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

311–320 of 468 posts

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#311

Post by _DeadFred_ »

jm4 wrote: post #168
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…

That’s actually really cool and I don’t feel like it’s invasive. It’s surveillance in a specific location for a specific purpose and in response to certain emergencies. Active shooter is probably the first thing that comes to mind, but accidents, fires, unexpected disasters, etc. could all be situations where this technology helps assess the situation and inform response.

"CITIZEN there has been a report of a shooting in the area, please remain motionless as we scan your face for biometrics.

Scan complete. Please do not move or attempt to leave the area until you have been notified via the 'GovernmentForYou' app that you are cleared to leave the area.

Because you have been identified in the active area police have been granted legal probable cause to search your home. Please unlock your homes doors via any smart home app you have to prevent the authorities from forcibly removing your door onsite

Notification. Citizen because of your scan you have been identified as committing a bank fraud case in North Dakota and will be detained and transported (the move process takes 2-4 weeks). Once in North Dakota your right to a speedy trial will start if you are held more than the reasonable 60 day administration period.

Have a good day citizen and thank you for your cooperation."

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#312

Post by loeg »

turtlesdown11 wrote: post #282
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Do you have empirical evidence that we "habitually coddle criminals"? The united states locks up more of their people than pretty much any other nation...

> Do you have empirical evidence that we "habitually coddle criminals"?

In this context, we're talking about SF, not the US at large. Yes, SF is well known for coddling criminals. This is, obviously, a qualitative characterization -- it cannot be proven empirically. But we can point at characteristic examples:

https://ktxs.com/news/nation-world/san-francisco-ends-5m-alc...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-start-allowing-ev...

https://www.denvergazette.com/2024/01/27/california-finally-...

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/yes-its-ok-to-be-mad-about-cri...

(There's some hope it's improving very recently or in the near future.)

> The united states locks up more of their people than pretty much any other nation...

We (the US) have more criminality than many peer nations. We either lock them up, or let them be free despite doing crimes.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#313

Post by burningChrome »

Cider9986 wrote: post #263

>[1] Would crime go up, down or stay the same if all surveillance cameras were removed? The answer to that is the only one that matters. At least 40,990 [2] innocent people died in the US in 2023, without significant outcry - that is, on the road, in car accidents. People in the US clearly value the freedom of driving over the deaths of innocent people. In 2023, there were an estimated 19,800 [3] homicides in the US.…

FYI when cops arrive at a homicide scene, they don't go looking for the FLOCK camera's, they go looking for people who have RING cameras and businesses that have security cameras. Anything that is within sight of the crime scene is where they start.

If you think FLOCK is an issue, you're barking up the wrong tree. You can remove all the FLOCK camera's you want and it won't change the already overwhelming passive surveillance that's already in place.

We crossed the Rubicon decades ago when people gave up their ability to move without being tracked for speculative gains when they started using smartphones religiously.

Also, the passive surveillance has resulted in several high profile killers like LISK and Bryan Kohberger being caught. So as much bad as you think it does, there are clear cases where its helped crack decades old serial killings and put horrifically violent people in jail. I think we can both agree we don't want those people out walking freely in our society.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#315

Post by Zigurd »

loeg wrote: post #309
Zigurd wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They shorten the yellow light interval to gain more revenue. It's an irresistible corruption when working on a revenue share.

You're taking something that has happened at least once and extrapolating it to every situation; this isn't accurate.

Show me one big city PD that isn't corrupt enough that this is just a minor corruption snack to them.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#316

Post by loeg »

Zigurd wrote: post #315
loeg wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're taking something that has happened at least once and extrapolating it to every situation; this isn't accurate.

Show me one big city PD that isn't corrupt enough that this is just a minor corruption snack to them.

This is a bizarre comment. What level of absence of evidence would you accept to prove "not corrupt enough?" The "corruption snack" language strongly suggests you aren't really interested in changing your mind even if such evidence could be provided.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#317

Post by sigbottle »

text0404 wrote: post #293
jamiequint wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single example is worthless. Is there a pattern of this happening far more often? Overall, do fewer people get incorrectly arrested or detained as a result of this technology, or more.

Such great questions. Maybe we should answer them before building a massive, privately-owned, nationwide surveillance apparatus with taxpayer money.

No, we should build the massive, privately-owned, nationwide surveillance apparatus with taxpayer money! It's for science, after all! We have no data on whether or not cameras covering every square inch of space, hooked up to a centralized surveillance database is actually good for society. We need to conduct this methodologically and scientifically. We'll be able to come to an objective conclusion with enough testing!

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#318

Post by vjsrinivas »

loeg wrote: post #300
array_key_first wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's zero proof anywhere that these devices do anything about crimes. How could they? A camera can't lock someone up.

They provide law enforcement timely information about the location of wanted (e.g., stolen) vehicles. Law enforcement can act on that information. If law enforcement does not have that information, it cannot act on it.

These systems have provided incorrect data, and law enforcement often misuse that data to stalk, attack, and wrongfully arrest innocent people. Privacy matters to everyone - especially for ones who don't care about privacy.

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#319

Post by whimsicalism »

loeg wrote: post #316
Zigurd wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me one big city PD that isn't corrupt enough that this is just a minor corruption snack to them.

This is a bizarre comment. What level of absence of evidence would you accept to prove "not corrupt enough?" The "corruption snack" language strongly suggests you aren't really interested in changing your mind even if such evidence could be provided.

welcome to hn

Re: US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology

#320

Post by kennywinker »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #288
kennywinker wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If the only content of your post is sarcasm, please stick to Reddit. We like to stick to facts and reality here. The sky is blue. See? I posted a fact. My comment is fully valid and you can't say anything about it. Oh? It's irrelevant to the topic? It may be too subtle for you, but I was actually making the point that the surveillance panopticon theory was mostly triggered by the fact that Flock is cloud-based. I'm b…

My post contains only the thinnest crust of sarcasm, the rest is fact based content.

Ex lovers (using flock): https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article29105...

Protestors (using flock): https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flo...

Union organizers (not using flock): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/21/amaz...

https://fedscoop.com/social-media-ai-surveillance-unions-sta...

Journalists (not using flock): https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/source-leaked-documen...

Examples using flock are directly applicable, examples not using flock require a little bit of imagination to see that if they are not currently happening, they will be soon.

And a bonus i didn’t mention a woman leaving the state to obtain a legal abortion: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/te...

Post reply on HN