14 ms·

Flock Safety is the biggest player in a city-by-city scramble for surveillance

115 points by apwheele 2y ago

sleepskeptic 2y ago
The scary thing is it records video. They now have your driving habits, and so do any cop in the US & Canada.
mococa 2y ago
About 33 years ago, the band Death was already discussing the end of privacy in their song '1000 Eyes'. https://oldtimemusic.com/the-meaning-behind-the-song-1000-eyes-by-death/ https://oldtimemusic.com/the-meaning-behind-the-song-1000-ey...
- n4r9 2y ago
  It looks like the 1920s sci fi novel "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin is one of the earliest explorations of mass surveillance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)
DavidPeiffer 2y ago
This is an ever expanding privacy concern. It's tough to locate all of the cameras, but I would be interested in a routing system built in OpenStreetMap which would avoid road segments containing the cameras.
- kotaKat 2y ago
  Private businesses are starting to get them, too. Lowes has been deploying them over the past year or so as part of loss prevention upgrades apparently, so they're feeding the Flock, so to say.
  - DavidPeiffer 2y ago
    I noticed one outside of my local Lowes a couple weeks ago. My city has deployed a number of them, including one less than a mile from my house. It's one thing for a business to install security cameras to locally monitor their premises, but the low cost and scale this is being deployed at is terrifying.
    - kotaKat 2y ago
      The best part is they're willing to grift people to shill it to their local homeowners association to deploy them privately! for a whole $50. https://www.flocksafety.com/refer-hoa-board https://www.flocksafety.com/refer-hoa-board
- heroprotagonist 2y ago
  You literally couldn't go anywhere, at this point. At least, not very far. A mile or two maybe, in a rural area? A decade ago, maybe you could avoid being tracked if you took only back roads in the country and avoided towns and cities. But now every house you pass with some private security system or vendor in it (in addition to all of the other sources, plus those set up on roadways) is reporting back to someone, and they're selling either the raw video or the processed data. Lots of people reading this probably subscribe to such a system and don't even know that they're contributing through whatever private system they or the property they reside in are using, because it's buried and obscured under ridiculously vague terms about third-party data sharing vendors. This article has done the disservice of making it seem like a single company expanding over a few years in an otherwise empty market. But it's not an empty market, it's just a new player gaining share as commodity-level tech matures.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
[flagged]
- kotaKat 2y ago
  https://www.cehrp.org/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera/ https://www.cehrp.org/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera/ There's a BIG ol 202Wh 10.8v lithium ion battery in there. The camera's also just a generic 5mp CSI camera hooked into a daughterboard that has a Lantronix OpenQ 624A SOM on it. IIRC... Android, of some kind.
- starky 2y ago
  No it doesn't, there is maybe a few grams of copper between the wiring and PCBAs in the devices. Majority of the weight is going to be cast aluminum (nearly worthless), plastic, and glass.
jesprenj 2y ago
Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article286920890.html http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/articl..." on this server. Reference #18.7517655f.1714571129.4034487 https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.7517655f.1714571129.4034487 https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.7517655f.1714571129.4034487
heroprotagonist 2y ago
I don't disagree that it's bad, but this article seems to give the impression that this is new. TLO (owned by TransUnion since 2014) has been selling this stuff since the 2000s. Basically, assume any parking lot or other surveillance camera you come across is reporting back either the raw data itself or the processed data, like which license plate has been seen. Even the tiny mom-and-pop's, through some deal with either their (or whoever they lease property from's) surveillance or software provider. And it's regularly been abused by bad actors among debt collectors, private investigators, police, and background check companies selling their access. Like to amateur rap crews from North Carolina, in this example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/10/12/how-an-amateur-rap-crew-stole-surveillance-tech-that-tracks-almost-every-american/?sh=72ec542f50f1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/10/12/how-a... So.. yeah, call attention to the practice and the fact it's expanding, that more and more companies are gaining and selling the data. But it minimizes the scope and scale of the problem to focus on one relatively new company's actions over the course of a few years.
whoomp12342 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
chzblck 2y ago
Whats the issue? police using for nefarious deeds that they get caught and fired for like in the article? or is it people think that privacy is a right but then have 10+ apps on their phone that track every movement they make?
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  People don't "think" that privacy is a right, it quite literally is a right thanks to the Supreme Court back in 1965. Plus, I downloaded those apps on my own accord. You act like we have a choice when it comes to stuff like this.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  This is a novel argument. Now it's not: "If you don't want to be tracked, don't have 10+ apps on your phone that will track you." It's become: "Well, you probably have 10+ apps on your phone that track you, why would you care about any other violation of your personal space or privacy?" The pretense of volition has been completely removed. You will not be allowed to participate in the modern world unless you give up some of your privacy; and if you give up some of your privacy in order to participate in the modern world, you aren't allowed to complain about giving up the rest of your privacy for any reason at all. If you really cared about privacy, you'd stop working, stop living in a building, stop paying taxes, stop living in a city, stop driving, stop walking down the sidewalk, keep your face covered, keep your mouth shut, and die in a ditch.
