5 ms·

Here in Austin, the city council no longer allows Flock ALPR's (automated license plate readers) on city streets, but Home Depot and other businesses still use

Here in Austin, the city council no longer allows Flock ALPR's (automated license plate readers) on city streets, but Home Depot and other businesses still use them in their parking lots, and they scan your vehicle license plate every time you enter and exit the premises. Flock sells its data to ICE and law enforcement.

garrettlangley 11mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- CharlesW 11mo ago
  Correct. Flock sells cameras and platform access, but gives data from their shared, nationwide surveillance utility to ICE and law enforcement. https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachus... https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-... https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-com...
  - tptacek 11mo ago
    I don't like that this is the case, but you understand that a pretty huge fraction of the country doesn't share your set of political premises that providing data for immigration enforcement is unethical, right? (I do, but that shouldn't matter for the analysis.) It seems weird to me to hyperfocus on Flock's role here rather than the role your own local municipalities play in deciding how to configure these things. Not sharing with ICE is apparently quite doable? At least to the point of requiring a court order to get access to the data, which is a vulnerability all online cameras share. Later s/company/country, thanks for the correction!
    - akerl_ 11mo ago
      Did you mean country?
  - potato3732842 11mo ago
    >but gives data from their shared, nationwide surveillance utility to ICE and law enforcement I don't think anyone with a network like that can not "give" the contents to the feds for very long without drawing ire.
    - queenkjuul 11mo ago
      Ah yeah the poor businessmen, god forbid they draw ire. Much better to just act unethically.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
- notrealyme123 11mo ago
  that's an odly specific answer.
  - loeg 11mo ago
    Seems like a broad dismissal of the claim made upthread ("Flock sells its data to ICE and law enforcement"). Why do you think it is excessively specific?
    - array_key_first 11mo ago
      Because the specific part here is selling the data and them doing it. Flock does not sell data, they willingly give it away for free. And, technically, they don't do it - their customers do, and Flock knows and lets them. Personally, in my view, this is worse. But they don't specifically sell data.
      - loeg 11mo ago
        I think complaints about real things make a more persuasive argument than, you know, falsehoods.
        array_key_first 11mo ago
        Being right on a technicality doesnt mean that everyone else is lying. We are not stupid, we were not born yesterday: we all understand that "selling data" does not literally mean exchanging money for data. It can also mean treating data haphazardly, or having a culture of extreme data collection. Both of which describe flock.
        loeg 11mo ago
        It's not a "technicality!" diogenes_atx made a very specific, false claim. Don't do that! > we all understand that "selling data" does not literally mean exchanging money for data. You're completely wrong there. That is exactly what it means. If what you mean is lax security practices, or collecting data in general, just say that. There's really no need to bend over backwards to defend this.
- throwaway101012 11mo ago
  [dead]
- y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
  As the CEO of Flock, don't you feel you have more information to offer this community outside of the "we do not sell data" statement you've made over and over? The fact that you do not engage here in the ethical aspects of your product doesn't look good for you and only deepens suspicion that something darker is going on behind your doors.
  - garrettlangley 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - s5300 11mo ago
      [dead]
    - y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
      The comment adjacent to mine links to several findings, including from the EFF, demonstrating doubt on your assertions here. Specifically the case of Texas using Flock data outside of their jurisdiction (on a national level even) to use against abortion seekers. You have no substantial comments to make on those or any of the other active discussions that have spawned on this platform over the past year? You're obviously reading them, yet you only remain "consistent" on a technicality. What steps is Flock taking to address the privacy overreach? Do you have data sharing agreements with Palantir? If so, do they respect the same geofencing properties that your clients supposedly have full control over?
      - tptacek 11mo ago
        He's not arguing that the data isn't shared. He's saying that they don't sell it. Local PDs generally want to share their data with other law enforcement agencies.
        y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
        That is irrelevant to my comment. Yes, it's abundantly clear what he's saying, he's said it so many times already, I don't need to read it again. I'm asking why he's not contributing more to the actual discussions surrounding his product instead.
- ncr100 11mo ago
  Royal we. This is part of the problem with Flock, IMO. Lack of adherence to or support of norms. Psychopathy actualized as a corporation. The societal impact of disruption of trust, of personal privacy, is under-appreciated by the corporation. It's concerned with winning profit. (Meta) It's an inspecific argument I'm lazily laying out, yes, however the problem is ridiculously obvious. We should not have to ask to be respected, and here we are. Democratic decline (both the systems and participation in), truth, self respect/understanding of one's own rights ... those qualities are dying at the relentless toxic, ethically under-explored capitalization of our laws and resources. (Especially USA, compare to corporate social responsibility countries, I suspect) Tech disruption is amazing to watch, and participate in, like a fire consuming the forest. "But what about the children?"
wldcordeiro 11mo ago
Plus they'll position them close to an intersection in the parking lot of a business so they can get around something like the restriction Austin put in.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > they'll position them close to an intersection Does Flock control where the cameras are positioned?

