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

US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#121

Post by maerF0x0 »

gosub100 wrote: post #87
maerF0x0 wrote: post #72

And switches to Axon - https://denverite.com/2026/02/24/denver-ends-flock-contract-... I have not done any research if that's out of the frying pan and into the fire or an improvement

I don't know if axon does it, but the future is going to be mobile ALPRs. Uber drivers going around scanning every plate, selling to police, and helping predatory auto lenders repo cars. The latter is already being done, so it's just a matter of time.

Interesting point. Autonomous cars themselves could sell all the data they collect (like license plates, but also street maps, live traffic data, pot hole counts and locations etc)

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#122

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #103
jdross wrote: post #9

I realize how unpopular flock is, and I will first say that I have literally never personally looked into the privacy concerns. But one city you don’t see named here is SF, which has cited Flock as a primary driver of its 10x reduction in car break-ins, and 30% reduction in burglaries. Those were a quality of life plague while I lived there

I could believe that perma-cameraing every inch of public space is more akin to chemo than to vitamin gummies, that SF had the city equivalent of bone cancer, and that this doesn’t mean healthy midwestern towns need Flock in any way.

[flagged]

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#123

Post by jkestner »

Corrado wrote: post #111
delecti wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance But sadly lots of people want everyone else subject to it, and some are willing to submit to it themselves to get it. It's not a foregone conclusion.

I was recently at a "town hall" meeting in my community and spoke with a older woman about Flock cameras. Initially she was not concerned about it and was generally in favor of the idea. I agreed that there could be benefits but that the downside is that they know when and where you go to church, or the grocery, or where you get your hair done, or even when you go on vacation. Her eyes lit up and I she replied that s…

In talking with many of the older people in my community about Flock, they initially defer to what our police department says it needs. A few things made them reconsider: - This is not about our police. This is about all the outside organizations that can watch us. - Focusing on Flock specifically. Once the cameras are given a name, people can start to form a better opinion fueled by the readily available bad press Flock is producing. - With the focus on Flock, the YouTube videos elsewhere in this topic do a great job of explaining how crappy their security is and how they're lying to their customers about it. Which brings it back to, this isn't about our local police — it's about the company that's an unworthy partner.

Good job talking to your community. The first step is that people are aware of the cameras - for my neighbors, most did not know about them, and immediately found it creepy.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#124

Post by SoftTalker »

diogenes_atx wrote: post #109

It seems like this article buried the best lede of the story on paragraph ten, which explains Flock's new business of surveillance drones launched in response to 911 calls (and also presumably triggered by other alerts configured by police and private businesses). > Flock has recently expanded into other technologies... Most concerning are the latest Flock drones equipped with high-powered cameras. Flock's "Drone as…

Hunter-Killers not far behind.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#125

Post by boelboel »

AlBugdy wrote: post #55

Non-US citizens - what's the situation with cameras in public spaces where you live? In my town every 2nd hour or building entrance has a private camera pointed at the street. It's very depressing because the cops don't care - I've asked 2 in a patrol car when there was a mild case of vandalism I witnessed. Technically it's illegal, but nothing happens. The public cameras are on intersection and some bus stops. Too m…

In London cameras are everywhere, mostly private and they have been for years. Don't think I've seen anything like it in any European city I've visited.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#127

Post by SoftTalker »

oooyay wrote: post #81
whimsicalism wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very in favor of speed & redlight cameras and don't have a particular problem with license plate trackers. I think we partisan-ize far too many things nowadays, unfortunately.

Both of these camera systems also usually come with a kangaroo civil court of sorts. Last time I looked at red light camera distribution in Texas it was also fairly obvious that they were only installing them in poorer areas. These systems were largely disliked bipartisanly because of those factors.

They install them where the data show that people are running red lights.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#128

Post by toephu2 »

BoggleOhYeah wrote: post #35
jdross wrote: post #9

I realize how unpopular flock is, and I will first say that I have literally never personally looked into the privacy concerns. But one city you don’t see named here is SF, which has cited Flock as a primary driver of its 10x reduction in car break-ins, and 30% reduction in burglaries. Those were a quality of life plague while I lived there

Any evidence that the reduction is actually due to the cameras?

Don't people tend to behave if they know the are being watched?

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#129

Post by Forgeties79 »

diogenes_atx wrote: post #109

It seems like this article buried the best lede of the story on paragraph ten, which explains Flock's new business of surveillance drones launched in response to 911 calls (and also presumably triggered by other alerts configured by police and private businesses). > Flock has recently expanded into other technologies... Most concerning are the latest Flock drones equipped with high-powered cameras. Flock's "Drone as…

Code 8-style cop drone drops incoming

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#130

Post by ceejayoz »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #122
QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could believe that perma-cameraing every inch of public space is more akin to chemo than to vitamin gummies, that SF had the city equivalent of bone cancer, and that this doesn’t mean healthy midwestern towns need Flock in any way.

[flagged]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN