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

An interactive map of Flock Cams

deflock.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 255 posts

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#241

Post by sciencejerk »

qubidt wrote: post #196
sciencejerk wrote: post #175

I personally know 3 victims of brutally violent crime. Flock would have detected, but maybe not prevented, two of these cases, where violence occurred in broad, open daylight near main roads and highways. Crimes occurred in left-leaning, anti-police small midwest city. All of the victims were women. I would encourage anti-Flockers and anti-authority individuals out here to question their motives and make sure that th…

This implies that the harm caused by this broad surveillance technology is "hypothetical/theoretical", when there is long history in this country's government using private companies to launder otherwise illegal surveillance of political activists[1]. And even if you ignore the historical parallels, there are already cases of: officers using Flock systems to stalk dating partners[2][3], immigration enforcement using…

I'll acknowledge that there might be some abuses of the use of Flock data by authorities (thanks for sharing citations). I would argue that this is an access control problem: do police departments have broad, unrestricted, unmonitored persistent access to these video feeds? (I oppose this). Is Flock insisting that police departments should have this access?

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#242

Post by sciencejerk »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #215
sciencejerk wrote: post #175

I personally know 3 victims of brutally violent crime. Flock would have detected, but maybe not prevented, two of these cases, where violence occurred in broad, open daylight near main roads and highways. Crimes occurred in left-leaning, anti-police small midwest city. All of the victims were women. I would encourage anti-Flockers and anti-authority individuals out here to question their motives and make sure that th…

When we no longer have concentration camps whose victims are located via Flock, then I'll be okay with them. It's not hypothetical, it's happening right now. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/ice-deaths-s... | https://atlpresscollective.com/2025/11/13/atlanta-police-flo... | https://immpolicytracking.org/policies/reported-ice-accessin... | https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-t...…

They're putting people in pens and then murdering them, and using Flock cameras to round them up.

I don't want this either. Might this be better attributed to politics/administration/policies? So maybe you're opposed to technologies that assist the governement with tracking people? If Flock starts solving missing abducted trafficked persons cases, would this sway your opinion? Or if the data is highly restricted?

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#243

Post by sciencejerk »

asveikau wrote: post #183
sciencejerk wrote: post #175

I personally know 3 victims of brutally violent crime. Flock would have detected, but maybe not prevented, two of these cases, where violence occurred in broad, open daylight near main roads and highways. Crimes occurred in left-leaning, anti-police small midwest city. All of the victims were women. I would encourage anti-Flockers and anti-authority individuals out here to question their motives and make sure that th…

> Flock would have detected, but maybe not prevented, two of these cases I'm glad you acknowledge this, because it highlights what has irritated me about the discussion of crime in the last ~6 years. People seem to expect that crime can be prevented. Our criminal justice system and system of civil rights can only intervene after the crime has occurred , which means it won't prevent anything. Maybe I've misread you pe…

Thanks for responding.

1. I don't think crime can really be prevented per se, but location-based crime can be discouraged and deterred. Having cameras in public, highly visible places, might make violent criminals (especially professional ones) think twice before committing crimes in these places. This potentially creates safe routes for vulnerable individuals (women, children) where they are less likely to be a victim of crime when following these routes. Privacy-minded individuals willing to take additional risk might opt out by driving a different route.

2. I agree on social cohesion, but this seems impossible in USA, which is a country that is/was a melting pot of immigrants from every place in the world. Embracing a national identity seems like the natural solution for creating social cohesion, but nationalism seems unpopular with half of the country (USA invasions don't help the cause). What is your proposed solution?

3.I will also note, crime is lower everywhere in America vs. a few decades ago. Violent crime peaked in the mid 1990s. This is a macro high level generalization; generally true but not everywhere. I am currently located in the midwest and anecdotally saw crime increase in a small city from 2018-2023 (people I know affected were victims of crime,visible increase in homelessness and drifters). Admittedly, crime levels in 2024-2025 in my region seem to be shrinking, but it's too early to determine probable cause. Gemini AI had this to say about crime levels, agreeing with your opinion but with caveats: When looking at the broad stretch from the 1990s peak to 2025, the national story is one of a massive, sustained decline. In 1991, the violent crime rate was roughly 758 per 100,000 people; by 2025, that figure is estimated to have dropped by nearly 60%, reaching its lowest levels in nearly 50 years. However, the "map of violence" has shifted. While the 1990s were defined by high-intensity violence in massive coastal hubs (NYC, LA), the 2020–2025 era has seen crime "decentralize" into the South, the Midwest, and even rural New England.

Source: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-does-crime-compare-by-city...

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#244

Post by sciencejerk »

groggo wrote: post #222
sciencejerk wrote: post #175

I personally know 3 victims of brutally violent crime. Flock would have detected, but maybe not prevented, two of these cases, where violence occurred in broad, open daylight near main roads and highways. Crimes occurred in left-leaning, anti-police small midwest city. All of the victims were women. I would encourage anti-Flockers and anti-authority individuals out here to question their motives and make sure that th…

I live in Sausalito just north of SF. We have a few cameras on the way into town. Seeing this map actually makes me feel safer. Sure there are hypothetical privacy issues, but for me they're easily outweighed by safety. I don't really get the issue. Ideally this information would be available to law enforcement, but would require a warrant. Is the problem that they can access all of this data without a warrant now?

Based on comments here, I'm thinking that a lot of the Flock opposition is affiliated with the anti-ICE movements. Flock seems to be viewed here as a tool to persecute and hunt down law-abiding government enemies, potentially bypassing civil liberties.

I don't deny that Flock systems could and may have been used in that manner, but that doesn't seem to be its main purpose or use. Presently I'm seeing Flock as a net win for most law abiding persons, and I believe that its use should and can be highly restricted and monitored as a tool to make the country safer. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#245

Post by sciencejerk »

mmooss wrote: post #206
sciencejerk wrote: post #175

I personally know 3 victims of brutally violent crime. Flock would have detected, but maybe not prevented, two of these cases, where violence occurred in broad, open daylight near main roads and highways. Crimes occurred in left-leaning, anti-police small midwest city. All of the victims were women. I would encourage anti-Flockers and anti-authority individuals out here to question their motives and make sure that th…

This sounds like the usual talking points. > left-leaning, anti-police As if there is any correlation, or crimes don't occur in right-leaning locales. > hypothetical/theoretical harm Freedom is very real, and includes security from the state. The latter risks are hardly theoretical in history and very present today.

I mentioned "left-leaning, anti-police" because this particular city attempted to reduce its police force, due to a general distrust in (local?) police authority. It appears that USA police forces might be more violent because they are far more likely to encounter armed criminals (see source below). Thus it makes sense that some communities would prefer to reduce their police force, and might oppose technologies like Flock that increase the chances of police encounters:

Firearm Prevalence: U.S. officers operate in a society with high civilian gun ownership. A 2019 study published in PMC found that the strongest predictor of police being killed on the job—and consequently, their higher rate of using lethal force—is the level of household gun ownership in that state. In this context, U.S. "caution" often manifests as "command presence" to prevent a suspect from reaching for a weapon.

Source:

https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/media/2020/February/gun-ownership-...

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#246

Post by senordevnyc »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #177
pc86 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean it shouldn't be done?

By all means go for it. It's just important to be aware that it's (most likely) a temporary stopgap as opposed to an actual solution to the problem.

And what is the "actual solution to the problem"?

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#247

Post by tonymet »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #237
tonymet wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

plate reading allows police to identify known and unknown suspects. For known suspects (e.g. police have PC, suspect fled), plate reader can help find the suspect without high speed pursuit. For unknown suspect (e.g. citizen report of street racing), plate readers can develop a suspect pool and narrow down candidate suspects for further investigation.

Sure, I won't dispute that warrantless mass surveillance of everyone at all times makes it easier to track down criminals. I just want to be clear that that's what we're talking about. These don't only target people who are "Running reds" or driving at "extreme speed".

I chose reckless driving because it's relatable . The cameras help with all crimes. Many stores are putting them up to discourage shoplifting / armed robbery, for example.

Is your objection to convicting criminals or false convictions?

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#248

Post by baggy_trough »

ssl-3 wrote: post #134
baggy_trough wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the comment is not saying that. You appear to have invented it.

If you think there's something wrong with my interpretation, then please explain what that is to me. I'm not seeing a problem with it. (I may, in fact, be an idiot. Help me out here.)

Sure, you made up a bunch of things the comment doesn't say, and then said "so you're saying?". No, they are not saying.

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#249

Post by fc417fc802 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #246
fc417fc802 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By all means go for it. It's just important to be aware that it's (most likely) a temporary stopgap as opposed to an actual solution to the problem.

And what is the "actual solution to the problem"?

How should I know? Presumably it's political.

Noticing a flaw doesn't mean one has a workable solution ready to go.

Re: An interactive map of Flock Cams

#250

Post by ssl-3 »

baggy_trough wrote: post #248
ssl-3 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think there's something wrong with my interpretation, then please explain what that is to me. I'm not seeing a problem with it. (I may, in fact, be an idiot. Help me out here.)

Sure, you made up a bunch of things the comment doesn't say, and then said "so you're saying?". No, they are not saying.

You're just as [un]qualified to interpret the intent of the comment that I replied to as I am myself, comrade.

Neither of us wrote it.

Post reply on HN