garrettlangley 11mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
CharlesW 11mo ago
Correct. Flock sells cameras and platform access, but gives data from their shared, nationwide surveillance utility to ICE and law enforcement. https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachus... https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/ https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-... https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-com...
- tptacek 11mo ago
  I don't like that this is the case, but you understand that a pretty huge fraction of the country doesn't share your set of political premises that providing data for immigration enforcement is unethical, right? (I do, but that shouldn't matter for the analysis.) It seems weird to me to hyperfocus on Flock's role here rather than the role your own local municipalities play in deciding how to configure these things. Not sharing with ICE is apparently quite doable? At least to the point of requiring a court order to get access to the data, which is a vulnerability all online cameras share. Later s/company/country, thanks for the correction!
  - akerl_ 11mo ago
    Did you mean country?
- potato3732842 11mo ago
  >but gives data from their shared, nationwide surveillance utility to ICE and law enforcement I don't think anyone with a network like that can not "give" the contents to the feds for very long without drawing ire.
  - queenkjuul 11mo ago
    Ah yeah the poor businessmen, god forbid they draw ire. Much better to just act unethically.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
notrealyme123 11mo ago
that's an odly specific answer.
- loeg 11mo ago
  Seems like a broad dismissal of the claim made upthread ("Flock sells its data to ICE and law enforcement"). Why do you think it is excessively specific?
  - array_key_first 11mo ago
    Because the specific part here is selling the data and them doing it. Flock does not sell data, they willingly give it away for free. And, technically, they don't do it - their customers do, and Flock knows and lets them. Personally, in my view, this is worse. But they don't specifically sell data.
    - loeg 11mo ago
      I think complaints about real things make a more persuasive argument than, you know, falsehoods.
      - array_key_first 11mo ago
        Being right on a technicality doesnt mean that everyone else is lying. We are not stupid, we were not born yesterday: we all understand that "selling data" does not literally mean exchanging money for data. It can also mean treating data haphazardly, or having a culture of extreme data collection. Both of which describe flock.
        loeg 11mo ago
        It's not a "technicality!" diogenes_atx made a very specific, false claim. Don't do that! > we all understand that "selling data" does not literally mean exchanging money for data. You're completely wrong there. That is exactly what it means. If what you mean is lax security practices, or collecting data in general, just say that. There's really no need to bend over backwards to defend this.
throwaway101012 11mo ago
[dead]
y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
As the CEO of Flock, don't you feel you have more information to offer this community outside of the "we do not sell data" statement you've made over and over? The fact that you do not engage here in the ethical aspects of your product doesn't look good for you and only deepens suspicion that something darker is going on behind your doors.
- garrettlangley 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - s5300 11mo ago
    [dead]
  - y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
    The comment adjacent to mine links to several findings, including from the EFF, demonstrating doubt on your assertions here. Specifically the case of Texas using Flock data outside of their jurisdiction (on a national level even) to use against abortion seekers. You have no substantial comments to make on those or any of the other active discussions that have spawned on this platform over the past year? You're obviously reading them, yet you only remain "consistent" on a technicality. What steps is Flock taking to address the privacy overreach? Do you have data sharing agreements with Palantir? If so, do they respect the same geofencing properties that your clients supposedly have full control over?
    - tptacek 11mo ago
      He's not arguing that the data isn't shared. He's saying that they don't sell it. Local PDs generally want to share their data with other law enforcement agencies.
      - y-c-o-m-b 11mo ago
        That is irrelevant to my comment. Yes, it's abundantly clear what he's saying, he's said it so many times already, I don't need to read it again. I'm asking why he's not contributing more to the actual discussions surrounding his product instead.
ncr100 11mo ago
Royal we. This is part of the problem with Flock, IMO. Lack of adherence to or support of norms. Psychopathy actualized as a corporation. The societal impact of disruption of trust, of personal privacy, is under-appreciated by the corporation. It's concerned with winning profit. (Meta) It's an inspecific argument I'm lazily laying out, yes, however the problem is ridiculously obvious. We should not have to ask to be respected, and here we are. Democratic decline (both the systems and participation in), truth, self respect/understanding of one's own rights ... those qualities are dying at the relentless toxic, ethically under-explored capitalization of our laws and resources. (Especially USA, compare to corporate social responsibility countries, I suspect) Tech disruption is amazing to watch, and participate in, like a fire consuming the forest. "But what about the children?"

wldcordeiro 11mo ago

Plus they'll position them close to an intersection in the parking lot of a business so they can get around something like the restriction Austin put in.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> they'll position them close to an intersection Does Flock control where the cameras are positioned?