voidUpdate 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
_chu1 2y ago
Why is this legal? Who allows this? What do we do?
- kibwen 2y ago
  Regulation to protect privacy is the only solution. Otherwise, the market will only accelerate the exploitation of your personal data in the pursuit of maximum profit.
  - tevon 2y ago
    How is your license plate on public land your personal data?
    - digging 2y ago
      Sure your license plate number is public, but selling the geolocation history of said license plate may cross a legal boundary. (Or it may not, but it certainly should.)
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Recording people in public spaces is generally legal. Should it be unlawful to record your front porch? That'd implicate Ring and a whole bunch of other products. How about setting up a camera on your windowsill pointing out towards the street?
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    That's what laws are for, for us to decide if actions that are technically possible should be legally possible. Many products exist because of leaks in existing laws around privacy; maybe we tighten those laws up? That's the point of the discussion. In this case, a private company is creating a dystopian dragnet of personal travel information that is a function of the population travel volume that its devices cover. If the right to privacy arrived at from this discussion kills a product line or a business, oh well. Human rights > profits, broadly speaking. "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
rbranson 2y ago
https://archive.is/XRoZ1 https://archive.is/XRoZ1
toomuchtodo 2y ago
https://www.muckrock.com/foi/list/?page=1&per_page=100&q=flock https://www.muckrock.com/foi/list/?page=1&per_page=100&q=flo... ("Muckrock: Flock Safety FOIA Requests") Feel free to spin up a FOIA request for your local jurisdiction using previous requests as a template.
Giorgi 2y ago
I am surprised police dep actually paid for that, where I live, they would just show up and take any kind of access for free.
JLCarveth 2y ago
Is there an issue with the title? I don't see what Claude has to do with this article...
alxjsn 2y ago
Why is the title "Claude Team plan and iOS app"? Did this submission get renamed incorrectly?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
krunck 2y ago
Government uses private entities to get around the constitution. Private entities use the government to get around regulation. Same as it ever was.
- gnicholas 2y ago
  I'm curious what constitutional provision you think is being violated. I get the ick factor, but as a lawyer I'm not sure what you're getting at.
  - flawsofar 2y ago
    Something can be unconstitutional if it indirectly but intentionally stifles e.g. right to demonstrate against an administration known to use violence against protesters.
  - voakbasda 2y ago
    Illegal search and seizure?
    - infecto 2y ago
      In most jurisdictions is there a notion of privacy while in public spaces? Since the article is about the US and NC I am referring to US only.
      - UncleEntity 2y ago
        There is a notion that the government has to justify their intrusions on the privacy of the public as we are a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". Setting up security camera at a public park to investigate crimes: OK Setting up security camera at a public park to track citizens through facial recognition: Not OK
        infecto 2y ago
        Back to my point, I don't believe these cameras are illegal in the majority of jurisdictions.
Kilonzus 2y ago
Hm very strange the title did have to do with Flock Safety when it was first posted and now is referencing Claude not sure of user error or something to do with hacker news. I’ll put a tin foil hat on for just a second, Flock Safety is a graduate of Y Combinator so maybe the misnaming is not as innocent as it may seem? My 2 cents: I live in the Atlanta metro and it’s crazy just how much Flock has permeated communities. From main streets to small neighborhoods flock safety cameras are in use everywhere, it is off putting. I’m not sure if HOAs are the ones OKing them or if it’s the city but having a private corporation able to run cameras that read plates and can potentially surveil home consistently seems like undue erosion of privacy
- kotaKat 2y ago
  Ah yes, I went Flock-spotting through the Atlanta suburbs. HOAs are encouraged to buy them. As long as you've got the $2500-per-camera-per-year ($208/mo) for their all-inclusive package, you too can adopt your own little invasion of privacy by the roadside. Which also means... I know I'd really be pissed if I was stuck helping foot the bill for an entire gander of them when the HOA dues come in...
- dang 2y ago
  It was a misclick.
tkems 2y ago
One of the Flock cameras was installed in my city nearby where I live. Once I noticed it, I thought it was a red light camera at first since it was near an intersection. I did some research on them and found that they are completely wireless (cellular network most of the time) and powered by a 65w solar panel. Since they capture every license plate that passes by, I wasn't thrilled it was a private company keeping the data, even if they say they only keep it for 30 days. I did a FOIA request with my city to see how many are in use and their locations to share with my community. I also plan on asking why my city thinks it is a good use of tax dollars. I think it should be a requirement for cities to disclose their use since it is a private company installing private equipment (and a camera at that!) on public land to monitor the public.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Flock got introduced to my municipality (Oak Park, IL) when OPPD was able to use data from a neighboring muni (it may have been Chicago, I forget which) to work back on an incident. OPPD had (has) authority to make arbitrary technology acquisitions so long as they're under a fixed cost (I believe $20k) --- this is a common arrangement in area munis, and maybe around the country --- which, if you're a product manager at Flock, gives you a trivial and effective game plan: go close deals to get <$20k pilot deployments up and running, and then work on expanding them. The problem you have if Flock squicks you out is that you're not a normie. Flock's pitch to normies is incredibly compelling. Flock theoretically lights up any time a stolen car drives into your muni; stolen cars are a primary vector for crimes (here, especially: carjacking, but also thefts, burglaries, etc). The data it collects is shareable only, and with consent, to other law enforcement agencies. It records make/model/color/plate, but no other direct identifying information. Assume for the moment that it all works as advertised, and it's on paper a weird capability to push back on your local police having. Our own OPPD messed up acquiring Flock. I think they tried to skip the pilot, and go straight to a muni-wide rollout, which required board approval. That blindsided the board. Instead of rubber-stamping it as expected, the board kicked it out to the technology and police oversight (CPOC) citizens commissions. I serve on one of those. Here's what we came up with: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v_sko3OljbZUEbcZbv_L9q9zL0YdPE0xEAi4W6CPZSc/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v_sko3OljbZUEbcZbv_L9q9z... What we ended up getting: * A negotiated special-purpose police general order governing use of Flock, limiting it to violent crime, and installing procedural safeguards (most notably: a monthly readout to CPOC on Flock hits). * A rollback down to 8 cameras from 20+. * A one-year review of how Flock went. The glaring hole left open: we have no direct public input on which munis we share Flock data with. A year later, the monthly readouts to CPOC were FOIA'd and published, and the results are in: overwhelmingly, Flock stops in Oak Park were not responsive to crimes in Oak Park, but rather had OPPD doing warrants enforcement work for neighboring munis. Worse: the premise of Flock, that we could plug into regional hot-lists of stolen cars and cordon Oak Park off from them, turned out to be terribly flawed: the CPD hot-list is full of bullshit reports or recovered cars never cleared, so we were regularly pulling random innocent people over. The Flock technology worked fine! But the municipal systems it depends just aren't ready to safely use it. The big thing coming off Flock for us is ACLU's CCOPS model ordinance, which adds mandatory board review for any surveillance technology (broadly defined in the ordinance). We worked for 4-5 months getting it prepped for the board, which has counsel drafting a local enacting ordinance; I'm optimistic we'll get it this year. CCOPS is something any muni can get; it's a good pitch, with something for a lot of different constituencies to like. I think the "private company monitoring public land" thing is an argument that carries a lot of weight on Twitter and HN, but my experience in (our own specific) local politics is that it's a good way to get people to look at you like a Martian.
juris 2y ago
XD so would it be illegal to blast IR to cover your plate specifically tuned to these cameras if they are private domain?
baggy_trough 2y ago
These have been deployed in my neighborhood, and I'm very happy with that. It's the best technique the police have to catch home burglars, of which there are an ever increasing number, I believe due to soft on crime policies.
cm2012 2y ago
Huge huge fan of increased surveillance in public places. The reason is that it's pretty well proven that likelihood of getting caught for crimes is much better at deterrence than severity of sentence. By enforcing crimes more consistently, we can actually reduce incarceration.
- svieira 2y ago
  And I am a huge opponent of it because anything that can be used to track criminals can be used to track everyone. And if everyone is a criminal (imagine the-other-guy getting control of the system) then you are not actually deterring anyone, simply ensuring that whoever-is-on-the-outside is going to get the law coming down on them hard while whoever-is-on-the-inside will get let go in spite of direct evidence of their misdeeds being streamed to the cloud 24x7x365.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    [flagged]
- infecto 2y ago
  I am in a similar boat. I appreciate that there is opposition so that we can keep a balance but I am pro surveillance as well. There is potential for abuse but I also recognize that as a regions population increases, sometimes you have to conform to things to create a stable society. I would love a national ID that I could use everywhere. Again ripe for abuse but I can see the benefits outweighing the negatives.
  - itsanaccount 2y ago
    I believe in people getting exactly the government they deserve. Just so long as its regionally voted for (which excludes national ID), you should definitely go and live there. I myself will stay far away from any Leopards Eating People's Faces Party areas and their "stable society."
    - 2y ago
zachmu 2y ago
Very cool company, now involved in solving 10% of reported crime in the US. They use DoltDB to version control their machine learning feature store: https://www.dolthub.com/blog/2024-03-07-dolt-flock/ https://www.dolthub.com/blog/2024-03-07-dolt-flock/
- apwheele 2y ago
  OP for sharing this on hackernews (and I talked to Tyler Dukes a bit about this). I think ALPR's are good investments, but having more rigorous standards in place for when people can do searches is necessary. There are rules for when you can run a criminal history background in states I am familiar with (that are policy set, so less rigorous than a warrant), that I think should be applied the same for searching license plates without too much friction for law enforcement. I think Flock has a good product (and ditto I think Dolt is neat!) But that said, this 10% metric is so ridiculous it rises to the level I need to make a comment. Imagine I did something to decrease crime by 10% in two cities, and then went and made a claim like "I decreased crime 10% in the US" -- this is Flock's claim. (The study to get the 10% clearance estimate is crazy bad as well, but this 10% of solved crimes in US is such a bizarro projection to the entire US it is inarguable as to its absurdity).
  - zachmu 2y ago
    I will admit I'm just repeating their claim unskeptically :)
ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
The 10% of crimes (700k+ total) being solved in part due to Flock is insane. I'm guessing they couldn't make this claim if it wasn't at least partly true, and they already include the caveat of 'solved' so it's not just 'tips'. Truly impressive honestly, for a company started in 2017 to have that much of an impact.
- advisedwang 2y ago
  I think it's foolish to take a company's marketing claims at face value. Do not trust them to be accurately representing what is "solved". Do not trust them as to what "solved in part due to Flock" means. Frankly I suspect all this means is they served up a location hit to X requests, and they have a crime stat somehwere that says Y crimes have occurred. X/Y = 10%. Woo, what heros.
  - ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
    Could be, I'm skeptical as well, but as I said they already added the caveat of 'solved' in their claim. Anyways here's their own post about how they came to that conclusion for anyone who cares to read. https://www.flocksafety.com/resources/how-many-crimes-do-automated-license-plate-readers-alprs-solve-anyway#:~:text=Applying%20this%20framework%20to%20all,10%25%20of%20reported%20crime%20nationwide https://www.flocksafety.com/resources/how-many-crimes-do-aut....
advisedwang 2y ago
The SCALE of the surveillance is really the important thing. Many comments here correctly point out that you don't have an expectation of privacy in public. But that rule was really created envisioning the occasional person observing the occasional person/act/event. Even a cop tailing you is so expensive that its not deployed everywhere. The rule did not anticipate a system where every person is observed all the time. This is a situation where "quantity has a quality all of it's own". Mass surveillance needs to be held to higher standard than regular public observation.
- pixl97 2y ago
  This is why we need the DRONES Act. That is all politicians should be followed and recorded drone mounted cameras any time they are on public property or viewable from public property.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Most of the comments here are against the use of cameras to monitor public spaces. But how else is society supposed to deal with crime while limiting expense on police officers, detectives, prosecutors, and all that? Surveillance and AI powered surveillance (with human verification) seems like a good way to track and identify and capture criminals. I definitely think there should be some regulation to protect the data, require probable cause, warrants, or whatever - but I don’t think banning it is the right answer either. Unless we are willing to become harsher on crime in other ways to deter it.
- linuxftw 2y ago
  The problem is the 'crime' and not the actual crime. Like being around the capitol building Jan 6 2021.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    How many people were arrested for peacefully being "around" the Capitol building?
denimnerd42 2y ago
A shopping center nearby uses flock to "ticket" and fine employees that park in residential streets (which creates bad relations with neighbors) instead of the designated remote parking. I guess part of the lease/employment agreement states the proper directions or fine will be incurred. An employee drives around in a golf cart with an app/website/scanner/not sure. I know they use Flock though because it's been mentioned in community zoning meetings w/ regards to their expansion efforts. Kind of interesting you can pay for a private service which will uncloak license plates. I wonder how much it is as I'd love to uncloak neighborhood speeders too.
flawsofar 2y ago
Why not just name your company Freedom Surveillance while you’re at it
greentxt 2y ago
In the long run this will enable more crime than it deters. If I have a target I could determine where they are at all times, what they do, train models on their behavior and get social network info, etc… I’m sure the claim will be that the system is secure and not easy for criminals to use for criminal purposes but everyone here knows or should know that’s a falsehood. It cannot be secured and will be used by adversaries against law abiding citizens.
- chabons 2y ago
  I really doubt this would be how things play out. Most crime isn't sophisticated or targeted. The same argument can be made about internet-connected security cameras in general, that they could allow for remotely casing a potential target, and they're generally considered to be a deterrent, and not an enabler of crime.
  - greentxt 2y ago
    Good point but apples and oranges. It’s the centralization of all the information that makes the technology useful for both the good guys and also for the bad guys. Surely there are no cases where those in positions of authority misuse that authority to target people(1)? 1. https://www.foxla.com/news/la-county-assistant-da-charged-with-mishandling-protected-information https://www.foxla.com/news/la-county-assistant-da-charged-wi...
JudasGoat 2y ago
Seeing as many modern cars have camera arrays. I wonder if an auto manufacturer could sell access to their camera network to "authorities" as a more effective surveillance application?
narrator 2y ago
Kind of feels like they are implementing China like full blow AI surveillance state here, and just waiting to flip the switch on it. They probably have all the bills sitting in a drawer somewhere for the next pandemic or whatever the heck happens that justifies emergency measures.
coolsuds420 2y ago
[flagged]

