121–130 of 278 posts
I suspect there is more at play here than activism. In many 3rd World places you must conceal/hide surveillance cameras because they are a valuable asset worth stealing.
PSA: third world means non-aligned in the cold war. It's use in 2026 is meaningless at best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flock data can be accessed by anyone. Literally. anyone. at anytime. Go see for yourselves. https://measuredcollective.com/flocks-ai-surveillance-camera...
That's a bit misleading given that it's a subset. 404media cites "at least 60".
https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/colorado-news/dougl...
https://www.wabe.org/cobb-county-youtuber-documents-flock-ca...
https://www.wflx.com/2026/01/09/flock-safety-exposed-live-po...
https://www.thegazette.com/news/vendor-error-exposed-some-ce...
https://www.404media.co/flock-leaked-cops-license-plate-sear...
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-c...
The list is pretty endless.
Curious about the official YCombinator stance on this extremely unpopular YCombinator-backed startup (unpopular here at HN anyway).
if you want to tackle the POV of the true believers at Y Combinator*: look, flock can't be that effective if all it takes is a guy with a ladder to defeat it, right? same thing with pervasive facial detection, you can wear a mask. you don't have to go into all this philosophical stuff to see how the promises will not be fulfilled. *Garry Tan has been characterized as a True Believer, in that he sincerely believes Flo…
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/industry/defense
And beyond this there are a number of defense-dependent companies like ProvenMetal (whose value proposition largely depends on a customer’s deep need to do onshore manufacturing)
It makes sense. From 2000-2015 it was pretty difficult for anyone to break into defense and really own a brand. Breakout companies like EOTech were really rare. Generally founders would be at the mercy/grace of the major defense incumbents ('primes'), getting scraps from their tables.
That’s changed lately. For a wide variety of reasons (political, technical, and on active battlefields) there’s a lot more room for startups to really own their own slice of the industry and build some moats of their own.
> Police use the technology to investigate crimes such as hit-and-runs and to locate missing persons. > No suspects have been identified. Yeah, that tracks. > Camera data is owned by the police department and permanently deleted after 30 days. I assume this means that the police department deletes one local copy?
> Camera data is owned by the police department and permanently deleted after 30 days There's so much going on in that sentence! What a thing of pure PR beauty. What does "owned" mean in this sentence? Probably fairly little. What data does it even refer to? Just the actual video footage? Does the statement include derived data like license plate reads or ML models? And surely if data is flagged as relevant to an inv…
If questioned, I can already imagine someone defending that sort of agreement as a standard consumer, contractual terms and practices of the time.
> Police use the technology to investigate crimes such as hit-and-runs and to locate missing persons. > No suspects have been identified. Yeah, that tracks. > Camera data is owned by the police department and permanently deleted after 30 days. I assume this means that the police department deletes one local copy?
Police used Flock's license plate network to stalk women in at least 50 cases https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-used-flocks-lice...
> Police use the technology to investigate crimes such as hit-and-runs and to locate missing persons. > No suspects have been identified. Yeah, that tracks. > Camera data is owned by the police department and permanently deleted after 30 days. I assume this means that the police department deletes one local copy?