm not talking about Flock in the abstract; I have firsthand experience with it. I'm part of a group of people who ultimately got the cameras taken down in my municipality, and before that, I spent years helping craft local rules and ordinances limiting them.

There are tens of thousands of Flock cameras all over the country. It would be weird if there weren't misconfigurations. The Evanston story is a great example: the reinstallation of cameras happened the week the contract was expired, and Flock notified the city of Evanston (which, for what it's worth, is our twin sibling city in Chicagoland), at which point Evanston said "you've made a mistake" and Flock said "ok we'll take them down".

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#387

Post by tptacek »

lokar wrote: post #361
krupan wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? Whatever the system is now is clearly not preserving privacy

Have an independent non-profit with strong oversight manage the data. Grant access with a warrant. The police should show that a crime has likely been committed, and get access to just the data that probably has evidence.

How do you do a warrant for a device that alerts when a car on a hotlist transits an intersection?

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#388

Post by cucumber3732842 »

chasd00 wrote: post #309
tptacek wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

or just start fining Flock per camera per day for a brazillion dollars. Sheriff compliance or not, that's still in their power.

They'll never do it because Flock has the money and lawyers to fight it and friends in high places. Textbook "high risk of setting precedent you don't like" situation. They don't want to lose the ability to do the same to hundreds of dollars per violation per day routine (something that's constitutionally kind of sketchy to begin with) to normal people.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#389

Post by toomuchtodo »

smalltorch wrote: post #194
alhirzel wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Im not sure if there is a way to verify that the one he is talking about, but for public records request muckrock is great. https://www.muckrock.com

MuckRock is the gold standard for systematizing FOIA requests imho.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#390

Post by tptacek »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #388
chasd00 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or just start fining Flock per camera per day for a brazillion dollars. Sheriff compliance or not, that's still in their power.

They'll never do it because Flock has the money and lawyers to fight it and friends in high places. Textbook "high risk of setting precedent you don't like" situation. They don't want to lose the ability to do the same to hundreds of dollars per violation per day routine (something that's constitutionally kind of sketchy to begin with) to normal people.

They'll never do what? Flock has taken cameras down all over the place. They're a company we don't trust, but they're not Bond villains.
Post reply on HN