Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

winonapost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 90 posts

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#11

Post by matherial »

estearum wrote: post #7
lokar wrote: post #6

A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the public just barely trusts the local police, and a new surveillance system pushes them over the edge into hostility. They need to be working to gain much more trust.

Police are bounded by evidentiary laws and warrant requirements, all of which legitimately do stand up in court. Flock is not. So no, actually Flock itself is the problem. If Flock were willing to sign some consent decree that its data can only be accessed by police with a valid judicial warrant, for example, they probably could've headed off this entire mess. But instead they called people "terroristic" for pushing…

The police have SWAT teams, guns, and jails, Flock does not. So I think the state security apparatus is a part of the problem, because if they don't like you and have access to surveillance technology, the outcomes can be far more severe than if Facebook doesn't like you, or the CEO of Flock doesn't like you.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#12

Post by pj_mukh »

lokar wrote: post #6

A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the public just barely trusts the local police, and a new surveillance system pushes them over the edge into hostility. They need to be working to gain much more trust.

But also, I dont understand all this hand-wringing. EFF has a clear easy solution [1]: Put all the data behind a Warrant. Problem solved. No trust required.

Wanna look up where a murderer drove? Go get a warrant

Wanna look up where a robbery suspect drove to? Go get a Warrant.

Divorce case hinging on one party's whereabouts on a certain date? Warrant.

Speeding tickets are automatically filed anyways.

[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/08/too-little-too-late-fl...

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#14

Post by colechristensen »

pj_mukh wrote: post #12
lokar wrote: post #6

A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the public just barely trusts the local police, and a new surveillance system pushes them over the edge into hostility. They need to be working to gain much more trust.

But also, I dont understand all this hand-wringing. EFF has a clear easy solution [1]: Put all the data behind a Warrant. Problem solved. No trust required. Wanna look up where a murderer drove? Go get a warrant Wanna look up where a robbery suspect drove to? Go get a Warrant. Divorce case hinging on one party's whereabouts on a certain date? Warrant. Speeding tickets are automatically filed anyways. [1]: https://www…

The EFF is wrong. The clear solution is NOT COLLECTING THE DATA.

There is no reason or justification for us to live in a surveillance state, "protecting" the data with a warrant doesn't cut it.

Cutting down and destroying mass surveillance equipment is a patriotic action and should be applauded.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#15

Post by lokar »

estearum wrote: post #7
lokar wrote: post #6

A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the public just barely trusts the local police, and a new surveillance system pushes them over the edge into hostility. They need to be working to gain much more trust.

Police are bounded by evidentiary laws and warrant requirements, all of which legitimately do stand up in court. Flock is not. So no, actually Flock itself is the problem. If Flock were willing to sign some consent decree that its data can only be accessed by police with a valid judicial warrant, for example, they probably could've headed off this entire mess. But instead they called people "terroristic" for pushing…

I’m not sure people think that way, or even understand the details. But they see lots of stories about police officers misusing the system.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#16

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

lokar wrote: post #6

A weird take. They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock, it’s distrust of the police. They are in a situation where the public just barely trusts the local police, and a new surveillance system pushes them over the edge into hostility. They need to be working to gain much more trust.

They’re oblivious to this fact because it’s not true. Most people by a substantial margin trust their local police.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#17

Post by redwall_hp »

colechristensen wrote: post #14
pj_mukh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also, I dont understand all this hand-wringing. EFF has a clear easy solution [1]: Put all the data behind a Warrant. Problem solved. No trust required. Wanna look up where a murderer drove? Go get a warrant Wanna look up where a robbery suspect drove to? Go get a Warrant. Divorce case hinging on one party's whereabouts on a certain date? Warrant. Speeding tickets are automatically filed anyways. [1]: https://www…

The EFF is wrong. The clear solution is NOT COLLECTING THE DATA. There is no reason or justification for us to live in a surveillance state, "protecting" the data with a warrant doesn't cut it. Cutting down and destroying mass surveillance equipment is a patriotic action and should be applauded.

It should be a criminal act to attempt to build a mass surveillance apparatus, whether it's for law enforcement or private use.

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#18

Post by pj_mukh »

colechristensen wrote: post #14
pj_mukh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also, I dont understand all this hand-wringing. EFF has a clear easy solution [1]: Put all the data behind a Warrant. Problem solved. No trust required. Wanna look up where a murderer drove? Go get a warrant Wanna look up where a robbery suspect drove to? Go get a Warrant. Divorce case hinging on one party's whereabouts on a certain date? Warrant. Speeding tickets are automatically filed anyways. [1]: https://www…

The EFF is wrong. The clear solution is NOT COLLECTING THE DATA. There is no reason or justification for us to live in a surveillance state, "protecting" the data with a warrant doesn't cut it. Cutting down and destroying mass surveillance equipment is a patriotic action and should be applauded.

I mean ALPR's have worked wonders in my town [1]. So I'll keep supporting them until we restructure all our cities to drastically reduce car speeds. Plus post 2020 police backlash, detective work has basically disappeared and clearing rates have cratered [2]. Police are now no longer able to (or are refusing to) solve crime "the old fashioned way", and the public has no real leverage to "make them do it".

So I get it, we're in the middle of a populist uprising against it, and it's nice to ride that wave of support. But behind the scenes, these two factors are driving adoption, and we'll keep coming back to it when the backlash eventually fizzles.

I say we should just use this backlash to put in the protections EFF suggests or fix the two underlying causes. Those are the options.

[1]: https://www.oaklandca.gov/Public-Safety-Streets/Traffic-Safe...

[2]: https://stateline.org/2025/11/24/why-clearance-rates-dont-te...

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#19

Post by NegativeLatency »

Tostino wrote: post #3

I posted this in another thread, and had my comment instantly flagged. Love this site. Worth looking at how these cameras got approved in the first place. My county's ALPR interlocal passed on the consent agenda in December 2024, one block vote alongside forty other items, no discussion, and went through consent again in April 2025. Nothing was "hidden", it's just that "public" here means a 300 page agenda packet and…

Looks neat, any chance you'd be willing to share how much this costs to run?

Re: WPD won't replace stolen Flock cameras, citing public trust

#20

Post by estearum »

matherial wrote: post #11
estearum wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police are bounded by evidentiary laws and warrant requirements, all of which legitimately do stand up in court. Flock is not. So no, actually Flock itself is the problem. If Flock were willing to sign some consent decree that its data can only be accessed by police with a valid judicial warrant, for example, they probably could've headed off this entire mess. But instead they called people "terroristic" for pushing…

The police have SWAT teams, guns, and jails, Flock does not. So I think the state security apparatus is a part of the problem, because if they don't like you and have access to surveillance technology, the outcomes can be far more severe than if Facebook doesn't like you, or the CEO of Flock doesn't like you.

People, broadly speaking, are totally fine with police having guns and jails.

Flock in absence of police is not that bad except for the whole "now we have no police" problem. Having police in the absence of Flock is totally fine, we've done it since forever.

Post reply on HN