Flock license plate readers cost city big, deliver little • Hacker News Board

Re: Flock license plate readers cost city big, deliver little

#11

Post by lux-lux-lux » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 6:31 PM UTC

LazyMans wrote: post #9

recallingmemory wrote: post #2

"In San Diego police’s February 2026 Annual Surveillance Report, the department discloses that officers conducted more than 244,000 searches of the Flock automated license plate reader technology in 2025. Those searches played a part in “advancing 361 cases.” That is an outrageous 99.852% rate of ineffective searches. The police also disclose that the cost of the system will be over $2 million this year — $2,012,500.…

This is a flawed methodology for measuring success. Solving a case isn't a single correct search. It's a tool, and a single case could have hundreds of searches associated with it. As more regulation comes in, as it should, we should get much better auditing data that link each and every search to a specific case. This is evolving quickly at the moment, but ultimately it's up to the public to begin to push for requir…

The quote says advancing a case, not ‘solving’ it. So yes, that number is exactly what you’re asking for.

Re: Flock license plate readers cost city big, deliver little

#12

Post by lux-lux-lux » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 6:32 PM UTC

pipejosh wrote: post #4

$2 million a year to run 244,000 searches that advanced 361 cases... That's about $5,500 per useful search. Meanwhile every car that drove past one of those cameras got logged, timestamped, and stored. These things aren't not law enforcement, they're mass surveillance with a badge.

Also that $2 mil is the cost of the system, and doesn’t include all those man hours spent running unproductive queries.

Re: Flock license plate readers cost city big, deliver little

#13

Post by allthetime » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 6:37 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #8

markstos wrote: post #7

So Flock helped solve a case nearly every day of the year?

Maybe! We don't know, all we know is that allegedly: > Those searches played a part in “advancing 361 cases.” What does "played a part" mean? What does "advancing a case" mean?

Reads like the intentionally obtuse language of an analytics guy making the numbers as big as possible without outright lying.

Re: Flock license plate readers cost city big, deliver little

#14

Post by HWR_14 » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 6:45 PM UTC

recallingmemory wrote: post #2

"In San Diego police’s February 2026 Annual Surveillance Report, the department discloses that officers conducted more than 244,000 searches of the Flock automated license plate reader technology in 2025. Those searches played a part in “advancing 361 cases.” That is an outrageous 99.852% rate of ineffective searches. The police also disclose that the cost of the system will be over $2 million this year — $2,012,500.…

> A 99.852% ineffective rate means city leaders will spend $2,009,521.50 on license plate reader technology that does not help any case."

That's not at all what it means. The cost of the system is almost independent of the usage rate of the system. The proper math is that they spent $5,575 per case advanced. Is that a reasonable cost?

Re: Flock license plate readers cost city big, deliver little

#15

Post by FireBeyond » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 7:01 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #8

markstos wrote: post #7

So Flock helped solve a case nearly every day of the year?

Maybe! We don't know, all we know is that allegedly: > Those searches played a part in “advancing 361 cases.” What does "played a part" mean? What does "advancing a case" mean?

If you're Flock, and an officer ran a search against a Flock database, for a crime that was later solved, regardless of how it was solved, they will crow that "Flock solved a crime".

Re: Flock license plate readers cost city big, deliver little

#16

Post by pixelready » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 7:03 PM UTC

recallingmemory wrote: post #2

"In San Diego police’s February 2026 Annual Surveillance Report, the department discloses that officers conducted more than 244,000 searches of the Flock automated license plate reader technology in 2025. Those searches played a part in “advancing 361 cases.” That is an outrageous 99.852% rate of ineffective searches. The police also disclose that the cost of the system will be over $2 million this year — $2,012,500.…

If I apply the Purpose of a System is What it Does (POSIWID) heuristic, then the purpose of Flock cameras can not be cost effective law enforcement.

Re: Flock license plate readers cost city big, deliver little

#17

Post by vharuck » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 7:37 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #14

recallingmemory wrote: post #2

"In San Diego police’s February 2026 Annual Surveillance Report, the department discloses that officers conducted more than 244,000 searches of the Flock automated license plate reader technology in 2025. Those searches played a part in “advancing 361 cases.” That is an outrageous 99.852% rate of ineffective searches. The police also disclose that the cost of the system will be over $2 million this year — $2,012,500.…

> A 99.852% ineffective rate means city leaders will spend $2,009,521.50 on license plate reader technology that does not help any case." That's not at all what it means. The cost of the system is almost independent of the usage rate of the system. The proper math is that they spent $5,575 per case advanced. Is that a reasonable cost?

Your math doesn't include the hourly wages of the people who do the searches multiple by the time spent on them. Granted, I don't have that info, but I'm guessing it's not peanuts.

Re: Flock license plate readers cost city big, deliver little

#18

Post by thatcat » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 7:43 PM UTC

markstos wrote: post #7

So Flock helped solve a case nearly every day of the year?

They never solved any cases, only provided a warm lead once a day. If they solved many, they would be proud and say N cases solved. In this case N must be an embarrassingly small number since they don't use concrete language. It's like offering 5500$ to anyone that offers any information on any crime.

Re: Flock license plate readers cost city big, deliver little

#19

Post by zamadatix » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 8:03 PM UTC

vharuck wrote: post #17

HWR_14 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A 99.852% ineffective rate means city leaders will spend $2,009,521.50 on license plate reader technology that does not help any case." That's not at all what it means. The cost of the system is almost independent of the usage rate of the system. The proper math is that they spent $5,575 per case advanced. Is that a reasonable cost?

Your math doesn't include the hourly wages of the people who do the searches multiple by the time spent on them. Granted, I don't have that info, but I'm guessing it's not peanuts.

It could be truly peanuts from something that happens automatically during entering things into the system anyways to something like multiple times the raw cost if it's something like 10+ minutes of manual work per average search.

Re: Flock license plate readers cost city big, deliver little

#20

Post by SilverElfin » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 8:26 PM UTC

recallingmemory wrote: post #2

"In San Diego police’s February 2026 Annual Surveillance Report, the department discloses that officers conducted more than 244,000 searches of the Flock automated license plate reader technology in 2025. Those searches played a part in “advancing 361 cases.” That is an outrageous 99.852% rate of ineffective searches. The police also disclose that the cost of the system will be over $2 million this year — $2,012,500.…

I don’t think this is the right argument, and I say that as someone who wants legislation to prevent such data from being accessible to federal agencies.

Those cases that WERE solved using Flock data could have impacts worth far more than $2 million. For example if one kidnapped child were recovered, what is that worth to the parents? What about to society, who can feel secure about their kids and also actually experience higher safety due to better deterrence? That’s worth more than the few thousand dollars you could say was spent to support that one search of Flock data.

Ultimately, the data is also only as good (and bad) as how it is used. If local jurisdictions use it to solve crime and to actually prosecute criminals (rather than letting them go) then it can be very beneficial. A lot of people are frustrated by criminals not being brought to justice. And obviously, if their privacy is lost, that’s a downside, but it’s not the sole thing to weigh here.