[HN Gopher] Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
___________________________________________________________________
Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
Author : ptk
Score : 362 points
Date : 2025-09-26 03:51 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (evanstonroundtable.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (evanstonroundtable.com)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Is there a good public list of Flock Safety cities? Would be
| particularly interesting to see where they are in blue states.
| asteroidburger wrote:
| There's a crowdsourced collection of ALPRs in OpenStreetMap.
| deflock.me/map has a display of that data.
| jbotdev wrote:
| They don't have a public list, but this blog post conveniently
| has a map of their locations:
| https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/introducing-law-enforcement...
|
| Judging by the places they advertise, it's mostly smaller
| cities/towns. I think the larger cities in the US tend to run
| their own cameras.
| jer0me wrote:
| You can search for cities' transparency portals. Not sure if
| every Flock customer has one though.
| site:transparency.flocksafety.com
| ch33zer wrote:
| Because it's relevant to many on this site, most bay area
| cities are users
| thaumaturgy wrote:
| The best you can get is https://deflock.me/map, which is crowd-
| sourced, and therefore both incomplete and inaccurate.
|
| Cities tend to resist public records requests for camera
| locations.
|
| But Flock is currently in ~5,000 communities around the
| country. They have managed to spread very quickly, and very
| quietly, and the public has only become aware of it relatively
| recently.
|
| There is also a good site at https://eyesonflock.com/ that
| parses data from the transparency pages that some places
| publish.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://www.muckrock.com/foi/list/?q=Flock
|
| https://www.404media.co/tag/flock/
| dawnerd wrote:
| They installed some here at a Home Depot parking lot right when
| the ice raids started. It was weird that only the home deport
| owned portion of the parking lot got them which lead to some
| investigation into who put them up and sure enough flock has a
| contract with HD.
|
| Blue city in SoCal with lots of migrant laborers.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| So, if I understand you correctly, Home Depot was actively
| collaborating with ICE to get their best customer lures
| arrested? How the fuck does that make sense?!
| bob1029 wrote:
| Home Depot has had an incredibly aggressive retail theft
| problem for about half a decade now across virtually every
| market.
|
| Their response of putting 10 ALPRs in each store's parking
| lot and locking up everything seems rational based upon what
| I've seen. There's something about stealing Milwaukee tools
| that gets certain groups of people very excited. They even
| have some tool manufacturers designing activation at checkout
| mechanisms to discourage theft.
|
| I have a hard time believing this stuff is making them any
| money or is a secret government arrangement. It seems purely
| about loss prevention in the case of HD. They have been an
| easy target up until recently.
|
| Home Depot seems like the one compelling win I've seen so far
| regarding these cameras. You'd have to be pretty crazy to try
| and steal tools these days. The speed with which law
| enforcement can react to these signals is incredible. I don't
| necessarily like the implications for other things but it
| does make shopping in certain retail environments feel much
| safer.
|
| So, cameras in the HD and Apple Store parking lots seem
| acceptable to me based upon the risk these businesses endure.
| Cameras in public I don't like, but without them the ones in
| private wouldn't be able to accomplish as much (I.e.,
| interception of felony retail theft suspects while they still
| have all of the evidence on them).
| delfinom wrote:
| Home Depot is still garbage at shoplifting preventation.
| Can never walk in and buy a p-trap kit without every one of
| them missing parts.
| kotaKat wrote:
| Every Lowes nationwide has installed them at the entrances to
| all of their stores and/or plazas they're in, even if they're
| not on the map.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| >Would be particularly interesting to see where they are in
| blue states
|
| The answer is going to be "the snooty inner ring suburbs and
| wealthy rural-ish commuter communities that already had
| overstaffed PDs harassing teenagers"
| Cheer2171 wrote:
| https://deflock.me/map
|
| Check your assumptions, the Bay Area and LA are littered with
| them. They're in Berkeley for fucks sake.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| I was thinking Fairfax county VA when I wrote that but
| Berkley fits the bill really well too.
|
| Big enough to have enough "real city" problems to get
| people who have no real existential problems worried, but
| not enough to keep the police/security busy with "real
| crime", small enough these people can think that there's
| serious accountability preventing mundane abuse/misuse
| (whereas almost nobody in NYC would think that there's
| accountability for any misuse that isn't regional news
| worthy) and rich enough to not have to seriously care about
| resource allocation toward unnecessary security apparatus.
| ThrowMeAway1618 wrote:
| >>Would be particularly interesting to see where they are in
| blue states
|
| >The answer is going to be "the snooty inner ring suburbs and
| wealthy rural-ish commuter communities that already had
| overstaffed PDs harassing teenagers"
|
| TFA is about Evanston, IL[0] which is in Cook County[1] and
| _abuts_ the city of Chicago.
|
| It is relatively wealthy, but is certainly not a "rural-ish
| commuter community," in fact it's not suburban either.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanston%2C_Illinois
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_County%2C_Illinois
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Why sue? Why not impound and fine like they would illegally
| parked vehicles?
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| The cameras are not meaningfully worth a whole lot of money.
| hiatus wrote:
| And neither is a beater but they still get impounded.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Indeed, but the data they get from them is.
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| They'd be worth something to a handful of reasonably
| competent hackers. There's no way these things are actually
| secure, they're IOT devices after all.
| jbotdev wrote:
| Additional info on the "pilot program" they took issue with:
| https://apnews.com/article/immigration-abortion-license-plat...
| donmcronald wrote:
| Even though it's become commonplace in the last 20 years, I'm
| still shocked to see how companies can pretty much ignore the
| law, do whatever they want, and have everyone involved shielded
| from any kind of significant consequences.
|
| In situations like this, I think the person at the top of the
| chain that told employees to perform the illegal installations
| should be arrested and charged. On top of that, the company
| should be fined into bankruptcy. If the directors knew about it
| any companies they're involved with shouldn't be allowed to
| conduct future business in the municipality (or state).
| mothballed wrote:
| They were co-operating/conspiring with CBP as an extension of
| the federal government.
|
| Most likely the feds said they will tie up whoever challenges
| them in federal court. They can play jurisdiction fuck fuck
| games and then flip between it being a search, it being
| necessary for safety, that the city/county was obstruction a
| federal investigation, and all other nonsense.
|
| Don't think your company could just put up cameras and post the
| location of LEO and they'd let you get away with something like
| that.
| euroderf wrote:
| > Most likely the feds said they will tie up whoever
| challenges them in federal court. They can play jurisdiction
| fuck fuck games and then flip between it being a search, it
| being necessary for safety, that the city/county was
| obstruction a federal investigation, and all other nonsense.
|
| This sounds like some sort of legal procedures adopted from
| the USSR.
| oblio wrote:
| Well, you're probably right for some types of procedures.
|
| But this type of thing (surveillance cameras) would
| actually fall under state security and be ordered by the
| Central Committee and done top down without any comments
| anywhere along the line (because everyone understood what
| was good for them).
|
| You're probably thinking of the "we're making the wrong
| type of tractor ball bearings"/"we're making broken
| consumer radios" type of issue where yeah, they'd give you
| the runaround.
| trhway wrote:
| It isn't just USSR, it is the core Russian principle of
| "oprichnina" - you can violate any laws, human or God's, as
| long as you're serving the tzar, Secretary General or
| President Putin. We start to see a hint of it here with
| ICE, and i'm sure we'll see a bit more of it with the newly
| formed Domestic Terrorism Task Force.
| saubeidl wrote:
| > Domestic Terrorism Task Force
|
| That is ... a surprisingly honest name for a force
| that'll terrorize any domestic opposition, gotta give
| them that at least.
| Wololooo wrote:
| And if I'd have to wager anyone that dare speaking out
| would be labelled antifa, therefore a terrorist,
| therefore free for all from a law enforcement
| perspective...
|
| Things are going downhill at an impressive pace... Not
| going to lie watching the Trainwreck in slow motion is
| entertaining in a sort of morbid way. Though I wished
| that it wouldn't go that way...
| SlightlyLeftPad wrote:
| Send help.
| wartywhoa23 wrote:
| Trainwreck spotting is best conducted from outside of the
| train.
|
| I think that most cases of seemingly unwarranted
| depression and apathy in people today in fact stem from
| their subconscious acknowledgement of this trainwreck in
| progress, and failure of consciousness to accept that
| and/or do anything about it.
|
| In other words, mass cognitive dissonance.
| jrs235 wrote:
| >I think that most cases of seemingly unwarranted
| depression and apathy in people today in fact stem from
| their subconscious acknowledgement of this trainwreck in
| progress, and failure of consciousness to accept that
| and/or do anything about it
|
| I think many sense this, want to get off the train, and
| away from the tracks but can't figure out how to do it.
| To pull off it seems overwhelming.
| saubeidl wrote:
| First articulated in 2005 by scholar Alexei Yurchak to
| describe the civilian experience in Soviet Russia,
| hypernormalization describes life in a society where two
| main things are happening.
|
| The first is people seeing that governing systems and
| institutions are broken. And the second is that, for
| reasons including a lack of effective leadership and an
| inability to imagine how to disrupt the status quo,
| people carry on with their lives as normal despite
| systemic dysfunction - give or take a heavy load of fear,
| dread, denial and dissociation.
| blooalien wrote:
| > "watching the Trainwreck in slow motion"
|
| I only wish the train-wreck _were_ in "slow motion" so
| there'd be a bit more time to take some meaningful
| actions as opposed to piling manufactured crises atop one
| another (and another, and another) in rapid succession as
| is currently happening.
| Yeul wrote:
| This mode of operation is completely the reverse of my
| country the Netherlands.
|
| In Dutch society it doesn't really matter who the current
| ruling party is the big machine keeps rolling on. The
| names change frequently- governments keep tumbling down-
| but every day like clockwork people get up in the
| morning, go to work and follow their programming. Prime
| minister A is replaced by prime minister B.
|
| In some ways having a personality cult is less scary. You
| can kill a man but how do you destroy a collective?
| blooalien wrote:
| > "In some ways having a personality cult is less scary.
| You can kill a man but how do you destroy a collective?"
|
| In some ways it's far _more_ terrifying, because of the
| operative word "cult" there. Sometimes the object of
| such a "personality cult" can attract the mindset of an
| _actual_ cult to form around them and create a highly
| destructive and dangerous "collective". It's happened
| many times already throughout recorded history, and it
| never really seems to go all that well for _anyone_
| involved.
| mindslight wrote:
| This is one of the exact frustrations that has led the US
| to our current open fascism, so try not to take your
| state of affairs for granted. It's much easier to resist
| and avoid a bureaucracy (as it mostly operates on
| predictable rules), than a cult of personality autocrat
| who chooses new targets by the week.
| ambicapter wrote:
| You sound like someone who's never experienced a
| personality cult.
| Terr_ wrote:
| That's actually comparing two collectives:
|
| 1. A collective where there is a belief (however slow or
| stodgy) in the consistent application of known rules.
|
| 2. A collective where the only _real_ rule is to make the
| cult leader happy even if it means a forest of
| contradictions and rewriting history.
|
| While (2) can easily change on _a_ whim... it 's not
| _your_ whim.
|
| Which leads us to the practical question: Which
| collective do you think _you and your community_ could
| best fight against when it starts hurting you? I think a
| majority of the time I 'd rather be opposed to (1).
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _It isn 't just USSR, it is the core Russian principle
| of "oprichnina" - you can violate any laws, human or
| God's, as long as you're serving the tzar, Secretary
| General or President Putin._
|
| "For my friends everything, for my enemies the law." --
| Oscar R. Benavides,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_R._Benavides
| grafmax wrote:
| It turns out capitalism devolves into authoritarianism too
| when money gets concentrated enough. Basically any extreme
| concentration of power (wealth concentration or Stalinism)
| is going to tend toward this kind of outcome.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Most likely the feds said they will tie up whoever
| challenges them in federal court_
|
| The keep saying this and losing in court. I don't have much
| respect left for these bootlickers who won't fight.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| A bunch of companies seem to be relying on similar federal
| cover. To me it seems dumb because whatever legal exposure
| they create will outlast the current administration. It's
| impossible to predict who will be running the federal
| government 3 years from now, and liability does not evaporate
| much in that time frame.
|
| The next administration could decide to side with localities,
| and assist prosecutions of the companies and executives
| involved. Or even pursue their own federal prosecutions.
| nielsbot wrote:
| Do you have a source for their cooperation with CBP? I think
| that would make this an even bigger story.
| mothballed wrote:
| Yes the posted article This decision came
| after Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias
| discovered that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border
| Protection to access Illinois cameras in a "pilot program"
| against state law,
| serbuvlad wrote:
| First of all, I think that this instinct to fine-'em,
| screw-'em, etc. is profoundly authoritarian. It is extremely
| important for a civil society not only that predictable laws
| are put into place, but also that predictable enforcement of
| those laws exist. I jaywalk almost every day. I understand that
| if a cop sees me jaywalk, he will fine me. I also understand
| that if the cop wants to put me in jail for jaywalking, he
| cannot do that, and the law would be on my side. On _my_ side,
| me, the offender.
|
| The reason is that the law not only specifies what people
| should do what is allowed and isn't allowed, but also what the
| penalties are for breaking the law. A law stating "People are
| required to do X" or "People are forbidden from doing Y",
| without any penalties specified is not worth the paper it is
| written on and cannot be enforced in any way (at least that's
| how it works in my jurisdiction, Romania).
|
| And that is all very well, and how it should be, in a law-based
| state.
|
| Secondly, in this case, this is an act of the executive branch.
| Specifically it is an executive branch attempting to terminate
| a contract with the company. It is not a company attempting to
| spy on private citizens by installing cameras against the law.
| It is a company attempting not to be ousted out of a contract
| with the government.
|
| "The law", in spite of what cop movies might have you believe,
| is not the executive branch, but the legislature. And private
| citizens and private corporations are simply not required to
| follow the orders of the executive, unless the executive has a
| piece of paper signed off by the legislature which states that
| the executive has a right to issue the order. In much simpler
| terms, citizens and corporations are only required to follow
| _legal_ orders and are not required to follow _illegal_ orders,
| given by the executive. Who decides what is legal? The
| judiciary.
|
| This is what it means to live in a society with a separation of
| powers.
|
| > The city intends to terminate the contract on Sept. 26 under
| its notice to Flock, but the company is challenging that
| termination, and the dispute could escalate to litigation.
|
| A cease-and-desist by the executive is not a law. The
| corporation's opinion is that the contract termination is
| illegal. And therefore that the cease-and-desist is illegal.
| Perhaps they're right. Perhaps they're wrong. But they have the
| right to bring the thing to trail.
|
| "Well maybe they have the right to bring the thing to trail,
| but until the trail is ruled in their case, they should follow
| the orders of the executive.", I hear the objection.
|
| Not at all. If they are wrong, they will be punished for not
| following the orders, including every extra day that the
| cameras stay up. But if they are right, they cannot be made to
| follow an illegal order, at any point.
|
| "So the executive cannot do anything to get those cameras down
| until the trail is solved?"
|
| Not at all. They can get, either as part of the trail, or
| outside of it, a court order, to get those cameras down. Not
| following a court order is actually something that can get you
| arrested, etc. and I doubt any business would risk that. But
| that means the judge must decide that it is in the community's
| best interest for those cameras to be down, instead of up,
| during the trail proceedings. And he may not decide that. He
| may decide the opposite, or that it doesn't matter.
|
| Again, the system being fair and working as intended. Not the
| executive doing whatever it wants.
| ____mr____ wrote:
| > "Flock unlawfully made data collected within Evanston and
| the State of Illinois available to federal agencies," Ruggie
| wrote, referencing the findings of Giannoulias' audit. "This
| is not a procedural error; it is an intentional and
| unauthorized disclosure of protected data... Let it be
| absolutely clear: this breach is material, intentional, and
| cannot be cured. The City will not entertain remediation
| efforts or renegotiation." [0]
|
| I can't seem to access the audit in question [1] and there
| are connected articles that seem to also be talking about
| forest park police using camera readers. Whatever the case,
| there seems to be reasonable doubt in the trust in Flock
| Safety. I don't understand how an illegal termination of
| contract would result in anything other than Evanston having
| to pay out the remaining fees and maybe a cancellation fee.
|
| [0] https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/08/28/flock-
| challenges-c...
|
| [1] https://www.ilsos.gov/news/2025/august-25-2025-giannoulia
| s-a...
| serbuvlad wrote:
| While all that may be very true, and you may be right, that
| is all for the judge to decide, is it not?
|
| I am not taking the side of the company, I am taking the
| side of rule of law and due process.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| This is so abundantly hilarious to read. Cooperating with
| the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the
| United States. It'd be like if I was sentenced to a Federal
| pentitiary, reported in to serve my sentence and was then
| found guilty of collaboration with the Federal government
| in some state court.
|
| Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal
| government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena, or
| other document. Given that Flock themselves is not being
| investigated, there isn't really any incentive for them to
| go that route.
|
| Now the state may be abundantly pissed that the Feds are in
| their backyard, but they have the right to regulate
| interstate commerce. They are entirely within their rights
| to also terminate the contract of course.
| grayhatter wrote:
| > Cooperating with the Federal government cannot
| plausibly be a crime in the United States.
|
| Authotrized agents from government show up and demand
| that I turn over video they call evidence. Then then
| suggest that I should continue to record video and that I
| should also enable audio recording too. I comply with all
| 3 requests.
|
| Later the court rules that original request was an
| illegal search and seizure, and that no reasonable agent
| would suggest that I should continue to record video with
| audio, and in this case/example, elects to reject a
| qualified immunity claim from the agency.
|
| I just participated in an illegal act by cooperating with
| the federal government.
|
| > Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal
| government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena,
| or other document. Given that Flock themselves is not
| being investigated, there isn't really any incentive for
| them to go that route.
|
| It's a weird take to suggest that the federal governnment
| themselves shouldn't need to be bothered by following the
| law they are expected to enforce... If they want data a
| state law says is private.... they should get a warrant.
|
| There's a word for the belief that you should do what the
| executive branch says without demanding they follow the
| the law... wanna guess what that word is?
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| The sentence "I should record audio and video in this
| case and elects to reject a qualified immunity claim." is
| English but not even comprehensible. I have no idea what
| you mean.
|
| Joseph Nacchio certainly would not agree with your
| opinion here that "they should get a warrant"
| grayhatter wrote:
| Yeah, phone artifact, sorry about that. let me try to fix
| it.
|
| Edited the original comment, hope that's better?
| grayhatter wrote:
| > Joseph Nacchio certainly would not agree with your
| opinion here that "they should get a warrant"
|
| Citing Wikipedia
|
| > He claimed in court, with documentation, that his was
| the only company to demand legal authority for
| surreptitious mass surveillance demanded by the NSA
|
| Sounds like he would agree with me? Or do you mean how he
| was convicted of insider trading which appears to be
| unethical retaliation for resisting an illegal request?
|
| I refuse to advocate that anyone should act unethically
| because they fear retaliation. whether or not it's the
| prudent decision, I'm too much of a pedant with low self-
| preservation instincts to behave in such a despicable
| way.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Suppose a private entity commits a state crime, and their
| defense is "the feds made us do it"... except it's not
| true, and the feds merely offered a negotiated cash deal,
| and never took any of the required steps to _prove_ a
| legitimate need and actually _compel_ action.
|
| Even if I have sympathy for the person/company caught
| between competing jurisdictions, "they have reputation
| and I like money" simply isn't a credible defense against
| the state-crime charges.
|
| > Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal
| government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena,
| or other document.
|
| Not necessarily, their ability to get a warrant/ subpoena
| is not a foregone conclusion... If it were, we wouldn't
| even have the test/authorization system in the first
| place!
|
| A prediction is not a substitute for the process. Imagine
| the same equivalence being used to kill a suspected
| murderer: "Well I was _really sure_ sure the guy would
| get the death penalty in a trial _anyway_ , so... No
| problem, right?"
|
| > Cooperating with the Federal government cannot
| plausibly be a crime in the United States.
|
| Quibble: I'm pretty sure you intended to include it, but
| this is missing an important "legal under federal law"
| piece. If a real government agent shows up at your door
| telling you to do something heinous like strangle a baby,
| there is no plausible way that's legal just because you
| "cooperated with" the agent.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > It is extremely important for a civil society not only that
| predictable laws are put into place, but also that
| predictable enforcement of those laws exist.
|
| At the moment, this doesn't exist either. Particularly on the
| low end of offenses, selective enforcement and racial
| profiling run _rampant_ , and not just in the US.
|
| Any decent developed society takes laws that have gone
| outdated off the books entirely - the exceptions are the US
| and the UK, about the only nations in the world that didn't
| have at least one revolution, war, putsch or peaceful regime
| change that was used to reboot the entire legal system from
| scratch and incorporate decades if not centuries of progress.
| sokoloff wrote:
| > Particularly on the low end of offenses, selective
| enforcement and racial profiling run rampant
|
| I think most people will agree to this. When they do, some
| will be thinking of disparate enforcement of traffic
| regulations and others lax enforcement of
| shoplifting/retail theft.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| That's only the tip of the iceberg. Literally every
| enforcement agency targets the bottom of whatever section
| of the social and economic ladder they deal in.
|
| If anything dealing with the police is actually way
| better than any of the civil enforcement agencies because
| accused criminals have "real rights" whereas all the
| other agencies have the same sort of kangaroo
| administrative sort of processes that ICE drew ire for.
| serbuvlad wrote:
| What that may all be very true, would it not be better if
| law enforcement was predictable and in accord with the
| written law passed by the legislature and settled, in cases
| of dispute, by the judiciary?
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| There's never really been any enforcement on the low end
| that I am aware of. Even as a little kid I asked my dad
| about things like speeding, jaywalking, driving without
| insurance, etc. and he pointed that basically no one is
| actually even investigated for those things.
| grayhatter wrote:
| You don't deserve the down votes you're getting for this
| clearly thoughtful comment.
|
| You're wrong in a number of ways, and to me it reads like an
| unintentionally shallow take, built up more from cliches over
| deeper understanding. But it's still well above average or
| engagement and insight of the average HN comment, thank you
| for writing it.
|
| > First of all, I think that this instinct to fine-'em,
| screw-'em, etc. is profoundly authoritarian.
|
| It's not authoritarian, simply because when it's the citizens
| angry about some group acting against their interests, who've
| elected to ignore a reasonable and lawful order from the
| operations group of their elected officials. It might be
| dangerous, or needlessly hostile, or the result of toxic
| rage. But it's not authoritarian.
|
| > Secondly, in this case, this is an act of the executive
| branch. Specifically it is an executive branch attempting to
| terminate a contract with the company. It is not a company
| attempting to spy on private citizens by installing cameras
| against the law. It is a company attempting not to be ousted
| out of a contract with the government.
|
| Except, that's exactly what they are doing. Flock is a
| privatized spy agency, who's been told by a city and it's
| population to "go away" They did, but then without explaining
| their actions, they reinstalled spy equipment. If it was as
| simple as not wanting to be ousted from a contract, there's
| contract law. They can collect the full amount, plus any
| damages without reinstalling the spy equipment they were
| already caught using to violate state law. Given they've
| already proven they're willing to violate state law, what
| would you say the operations branch *should* do? Roll over
| and say, you got us, keep spying on our citizens against
| their interests!
|
| > "The law", in spite of what cop movies might have you
| believe, is not the executive branch, but the legislature.
| And private citizens and private corporations are simply not
| required to follow the orders of the executive, unless the
| executive has a piece of paper signed off by the legislature
| which states that the executive has a right to issue the
| order.
|
| This is technically true as in accurate, but it's not
| applicable to this story. This private company had a contract
| with the city, they violated the law to the detriment of the
| people while exercising the benefits provided by that
| contract. That's reason enough for the city to terminate the
| contract and demand the other side to comply and relinquish
| the previously granted contract benefits.
|
| While originally they seemed to be complying, but then
| reversed course and caused more damage to the city. This is
| clearly (to me) bad faith behavior, and deserving of
| additional punishment, the other comments you are chastising,
| with takes that are charitably described as shallow, are only
| enumerating common punishments they they feel would compell
| pro-social behavior from CEOs and companies. Two groups that
| have proven to be very resistant to acting in a pro-social
| way.
|
| > Not at all. If they are wrong, they will be punished for
| not following the orders, including every extra day that the
| cameras stay up. But if they are right, they cannot be made
| to follow an illegal order, at any point.
|
| You're simply wrong here. The only loss this company can
| show, is the contractual payments. The invasion of privacy
| and loss of safety felt by the citizens can't be cured by
| more money as easily as the losses the private spying company
| might incure. Thus while waiting for the court judgment, the
| company should be the party to bear the restraint.
|
| Additionally they can't violate state laws to make money.
| Which they did and are still doing. Their agreement with the
| federal government I assume is contract and payment based,
| and they weren't served with a warrant to reinstall the
| cameras.
|
| > Not at all. They can get, either as part of the trail, or
| outside of it, a court order, to get those cameras down. Not
| following a court order is actually something that can get
| you arrested, etc. and I doubt any business would risk that.
| But that means the judge must decide that it is in the
| community's best interest for those cameras to be down,
| instead of up, during the trail proceedings. And he may not
| decide that. He may decide the opposite, or that it doesn't
| matter.
|
| The operations side of the government can also ask and make
| demands. And if Flock cared about their public image they
| would comply eagerly. If they cared about protecting what the
| citizens wanted, they would comply eagerly. If they didn't
| want to be the bad guys in the story, they would comply
| eagerly. Contacts can be amended through the agreements of
| both sides. Flock might have had a chance to pretend they
| were acting in good faith, but reinstalling the spy cameras
| they removed without a clear public explanation absolved them
| of any good faith.
|
| > Again, the system being fair and working as intended. Not
| the executive doing whatever it wants.
|
| The system was built to serve the needs and desires of the
| people who live within the government and society. No matter
| what you or Flock feel like contract law should let them get
| away with, is irrelevant to if the system is working
| correctly. Flock is acting outside the interest of the
| society they're spying on. Rules lawyering doesn't mean that
| the system is working.
| serbuvlad wrote:
| Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
|
| Unfortunately, my comment was simply not a defense of the
| company, since I know little about the situation, nor was
| it an attack on the city's actions. It was a reply to the
| comment I was responding too, which voiced a call to "lock
| 'em up" and punish them more, which I see all too often.
|
| I certainly do not support government surveillance for any
| reason.
