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

221–230 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#221

Post by esbranson »

ceejayoz wrote: post #92
esbranson wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There is very solid evidence it wasn't the cameras. https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-car-breakins/ has a chart of the car breakins. It shows the drop starting in September of 2023. https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/your-sfpd/policies/depart... > Starting on March 19, 2024, Flock Safety began installing ALPR cameras in various strategic locations across San Francisco. This rollout is expected to take place ove…

A crime drop between over that 3 months is not, as evidenced by the subsequent rise for 3 months after, of the time period you claim as evidence.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#222

Post by tadfisher »

anskksdkdkdk wrote: post #213
rudhdb773b wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because today it will be used as a first responder. Tomorrow a police officer will suggest that these drones (that we are already using successfully) could be very useful for checking up on that "dangerous" neighborhood.

[flagged]

...and now you have actual domestic surveillance bots, instead of the silent CIA Blackhawks we used to joke about.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#223

Post by cucumber3732842 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #208
mothballed wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha ha ha, you think it'll be used to help you ? A hit and run drived totaled my car at an intersection with cameras, the cops would not even show up even though it was all on camera. When I called insurance they didn't bat an eye, the claims person pretty obviously was used to this happening all the time and didn't even question why I wasn't able to get a police report.

Happened with my step daughter. Traffic light at intersection. She said she had a green light, so did the other driver. Cops -did- show up. "Did you have a green light" "I did." Less than 30 seconds of questions. Goes to the other driver, same, is back in under a minute. "Well, he said he's absolutely sure he had a green light, so I'm citing you for failing to obey a traffic signal". There were no cameras in the area…

So the system worked exactly as intended?

It's not just auto insurance. Every government, government adjacent and highly regulated process is just like that.

It's not about right and wrong or fairness or making the responsible party pay or saving the children or protecting the environment or preventing sub-prime loans or enforcing building code or or whatever the alleged pretext is. It's about having an efficient process turn the subjective into the quantifiable and/or assign financial responsibility and do so in a manner that's not flagrantly wrong so often that a "large enough to be a problem" amount of people seek recourse outside the system (like smoking the CEO on the sidewalk or armoring a bulldozer or whatever).

But of course, marketing the system as though it's about right and wrong or fairness or whatever is what they do as a means toward what the point actually is so it's easy to understand why you think it failed instead of worked perfectly.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#224

Post by tadfisher »

tux1968 wrote: post #182
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?

Obviously I don't know the specifics of your city, but in general there are a lot of scenarios where it's valuable to get to a scene very quickly (no traffic, etc.) and obtain reconnaissance. Especially violent scenes, or it could even be a drunk driver who is still on the move, or a stolen car where the perpetrators are likely to flee on foot if stopped. I'm sure you can come up with a lot more ideas using your imag…

Thanks for the explanation. I will ask my local city council to spend the money elsewhere.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#225

Post by ggoo »

jamiequint wrote: post #215
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…

"Cameras don't fix homelessness or addiction or underfunded services. They just make life harder for regular people." In what way do cameras make life harder for regular people? If anything rampant crime (and progressive legal systems' unwillingness to lock up repeat offenders for a long time or at all) makes life much harder for regular people than a camera just sitting there.

Surveillance tech can alter peoples behavior. I know I'm personally more stressed when I know I'm being filmed, even if I'm doing nothing wrong.

https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2024/1/niae039/7920510?l...

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#226

Post by ceejayoz »

nxm wrote: post #99
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.

[flagged]

Gosh, the ACLU? Activists? Say it ain't so!

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#227

Post by [deleted] »

anthonypasq wrote: post #84
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 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.

[deleted]

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#228

Post by tadfisher »

jamiequint wrote: post #215
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…

"Cameras don't fix homelessness or addiction or underfunded services. They just make life harder for regular people." In what way do cameras make life harder for regular people? If anything rampant crime (and progressive legal systems' unwillingness to lock up repeat offenders for a long time or at all) makes life much harder for regular people than a camera just sitting there.

"Police used AI facial recognition to arrest a Tennessee woman for crimes committed in a state she says she’s never visited": https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/29/us/angela-lipps-ai-facial-rec...

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#229

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

whimsicalism wrote: post #163
banannaise wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any dataset involving police actions will show high concentrations in poor areas because that's where police patrol the most and where they're most likely to crack down on behaviors that might be allowed to slide elsewhere (in part due to the racial demographics of those areas).

Usually allocation decisions are related to actual car/pedestrian fatality/injury counts + trial placements and measurements. Either way, wouldn't you be in favor of measures that remove police from overpoliced poor neighborhoods in favor of a technology focusing on traffic safety enforcement?

The police aren't removed, they're still there, just with more technology, more information, and more power now.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#230

Post by jamiequint »

tadfisher wrote: post #228
jamiequint wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Cameras don't fix homelessness or addiction or underfunded services. They just make life harder for regular people." In what way do cameras make life harder for regular people? If anything rampant crime (and progressive legal systems' unwillingness to lock up repeat offenders for a long time or at all) makes life much harder for regular people than a camera just sitting there.

"Police used AI facial recognition to arrest a Tennessee woman for crimes committed in a state she says she’s never visited": https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/29/us/angela-lipps-ai-facial-rec...

[flagged]
Post reply on HN