115 points by apwheele 2y ago

The scary thing is it records video. They now have your driving habits, and so do any cop in the US & Canada.

About 33 years ago, the band Death was already discussing the end of privacy in their song '1000 Eyes'. https://oldtimemusic.com/the-meaning-behind-the-song-1000-eyes-by-death/ https://oldtimemusic.com/the-meaning-behind-the-song-1000-ey...

n4r9 2y ago
It looks like the 1920s sci fi novel "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin is one of the earliest explorations of mass surveillance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)

DavidPeiffer 2y ago

This is an ever expanding privacy concern. It's tough to locate all of the cameras, but I would be interested in a routing system built in OpenStreetMap which would avoid road segments containing the cameras.

kotaKat 2y ago
Private businesses are starting to get them, too. Lowes has been deploying them over the past year or so as part of loss prevention upgrades apparently, so they're feeding the Flock, so to say.
- DavidPeiffer 2y ago
  I noticed one outside of my local Lowes a couple weeks ago. My city has deployed a number of them, including one less than a mile from my house. It's one thing for a business to install security cameras to locally monitor their premises, but the low cost and scale this is being deployed at is terrifying.
  - kotaKat 2y ago
    The best part is they're willing to grift people to shill it to their local homeowners association to deploy them privately! for a whole $50. https://www.flocksafety.com/refer-hoa-board https://www.flocksafety.com/refer-hoa-board
heroprotagonist 2y ago
You literally couldn't go anywhere, at this point. At least, not very far. A mile or two maybe, in a rural area? A decade ago, maybe you could avoid being tracked if you took only back roads in the country and avoided towns and cities. But now every house you pass with some private security system or vendor in it (in addition to all of the other sources, plus those set up on roadways) is reporting back to someone, and they're selling either the raw video or the processed data. Lots of people reading this probably subscribe to such a system and don't even know that they're contributing through whatever private system they or the property they reside in are using, because it's buried and obscured under ridiculously vague terms about third-party data sharing vendors. This article has done the disservice of making it seem like a single company expanding over a few years in an otherwise empty market. But it's not an empty market, it's just a new player gaining share as commodity-level tech matures.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

[flagged]

kotaKat 2y ago
https://www.cehrp.org/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera/ https://www.cehrp.org/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera/ There's a BIG ol 202Wh 10.8v lithium ion battery in there. The camera's also just a generic 5mp CSI camera hooked into a daughterboard that has a Lantronix OpenQ 624A SOM on it. IIRC... Android, of some kind.
starky 2y ago
No it doesn't, there is maybe a few grams of copper between the wiring and PCBAs in the devices. Majority of the weight is going to be cast aluminum (nearly worthless), plastic, and glass.

jesprenj 2y ago

Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article286920890.html http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/articl..." on this server. Reference #18.7517655f.1714571129.4034487 https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.7517655f.1714571129.4034487 https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.7517655f.1714571129.4034487

heroprotagonist 2y ago

I don't disagree that it's bad, but this article seems to give the impression that this is new. TLO (owned by TransUnion since 2014) has been selling this stuff since the 2000s. Basically, assume any parking lot or other surveillance camera you come across is reporting back either the raw data itself or the processed data, like which license plate has been seen. Even the tiny mom-and-pop's, through some deal with either their (or whoever they lease property from's) surveillance or software provider. And it's regularly been abused by bad actors among debt collectors, private investigators, police, and background check companies selling their access. Like to amateur rap crews from North Carolina, in this example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/10/12/how-an-amateur-rap-crew-stole-surveillance-tech-that-tracks-almost-every-american/?sh=72ec542f50f1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/10/12/how-a... So.. yeah, call attention to the practice and the fact it's expanding, that more and more companies are gaining and selling the data. But it minimizes the scope and scale of the problem to focus on one relatively new company's actions over the course of a few years.

whoomp12342 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

chzblck 2y ago

Whats the issue? police using for nefarious deeds that they get caught and fired for like in the article? or is it people think that privacy is a right but then have 10+ apps on their phone that track every movement they make?

notaustinpowers 2y ago
People don't "think" that privacy is a right, it quite literally is a right thanks to the Supreme Court back in 1965. Plus, I downloaded those apps on my own accord. You act like we have a choice when it comes to stuff like this.
pessimizer 2y ago
This is a novel argument. Now it's not: "If you don't want to be tracked, don't have 10+ apps on your phone that will track you." It's become: "Well, you probably have 10+ apps on your phone that track you, why would you care about any other violation of your personal space or privacy?" The pretense of volition has been completely removed. You will not be allowed to participate in the modern world unless you give up some of your privacy; and if you give up some of your privacy in order to participate in the modern world, you aren't allowed to complain about giving up the rest of your privacy for any reason at all. If you really cared about privacy, you'd stop working, stop living in a building, stop paying taxes, stop living in a city, stop driving, stop walking down the sidewalk, keep your face covered, keep your mouth shut, and die in a ditch.