|
| My comment was a defense of the legal proceedings as-we-
| have-them, in which the city issues a cease-and-desist, the
| company ignores it, the problem persists for a while,
| litigation start, the city demand a court order etc. And in
| the end the company is massively screwed, if they were
| wrong.
|
| The alternative is simply that city decides, and the
| company is forced to follow.
|
| The problem is procedural and structural, not
| consequentialist.
| grayhatter wrote:
| Sure, with the caveat that thinking exclusively in
| procedural terms is a mistake. I feel like all my
| comments still stand. Given the company already removed
| the cameras, which obviously imply that they agreed that
| the city had the right or at least the position to demand
| their removal. What procedural grounds did they have to
| reinstall them? Their behavior demonstrates they already
| accepted the modification of the contract. If they were
| planning to contest it why remove them? Why reinstall
| them?
|
| The comment you replied to was quite banal. Fines are the
| remedy for a company invading the privacy of citizens.
| Then when you assume the company executives or agents
| knew the contract was terminated because of the violation
| of state law, reinstalling them demonstrates the intent
| to continue violating the law. The remedy for that is
| being arrested.
|
| The comment seems to me to be slightly hyperbolic, and
| expressing frustration about how individuals make clearly
| malign decisions, and then get away with that asshattery
| because they hide behind documents of incorporation. But
| even if you think it was literal, arrested and charged is
| still operating within the bounds of the law, is it not?
| hdgvhicv wrote:
| Confiscate the shares. No compensation. Effectively
| nationalisation as punishment.
|
| Solves the "too big to fail" problem as the company continues
| to exist, the ceo ends up in jail and the owners end up broke,
| but the work still gets done.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Confiscate the shares. No compensation_
|
| This is better than corporate death penalties but still more
| complicated than fines. Massive fines are the answer.
|
| > _Solves the "too big to fail" problem as the company
| continues to exist, the ceo ends up in jail and the owners
| end up broke_
|
| So do fines and bankruptcy. CEO won't go to jail, but they'll
| spend the rest of their lives fighting shareholder lawsuits.
| Feed them to the wolves.
| forgotoldacc wrote:
| > CEO won't go to jail, but they'll spend the rest of their
| lives fighting shareholder lawsuits.
|
| One important lesson to be learned from the past 20 years:
| if you're sued, don't go to court. If you're dragged to
| court, say "fuck you, I'm not going and I'm not paying." If
| you have enough money, they literally will not do anything.
| They'll just have endless sham court cases that you're free
| to ignore and there will never be any consequences.
|
| Alex Jones is up to a few billion dollars in settlements
| against him. He's had court cases against him for, what,
| over 10 years now? He's still running his show, still
| getting money, and he's openly mocking the courts. Judges
| don't care. Whatever people work in the frameworks that
| allegedly exist to enforce judgments don't care. They're
| getting their salary either way.
| close04 wrote:
| I think you're reading the wrong lesson from this. If
| someone cares enough to take you down, your strategy
| isn't just useless, it's actively harming you. It's a
| "for my friends everything, for my enemies the law"
| situation.
|
| A better lesson is that you can be "on the radar" but far
| enough from the central hotspot that you are not a
| priority. Alternatively you need someone to have your
| back and be your heatshield while you keep trudging
| along.
| SlightlyLeftPad wrote:
| The actual takeaway here is the newly formed Soviet
| United States of America.
| close04 wrote:
| The issue mentioned above around how justice works has
| _always_ been a problem in the US. Justice isn 't blind,
| or fair. _Best justice money can buy_. The current
| administration just went all out for this.
| ljm wrote:
| I personally don't understand what makes executives so
| special that they are exempted from the same sort of
| criminal proceeding the average Joe is faced with. By all
| accounts they hold these lofty positions precisely because
| they can (and should) be held responsible for their
| company's dirty deeds.
|
| A fine is low stakes because the company more likely than
| not will have a way to recoup that loss. There is an
| obvious calculus to that which is practically a cliche to
| mention. A lawsuit just puts it on the people to succeed in
| civil proceedings at their own expense, over a potentially
| lengthy period of time.
|
| Western countries like the UK and US tend to be quite soft
| on businesses engaging in practices that would land an
| unremarkable working class person in prison if they were
| caught doing the same.
| hamdingers wrote:
| If corporations are people then they can be taken into
| custody.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Well, if we consider it fine for people to commit crimes like
| shoplift, rob, or assault people it seems fairly normal to
| permit groups of people to violate the law too.
|
| Lots of fans of Luigi Mangione and this hasn't directly killed
| anyone yet.
