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

391–400 of 439 posts

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#391

Post by cucumber3732842 »

NewJazz wrote: post #301
ethagnawl wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypothetically, of course, it would be even easier to just sneak up from behind and drop contractor bags over them.

There is no sneak up from behind in this system, or at least it can be very hard to target. You must know the full extent of the network, emerge from the blind spots, dismantle pieces, then return to the blind spots. Faster than they repair the machines.

Ride there on an e-bike with a full motorcycle helmet. Cut down the pole. Cut off the camera. Throw the camera head in the river. GoFundMe if they catch you.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#392

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

smalltorch wrote: post #269
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what else are you suppose to do? File a civil suit and get a court order for their removal.

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.

> Who enforces it then?

The executive can enforce judicial orders. This is civics 101.

> The local law banning it was already equally as valid as a court order

The ban is an ex post facto law. Rights holders to property have a legitimate reason to defend those rights across policy changes.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#393

Post by lokar »

tptacek wrote: post #387
lokar wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Record the plates. Don’t alert, search. And just for a specific crime.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#394

Post by pstuart »

ajmurmann wrote: post #362
pstuart wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> half the calls could be handled by folks without guns This can't be emphasized enough. A lot of enforcement and "civil order" work does not require guns, and in many cases (e.g., mental health crises), they're the wrong people to be engaged to resolve. I think one of the biggest issues with policing is that they are supported by the "law and order" crowd, which is a euphemism for keeping "others" in their place. I…

I like this general list and I would add a shift from harder punishment to increased likelihood of getting caught. This means more cops, more prosecutors, more judges, more public defenders, less jail. Studies have shown that higher likelihood of getting caught and getting punished is more significant than a harsher punishment. However, I understand that right now incentives and finances are misaligned for accomplish…

Oh yeah that belongs too. The current "justice system" is really just a legal system that is designed to punish.

Prisons are expensive and we would be better served helping keep people out of prison in the first place. It doesn't help that the private prison industry has extensive influence with legislators (as do the police and prison guard unions).

More so, just shoving people out the gates after time served is almost like planned recidivism. Investing in rehabilitation, training, and guidance for those released would pay off for the public purse.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#395

Post by tptacek »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #392
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.

> Who enforces it then? The executive can enforce judicial orders. This is civics 101. > The local law banning it was already equally as valid as a court order The ban is an ex post facto law. Rights holders to property have a legitimate reason to defend those rights across policy changes.

An ordinance banning ALPRs that impacts previously-installed Flock cameras is not an ex post facto law. But a municipal ban on private Flock cameras poses constitutional problems --- and not because of post facto or takings. Generally, the ballgame here is over publicly-owned cameras, so none of this is really apposite.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#396

Post by tptacek »

lokar wrote: post #393
tptacek wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Record the plates. Don’t alert, search. And just for a specific crime.

The whole pitch for the cameras is alerting! The point is to interdict the cars right after they pass the camera.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#397

Post by bko »

ethagnawl wrote: post #320
bko wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> they get to treat people like they did ants on the playground or freshman on the football team with impunity

I've never seen this. Instead I see cops taking abuse more often than not. Crazy person in the street screaming at the cop and the cops just waiting to see if he starts attacking someone. Seeing them navigate literal drugged out zombies and decide whether they really want to call the medics this time as it's a monthly occurrence with this exact individual. Things like that.

I feel like you get your impression of police from TV show and movies rather than real life.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#398

Post by cucumber3732842 »

ajmurmann wrote: post #364
mghackerlady wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also teach the cops the law and ensure they're morally sound instead of unofficially endorsing breaking the law

It's crazy to me that becoming a police officer almost everywhere in the US is quicker than becoming a licensed cosmetician.

Think about who's harmed by supply side constraints and artificially high prices.

The government isn't hiring cosmeticians or plumbers or whatever in bulk. It's hiring cops. So it wants them to be cheap. The fact that they're scary thugs who could potentially be dumb and hot headed is a feature. Scares the peasants into compliance. It's a force multiplier basically.

On the flip side the government is happy to enforce supply constraints for any random trade so long as it's not so absurd that it hurts the legitimacy of the government by making it look corrupt and making people resist it.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#399

Post by lokar »

tptacek wrote: post #396
lokar wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Record the plates. Don’t alert, search. And just for a specific crime.

The whole pitch for the cameras is alerting! The point is to interdict the cars right after they pass the camera.

That may be what police like, but in my town it’s sold to residents on solving crimes.

Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

#400

Post by mistercheph »

tptacek wrote: post #386
mistercheph wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ther…

You seem a bit distracted by the links instead of the content that can be accessed by clicking on them, they show that in tens of instances, your personal anecdote about how flock removal went don't hold. Flock drags their feet, makes legal threats to cities that cancel, forgets to turn cameras off, turns cameras back on, claims cameras are shut off when they are on, installs new cameras after cancellation, leaves cameras up after promising to take them down, etc. etc.

And you are representing the situation in Evanston disingenuously here's the timeline AFAICT:

- Aug 26, 2025 Evanston issues a termination notice to Flock, effective Sep. 26 2025 after it learns that Federal law enforcement and immigration enforcement are able to access license plate data from the Flock cameras in Evanston, something the city claims Flock lied about. (https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/08/26/evanston-shuts-dow...)

   - Notably at this point EPD believes the cameras are off: An EPD officer: "The last read on an Evanston Flock camera was logged shortly before 1:00 p.m. on August 26th, which is consistent with the City’s request for de-activation,",
- Aug 27, 2025 Flock writes a reply letter claiming that Evanston has no legal basis to terminate the contract. (https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/08/28/flock-challenges-c...)

- Sep. 8, 2025 Flock has removed 15 of 18 cameras.

- Sep. 18, 2025 Flock reinstalls the uninstalled cameras. Evanston sends Flock a letter asserting that they are in violation of the contract and Illinois law. (https://evanstonroundtable.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/25...)

   - Flock did not inform Evanston, a technician unintentionally informed the city: "[City spokesperson] Vargas said the city learned that Flock reinstalled new cameras after a Flock technician called the Evanston Police Department to ask questions on where to find a camera’s power source." (this is from the tribune article I linked above)
- Sep. 23, 2025 Flock says that they are willing to remove the cameras (https://evanstonroundtable.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Ha...)

- Sep. 24, 2025 The city issues a cease-and-desist to flock. (https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/24/flock-safety-reins...)

    - Despite the city's belief that the cameras have been off since the termination letter on Aug. 26th, RoundTable journalists show that the cameras are still on and logging locations.
- Sep 25, 2025 Evanston covers the cameras with plastic bags (https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/25/city-covers-up-flo...)

- Mar 3, 2026 Journalists notice that two of flock's cameras are still up in Evanston and contact Flock asking for comment, Flock does not reply but removes the cameras.

Post reply on HN