voidUpdate 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

_chu1 2y ago

Why is this legal? Who allows this? What do we do?

kibwen 2y ago
Regulation to protect privacy is the only solution. Otherwise, the market will only accelerate the exploitation of your personal data in the pursuit of maximum profit.
- tevon 2y ago
  How is your license plate on public land your personal data?
  - digging 2y ago
    Sure your license plate number is public, but selling the geolocation history of said license plate may cross a legal boundary. (Or it may not, but it certainly should.)
Manuel_D 2y ago
Recording people in public spaces is generally legal. Should it be unlawful to record your front porch? That'd implicate Ring and a whole bunch of other products. How about setting up a camera on your windowsill pointing out towards the street?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  That's what laws are for, for us to decide if actions that are technically possible should be legally possible. Many products exist because of leaks in existing laws around privacy; maybe we tighten those laws up? That's the point of the discussion. In this case, a private company is creating a dystopian dragnet of personal travel information that is a function of the population travel volume that its devices cover. If the right to privacy arrived at from this discussion kills a product line or a business, oh well. Human rights > profits, broadly speaking. "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

rbranson 2y ago

https://archive.is/XRoZ1 https://archive.is/XRoZ1

toomuchtodo 2y ago

https://www.muckrock.com/foi/list/?page=1&per_page=100&q=flock https://www.muckrock.com/foi/list/?page=1&per_page=100&q=flo... ("Muckrock: Flock Safety FOIA Requests") Feel free to spin up a FOIA request for your local jurisdiction using previous requests as a template.

Giorgi 2y ago

I am surprised police dep actually paid for that, where I live, they would just show up and take any kind of access for free.

JLCarveth 2y ago

Is there an issue with the title? I don't see what Claude has to do with this article...

alxjsn 2y ago

Why is the title "Claude Team plan and iOS app"? Did this submission get renamed incorrectly?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

krunck 2y ago

Government uses private entities to get around the constitution. Private entities use the government to get around regulation. Same as it ever was.

gnicholas 2y ago
I'm curious what constitutional provision you think is being violated. I get the ick factor, but as a lawyer I'm not sure what you're getting at.
- flawsofar 2y ago
  Something can be unconstitutional if it indirectly but intentionally stifles e.g. right to demonstrate against an administration known to use violence against protesters.
- voakbasda 2y ago
  Illegal search and seizure?
  - infecto 2y ago
    In most jurisdictions is there a notion of privacy while in public spaces? Since the article is about the US and NC I am referring to US only.
    - UncleEntity 2y ago
      There is a notion that the government has to justify their intrusions on the privacy of the public as we are a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". Setting up security camera at a public park to investigate crimes: OK Setting up security camera at a public park to track citizens through facial recognition: Not OK
      - infecto 2y ago
        Back to my point, I don't believe these cameras are illegal in the majority of jurisdictions.

Kilonzus 2y ago

Hm very strange the title did have to do with Flock Safety when it was first posted and now is referencing Claude not sure of user error or something to do with hacker news. I’ll put a tin foil hat on for just a second, Flock Safety is a graduate of Y Combinator so maybe the misnaming is not as innocent as it may seem? My 2 cents: I live in the Atlanta metro and it’s crazy just how much Flock has permeated communities. From main streets to small neighborhoods flock safety cameras are in use everywhere, it is off putting. I’m not sure if HOAs are the ones OKing them or if it’s the city but having a private corporation able to run cameras that read plates and can potentially surveil home consistently seems like undue erosion of privacy

kotaKat 2y ago
Ah yes, I went Flock-spotting through the Atlanta suburbs. HOAs are encouraged to buy them. As long as you've got the $2500-per-camera-per-year ($208/mo) for their all-inclusive package, you too can adopt your own little invasion of privacy by the roadside. Which also means... I know I'd really be pissed if I was stuck helping foot the bill for an entire gander of them when the HOA dues come in...
dang 2y ago
It was a misclick.

tkems 2y ago

One of the Flock cameras was installed in my city nearby where I live. Once I noticed it, I thought it was a red light camera at first since it was near an intersection. I did some research on them and found that they are completely wireless (cellular network most of the time) and powered by a 65w solar panel. Since they capture every license plate that passes by, I wasn't thrilled it was a private company keeping the data, even if they say they only keep it for 30 days. I did a FOIA request with my city to see how many are in use and their locations to share with my community. I also plan on asking why my city thinks it is a good use of tax dollars. I think it should be a requirement for cities to disclose their use since it is a private company installing private equipment (and a camera at that!) on public land to monitor the public.

tptacek 2y ago
Flock got introduced to my municipality (Oak Park, IL) when OPPD was able to use data from a neighboring muni (it may have been Chicago, I forget which) to work back on an incident. OPPD had (has) authority to make arbitrary technology acquisitions so long as they're under a fixed cost (I believe $20k) --- this is a common arrangement in area munis, and maybe around the country --- which, if you're a product manager at Flock, gives you a trivial and effective game plan: go close deals to get <$20k pilot deployments up and running, and then work on expanding them. The problem you have if Flock squicks you out is that you're not a normie. Flock's pitch to normies is incredibly compelling. Flock theoretically lights up any time a stolen car drives into your muni; stolen cars are a primary vector for crimes (here, especially: carjacking, but also thefts, burglaries, etc). The data it collects is shareable only, and with consent, to other law enforcement agencies. It records make/model/color/plate, but no other direct identifying information. Assume for the moment that it all works as advertised, and it's on paper a weird capability to push back on your local police having. Our own OPPD messed up acquiring Flock. I think they tried to skip the pilot, and go straight to a muni-wide rollout, which required board approval. That blindsided the board. Instead of rubber-stamping it as expected, the board kicked it out to the technology and police oversight (CPOC) citizens commissions. I serve on one of those. Here's what we came up with: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v_sko3OljbZUEbcZbv_L9q9zL0YdPE0xEAi4W6CPZSc/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v_sko3OljbZUEbcZbv_L9q9z... What we ended up getting: * A negotiated special-purpose police general order governing use of Flock, limiting it to violent crime, and installing procedural safeguards (most notably: a monthly readout to CPOC on Flock hits). * A rollback down to 8 cameras from 20+. * A one-year review of how Flock went. The glaring hole left open: we have no direct public input on which munis we share Flock data with. A year later, the monthly readouts to CPOC were FOIA'd and published, and the results are in: overwhelmingly, Flock stops in Oak Park were not responsive to crimes in Oak Park, but rather had OPPD doing warrants enforcement work for neighboring munis. Worse: the premise of Flock, that we could plug into regional hot-lists of stolen cars and cordon Oak Park off from them, turned out to be terribly flawed: the CPD hot-list is full of bullshit reports or recovered cars never cleared, so we were regularly pulling random innocent people over. The Flock technology worked fine! But the municipal systems it depends just aren't ready to safely use it. The big thing coming off Flock for us is ACLU's CCOPS model ordinance, which adds mandatory board review for any surveillance technology (broadly defined in the ordinance). We worked for 4-5 months getting it prepped for the board, which has counsel drafting a local enacting ordinance; I'm optimistic we'll get it this year. CCOPS is something any muni can get; it's a good pitch, with something for a lot of different constituencies to like. I think the "private company monitoring public land" thing is an argument that carries a lot of weight on Twitter and HN, but my experience in (our own specific) local politics is that it's a good way to get people to look at you like a Martian.

juris 2y ago

XD so would it be illegal to blast IR to cover your plate specifically tuned to these cameras if they are private domain?

baggy_trough 2y ago

These have been deployed in my neighborhood, and I'm very happy with that. It's the best technique the police have to catch home burglars, of which there are an ever increasing number, I believe due to soft on crime policies.

cm2012 2y ago

Huge huge fan of increased surveillance in public places. The reason is that it's pretty well proven that likelihood of getting caught for crimes is much better at deterrence than severity of sentence. By enforcing crimes more consistently, we can actually reduce incarceration.

svieira 2y ago
And I am a huge opponent of it because anything that can be used to track criminals can be used to track everyone. And if everyone is a criminal (imagine the-other-guy getting control of the system) then you are not actually deterring anyone, simply ensuring that whoever-is-on-the-outside is going to get the law coming down on them hard while whoever-is-on-the-inside will get let go in spite of direct evidence of their misdeeds being streamed to the cloud 24x7x365.
- pixl97 2y ago
  [flagged]
infecto 2y ago
I am in a similar boat. I appreciate that there is opposition so that we can keep a balance but I am pro surveillance as well. There is potential for abuse but I also recognize that as a regions population increases, sometimes you have to conform to things to create a stable society. I would love a national ID that I could use everywhere. Again ripe for abuse but I can see the benefits outweighing the negatives.
- itsanaccount 2y ago
  I believe in people getting exactly the government they deserve. Just so long as its regionally voted for (which excludes national ID), you should definitely go and live there. I myself will stay far away from any Leopards Eating People's Faces Party areas and their "stable society."
  - 2y ago

zachmu 2y ago

Very cool company, now involved in solving 10% of reported crime in the US. They use DoltDB to version control their machine learning feature store: https://www.dolthub.com/blog/2024-03-07-dolt-flock/ https://www.dolthub.com/blog/2024-03-07-dolt-flock/

apwheele 2y ago
OP for sharing this on hackernews (and I talked to Tyler Dukes a bit about this). I think ALPR's are good investments, but having more rigorous standards in place for when people can do searches is necessary. There are rules for when you can run a criminal history background in states I am familiar with (that are policy set, so less rigorous than a warrant), that I think should be applied the same for searching license plates without too much friction for law enforcement. I think Flock has a good product (and ditto I think Dolt is neat!) But that said, this 10% metric is so ridiculous it rises to the level I need to make a comment. Imagine I did something to decrease crime by 10% in two cities, and then went and made a claim like "I decreased crime 10% in the US" -- this is Flock's claim. (The study to get the 10% clearance estimate is crazy bad as well, but this 10% of solved crimes in US is such a bizarro projection to the entire US it is inarguable as to its absurdity).
- zachmu 2y ago
  I will admit I'm just repeating their claim unskeptically :)

