US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology • Hacker News Board

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#191

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:47 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #142

selectodude wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that’s when they actually defended free speech. They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. That’s crazy.

> They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. Alternative framing: Given limited resources and lots of things to care about, they pick the specific cases that best improve the freedoms they're interested in protecting. In the case of the Second Amendment, they decided to let the NRA handle it, as that seems to be working just fine.

A disingenuous take. The ACLU has actively published anti-2A literature in the past, arguing (as all such arguments must) that only the police, government, and military forces should have access to effective weapons.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#192

Post by StackRanker3000 » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

yabutlivnWoods wrote: post #120

anthonypasq wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think politicians have seriously underestimated how much people don't like crime, and most people would take constant surveillance if it could actually improve feelings of safety in urban environments.

Often what we criminalize is stupid. Giving away food to homeless is a crime in many places. Bad capitalism. Feelings of insecurity are manufactured relative to the danger posed: https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-die...

> Giving away food to homeless is a crime in many places. Bad capitalism.

How is this due to capitalism?

I mean, I can maybe see how you can tie it to NIMBYism, and from there to capitalism through the desire to maintain or increase property values. But that's a stretch, and only one mechanism

There are many drivers for this type of regulation, some more well-meaning than others. Most of them would not go away simply because we ceased private ownership of the means of production

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#193

Post by nkrisc » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

mothballed wrote: post #82

nemomarx wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn't seem like the courts agree that you have a right to travel via car without a visible plate.

The courts have been wrong about many things, sometimes for centuries before they've fixed it. Some things they think they've interpreted correctly now that they'll turn around and interpret some other way later. Trying to interpret viewing and recording the plate as speech but not displaying it as speech is trying to have your cake and eat it too. If the camera can stalk my car everywhere and record it under auspice…

Driving a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilege that many of the morons I share the road with seem to take for granted. If they are allowed to drive then I want their plate identifiable on video from my dash cam.

Automated mass surveillance of license plates should also be illegal.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#194

Post by chaps » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

scottyah wrote: post #185

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. I live in a small, flat city with few trees. So why did my police department buy these?

Can they drive straight to you at 60mph without stopping?

Got it, a surveillance missile.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#195

Post by alistairSH » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:51 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #51

therobots927 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He won’t for long. The backlash is just getting started. Left or right, no one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance. His only advantage is that the cops are on his side and won’t let go of these cameras without a fight.

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.

The value of red light cameras is debatable. I've copied the conclusion from a DoT study below (1):

This statistically defendable study found crash effects that were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies, although the positive effects were somewhat lower that those reported in many sources. The conflicting direction effects for rear end and right-angle crashes justified the conduct of the economic effects analysis to assess the extent to which the increase in rear end crashes negates the benefits for right-angle crashes. This analysis, which was based on an aggregation of rear end and right-angle crash costs for various severity levels, showed that RLC systems do indeed provide a modest aggregate crash-cost benefit.

The opposing effects for the two crash types also implied that RLC systems would be most beneficial at intersections where there are relatively few rear end crashes and many right-angle ones. This was verified in a disaggregate analysis of the economic effect to try to isolate the factors that would favor (or discourage) the installation of RLC systems. That analysis revealed that RLC systems should be considered for intersections with a high ratio of right-angle crashes to rear end crashes, higher proportion of entering AADT on the major road, shorter cycle lengths and intergreen periods, one or more left turn protected phases, and higher entering AADTs. It also revealed the presence of warning signs at both RLC intersections and city limits and the application of high publicity levels will enhance the benefits of RLC systems.

The indications of a spillover effect point to a need for a more definitive study of this issue. That more confidence could not be placed in this aspect of the analysis reflects that this is an observational retrospective study in which RLC installations took place over many years and where other programs and treatments may have affected crash frequencies at the spillover study sites. A prospective study with an explicit purpose of addressing this issue seems to be required.

tl;dr - it's complicated. There are places RLCs make sense and places they don't. Expecting local government to know the difference... good luck with that.

1 - https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#196

Post by FireBeyond » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:55 PM UTC

tux1968 wrote: post #170

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then what? Hover over me as I'm dying?

Yes. If you called from your cell phone while on foot or in your car, the drone can find your exact location and hover over you until help arrives, quicker than if EMS has to search you out themselves.

How so? I ask as a paramedic of 14 years, now retired.

If EMS has to "search you out" so does the drone.

At least in my County, we actually get very good triangulation info from 911. It was very rare that Dispatch told us they only had Level 2(IIRC) location info (which might be to several hundred feet).

FAR more common was people who actually told us the -wrong- location. Car accidents that were several miles up the road from their location. Saying Blah St SE when they meant Blah Rd NE, etc.

Drones don't solve for that problem. They're going to the wrong location, too.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#197

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #191

ceejayoz wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. Alternative framing: Given limited resources and lots of things to care about, they pick the specific cases that best improve the freedoms they're interested in protecting. In the case of the Second Amendment, they decided to let the NRA handle it, as that seems to be working just fine.

A disingenuous take. The ACLU has actively published anti-2A literature in the past, arguing (as all such arguments must) that only the police, government, and military forces should have access to effective weapons.

I mean, the ACLU is allowed to say they don't interpret the Second the individualist way you do. That's their First Amendment right, yes?

The Second is probably the amendment least in need of defending by the ACLU. It's well covered, and pretty much a third rail of American politics.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#198

Post by FireBeyond » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC

schlap wrote: post #178

These companies build this tech in SF and Seattle, cities with some of the gnarliest public safety problems in the country, then turn around and sell it to smaller towns where it does more harm than good. Most places in America don't have problems that surveillance solves. They have problems they already know about and won't act on. Cameras don't fix homelessness or addiction or underfunded services. They just make l…

> These companies build this tech in SF and Seattle, cities with some of the gnarliest public safety problems in the country

I live just outside Seattle. I worked for Flock.

Flock is a company based in Atlanta GA.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#199

Post by FireBeyond » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:57 PM UTC

grimcompanion wrote: post #190

pesus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the drones are "providing information" to the police, it's only a matter of time before their AI hallucinates something that gets someone killed. We've already seen AI gun detection services that report things like Doritos bags as guns.

OTOH it will provide more surveillance of the police themselves. Humans are also bad at gun detection (sometimes willfully so) and this provides another check.

Watch for Flock footage to be "unavailable"/"deleted"/"corrupt" just as often as bodycam footage is.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#200

Post by dmbche » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:58 PM UTC

jonas21 wrote: post #146

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…

This is much less concerning to me than mass surveillance. If someone calls 911 and you need to send a first responder, why not send a drone to get there faster while a person is on their way?

What's the drone gonna do?