151–160 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 officers are also statistically more likely to abuse their spouses. Don't let the women you care about get involved with cops.
I don't see any difference between what you just said and "13-85".
Maybe if police weren't using Flock cameras to stalk their ex-wives [1][2].
There's an interesting angle to the Flock issue I heard recently. Some predominantly black communities prefer Flock cameras because they're over-policed, black men in particular are more likely to be pulled over on "routine" traffic stops and those stops have a skewed chance of ending in violence of death. As a reminder, US law enforcement kills over 1000 civilians every single year. Over half of those are black men and black men are only ~6% of the population.
But that's really a lesser evil type situation because the police simply shouldn't be killing so many people.
[1]: https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/08/03/brentwood-officer-acc...
[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/08/02/how-pol...
Curious about the official YCombinator stance on this extremely unpopular YCombinator-backed startup (unpopular here at HN anyway).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Flock plays a semantic game where data on Flock's servers os "owned" by the client, so Flock is not responsible for the content or management of the data.
Isn't that what you'd expect from a camera service provider? I'd certainly want any videos taken by my own cameras to be owned by me.
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...
This is false. They cannot be accessed by anyone. > For an unknown period, at least 60 AI-powered surveillance cameras manufactured by Flock Safety were accessible to anyone on the internet. Past tense.
Where I work, this wouldn't fly.
> Flock Safety acknowledged the issue in March, stating some California agencies “had their camera networks inadvertently accessible to out-of-state law enforcement agencies for a period of time,” according to a company statement. The company said it was “impossible to determine a specific cause” for the data breach.
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…
Disappointing to see this is the future they are trying to invest in.
> and stolen I’m sure flock’s agreement with the Winona Police Department makes clear that they are only purchasing a license to use these cameras, so in fact the department’s cameras have not been stolen at all, they’ve merely been prevented from enjoying licensed use.
> That cost falls directly on the Winona Police Department’s budget. Nope, Flock bills out the ass for replacement cost right to the taxpayer. The grift continues! Alternatively, "defunding the police" by way of smashing Flocks is another view point, from what I've heard.
Wow. Those must be some really nice cameras...