ApolloFortyNine 2y ago

The 10% of crimes (700k+ total) being solved in part due to Flock is insane. I'm guessing they couldn't make this claim if it wasn't at least partly true, and they already include the caveat of 'solved' so it's not just 'tips'. Truly impressive honestly, for a company started in 2017 to have that much of an impact.

advisedwang 2y ago
I think it's foolish to take a company's marketing claims at face value. Do not trust them to be accurately representing what is "solved". Do not trust them as to what "solved in part due to Flock" means. Frankly I suspect all this means is they served up a location hit to X requests, and they have a crime stat somehwere that says Y crimes have occurred. X/Y = 10%. Woo, what heros.
- ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
  Could be, I'm skeptical as well, but as I said they already added the caveat of 'solved' in their claim. Anyways here's their own post about how they came to that conclusion for anyone who cares to read. https://www.flocksafety.com/resources/how-many-crimes-do-automated-license-plate-readers-alprs-solve-anyway#:~:text=Applying%20this%20framework%20to%20all,10%25%20of%20reported%20crime%20nationwide https://www.flocksafety.com/resources/how-many-crimes-do-aut....

advisedwang 2y ago

The SCALE of the surveillance is really the important thing. Many comments here correctly point out that you don't have an expectation of privacy in public. But that rule was really created envisioning the occasional person observing the occasional person/act/event. Even a cop tailing you is so expensive that its not deployed everywhere. The rule did not anticipate a system where every person is observed all the time. This is a situation where "quantity has a quality all of it's own". Mass surveillance needs to be held to higher standard than regular public observation.

pixl97 2y ago
This is why we need the DRONES Act. That is all politicians should be followed and recorded drone mounted cameras any time they are on public property or viewable from public property.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Most of the comments here are against the use of cameras to monitor public spaces. But how else is society supposed to deal with crime while limiting expense on police officers, detectives, prosecutors, and all that? Surveillance and AI powered surveillance (with human verification) seems like a good way to track and identify and capture criminals. I definitely think there should be some regulation to protect the data, require probable cause, warrants, or whatever - but I don’t think banning it is the right answer either. Unless we are willing to become harsher on crime in other ways to deter it.

linuxftw 2y ago
The problem is the 'crime' and not the actual crime. Like being around the capitol building Jan 6 2021.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  How many people were arrested for peacefully being "around" the Capitol building?

denimnerd42 2y ago

A shopping center nearby uses flock to "ticket" and fine employees that park in residential streets (which creates bad relations with neighbors) instead of the designated remote parking. I guess part of the lease/employment agreement states the proper directions or fine will be incurred. An employee drives around in a golf cart with an app/website/scanner/not sure. I know they use Flock though because it's been mentioned in community zoning meetings w/ regards to their expansion efforts. Kind of interesting you can pay for a private service which will uncloak license plates. I wonder how much it is as I'd love to uncloak neighborhood speeders too.

flawsofar 2y ago

Why not just name your company Freedom Surveillance while you’re at it

greentxt 2y ago

In the long run this will enable more crime than it deters. If I have a target I could determine where they are at all times, what they do, train models on their behavior and get social network info, etc… I’m sure the claim will be that the system is secure and not easy for criminals to use for criminal purposes but everyone here knows or should know that’s a falsehood. It cannot be secured and will be used by adversaries against law abiding citizens.

chabons 2y ago
I really doubt this would be how things play out. Most crime isn't sophisticated or targeted. The same argument can be made about internet-connected security cameras in general, that they could allow for remotely casing a potential target, and they're generally considered to be a deterrent, and not an enabler of crime.
- greentxt 2y ago
  Good point but apples and oranges. It’s the centralization of all the information that makes the technology useful for both the good guys and also for the bad guys. Surely there are no cases where those in positions of authority misuse that authority to target people(1)? 1. https://www.foxla.com/news/la-county-assistant-da-charged-with-mishandling-protected-information https://www.foxla.com/news/la-county-assistant-da-charged-wi...

JudasGoat 2y ago

Seeing as many modern cars have camera arrays. I wonder if an auto manufacturer could sell access to their camera network to "authorities" as a more effective surveillance application?

narrator 2y ago

Kind of feels like they are implementing China like full blow AI surveillance state here, and just waiting to flip the switch on it. They probably have all the bills sitting in a drawer somewhere for the next pandemic or whatever the heck happens that justifies emergency measures.

coolsuds420 2y ago

[flagged]