476
US Cities Cancel 50+ Flock Surveillance Contracts Amid Public Backlash (townflex.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/50445196

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -22 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

Not every move. Only moves in public where recording with your phone is already legal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

    Flock effectively follows you around like a stalker.

    If I was to follow you around all day, recording everything you do (even if I just stay in public spaces), I would be guilty of harassment and potentially criminal stalking. Flock does the same thing, just via a network of cameras instead of literally following you in person.

    There are tons of public cameras, but they're owned by seprate individuals/companies. You'd be required to get permission from each ones owner to collect their footage, which in itself provides saftey against stalkers. The owners of that footage are in no way obligated to provide it and will likely refuse without being given a good reason. They may even still refuse until provided with a court order. That oversight, from both the footage owners and the courts that order it to be handed over, protects people from unlawful harassment, particularly stalkers.

    The fact that Flock provides anyone with a badge/title the ability to freely search a massive database for every public location a person has been, what they were wearing, how they walk, what bluetooth devices they had, their mode of transport (plus every detail about it Flock can extract), facial recognition data, and more - is terrifying. 0 oversight: no warrant, no reasonable suspicion, no evidence of a crime; just following you around hoping to catch you doing something they don't like (regardless of whether it's illegal activity or not).

    If you haven't yet, you should really read that article I posted above.

    A single search query recruits that entire network as a passive tracking apparatus. An officer who sets a specific plate on a "hot list" receives an automatic alert whenever that vehicle appears anywhere in the system — across city limits, across state lines, across jurisdictions the officer has no authority in. The abuser does not need to be present. The cameras do the watching for him.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -14 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    I see nothing wrong with what you're doing in public being available to law enforcement. It's already legal to record it, a cop can pull out his phone and record you and it's not illegal already

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Did you read the article provided?

    Even a police officer cannot just follow someone around all day every day, without reasonable articulable suspicion. They would also be guilty of harassment and/or criminal stalking.

    Again, it's not that a camera is recording that's the problem. It's the infrastructure behind those cameras that aggregate all the data into a single database which requires no cause to search. Anyone with a badge/title can track anyone throughout the whole country, with no probable cause, no warrant, and no oversight. They don't even have to say why they're searching the system.

    An ex partner fleeing an abusive boyfriend/girlfriend that happens to be a police officer (or that has a police officer buddy) can and will be hunted down by that ex, and nobody will know until it's too late. This system directly puts people in danger.

    at least 50 documented cases across the United States in which law enforcement officers have been charged with or accused of misusing AI-powered automated license plate reader systems to conduct unauthorized surveillance of intimate partners, ex-partners, or women they wanted to meet. In 26 of those cases, prosecutors and investigators concluded that officers used the technology specifically to spy on wives, girlfriends, former partners, their exes' new partners, or women they sought to approach.

    These systems also get used by government agencies (on both sides of the spectrum) to track anyone that disagrees with their political stance, fishing for ways to harass, jail, or run them out of town/state. Governments given this type of power stop being democracies and become dictatorships; because anyone that could or would challenge them get hunted down.

    I see nothing wrong with what you're doing in public being available to law enforcement.

    It wouldn't be a problem if every person with access to this system was 100% honest and just; but thats simply not the reality of the world. There are ALWAYS people that will abuse these types of tools for evil purposes. That's why we have a court system instead of just making every police officer 'judge, jury, and executioner'.

    Flock removes the court system and puts all the power in every single officers hands. That is NOT a good thing.

    'Every police officer has good intentions' is a fantasy. If you can't see that, you've spent way too much time inside.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    There are thousands of cases of finding missing persons using cameras

    https://www.whsv.com/2026/08/01/deputy-uses-flock-cameras-find-missing-girl-less-than-30-minutes/

    If you compare to 50 instances of abuse, is that a good tradeoff

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •