Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:33 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #487

Manuel_D wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution does not prohibit government (or anyone for that matter) from recording people in public spaces. ALPRs have been in widespread use since the 90s, I am continuously puzzled where people get the idea that this is new technology.

ALPRs weren't connected to companies which call their detractors "terrorists" and which collect photographs into searchable databases that have advanced AI features. The general public has also witnessed the rise of military-style policing and unaccountable violence from law enforcement, so that contributes to the negative sentiment.

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:36 PM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #483

Manuel_D wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything that makes surveillance even less noteworthy. Is it really surprising that a military installation has surveillance?

They did not say installation.

Post by text0404 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:37 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #488

text0404 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government does need a warrant to surveil me, though, and multiple court cases have found that using an intermediate third party doesn't absolve the government from adhering to the fourth amendment.

The government needs a warrant to search you, your home, your vehicle, your email, etc. The government does not need a warrant to record you in public spaces. You're correct that the government can't use a third party to circumvent privacy laws. But privacy laws never prohibited what Flock does. The government could directly set up its own cameras in public, and nothing about that violated the Fourth Amendment.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:41 PM UTC

hippich wrote: post #308

jordanb wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing that's going on is that Flock is essentially an always-on "dragnet." A "dragnet" is when you set up police checkpoints everywhere and essentially put entire cities under watch to find a fugitive. This happened in Boston after the bombings. "Dragnets" are illegal except in extreme circumstances (like a bombing). Flock is a "dragnet on demand." You have a digital dragnet in place not just in one city bu…

Recently was driving in the middle of nowhere in Texas.. And I saw a few flock cameras watching both ways in highways there too. So it is not just cities, states are implicated too.

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:43 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #495

Manuel_D wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government needs a warrant to search you, your home, your vehicle, your email, etc. The government does not need a warrant to record you in public spaces. You're correct that the government can't use a third party to circumvent privacy laws. But privacy laws never prohibited what Flock does. The government could directly set up its own cameras in public, and nothing about that violated the Fourth Amendment.

The government does need a warrant to surveil someone, though. Which is what is happening here: a third party surveils citizens and the government searches that data.