|
| I'd say it's just a general tolerance to the idea that the
| rules we have are baroque and anything goes when trying to
| reach your aims. This seems fairly cross politically unifying.
|
| Those who want the law obeyed are kind of rare. Most are happy
| to have the law violated to hurt their political opponents.
| Then they feel surprisingly aggrieved to have same strategy
| played against them.
| worthless-trash wrote:
| > Most are happy to have the law violated to hurt their
| political opponents.
|
| Way to make me feel like an outcast.
| stavros wrote:
| The difference is that people are fans of Luigi Mangione
| _because he enforced a punishment for what people feel should
| be illegal_. You 're trying to paint vigilante justice with
| the same brush as lawlessness, when in fact it's the
| opposite.
|
| One is breaking the law to punish someone that the law failed
| to, the other is breaking the law to avoid punishment.
|
| The CEO caused vast death and suffering with the policies he
| enacted in the name of profit, yet the law didn't touch him.
| Enforcing what the people think should be enforced isn't the
| same as enforcing what the people think _shouldn 't_ be
| enforced (mass surveillance). It is, in fact, the opposite.
| renewiltord wrote:
| The Flock guys are breaking the law to reactivate their
| cameras so that they can catch people doing things that are
| illegal or that they think should be illegal. Seems to be
| an exact match actually.
|
| You have to apply some Theory of Mind. Just like you think
| you're doing the right thing so do they.
| stavros wrote:
| They'll be reporting them to the police, you reckon?
| renewiltord wrote:
| The entire problem here is that these cities don't want
| ICE to have the camera data from Flock and Flock
| providing that to ICE over their express wishes so yes,
| they will be reporting targets to federal law
| enforcement.
| stavros wrote:
| And do you think it's the city here that's expressing the
| will of the majority of city inhabitants, or the federal
| government?
| renewiltord wrote:
| I think that just like Luigi Mangione acted against the
| law to do a thing that he wanted and lots of people think
| that's fine; you should be unsurprised that Flock is
| acting against the law to a do a thing that they want.
|
| If you condone violation of the law, it will become
| commonplace. Acting like your violations of the law are
| fine but others' violations of the law aren't fine is a
| position you can take but considering that you're in the
| minority on both, I don't think it's going to result in
| anything. Sleep with the dogs, wake up with fleas.
|
| EDIT: And I'll add some facts here and an example to my
| last statement here:
|
| Luigi Mangione's act is a minority approved act actually
| https://archive.is/hXNhj
|
| So about 18% approve of his act.
|
| And no, in the US the will of the majority is not
| sufficient. There are damping influences on time-
| localized desires by design. A typical example might be
| that California's Proposition 8 banned gay marriage but
| was nonetheless struck down by the California Supreme
| Court. The will of the majority is not irrelevant but it
| is not paramount.
| stavros wrote:
| The law isn't a thing that was handed down from the
| heavens on stone tablets, it should reflect the will of
| the majority. What Mangione did is something that the
| majority wanted, or at least was fine with. What Flock
| did wasn't. It's as simple as that.
| randallsquared wrote:
| > _The CEO caused vast death and suffering with the
| policies he enacted in the name of profit, yet the law didn
| 't touch him._
|
| If the CEO caused someone to die indirectly, how much more
| did the doctors involved cause people to die by refusing to
| schedule and perform procedures for free? They didn't.
| stavros wrote:
| Might as well jack up the price of all procedures and
| medication to "all your money", then.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| > Lots of fans of Luigi Mangione and this hasn't directly
| killed anyone yet.
|
| There are also fans of Charles Manson, that doesn't mean we
| should automatically excuse any bad behavior that falls short
| of his.
| renewiltord wrote:
| No, we shouldn't. I think we'll find that as we excuse bad
| behavior with certain political alignments, those with
| opposed alignments will find it easier to excuse other bad
| behavior with the net effect being a total lowering in
| quality of life as median behavior becomes less good.
|
| So yes, I'm in agreement that neither is good. I'm accusing
| people of supporting a bad thing and opposing a crime less
| than that bad thing.
| atoav wrote:
| It is pretty clear to me that many of the things companies do
| get away with would land regular Joe in jail with high
| reliability. I think we have to start making CEOs more liable
| for such things, especially when done on their explicit
| command.
| FpUser wrote:
| And who is gonna lobby/s the government to do so? Same
| companies / CEOs that buy the government in a first place
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| If government fails to prosecute crime then laws are pointless,
| and in the west we have had a significant swing, especially in
| high population centres, towards electing governments and
| officials that refuse to prosecute crimes.
| Frieren wrote:
| That is because we are moving away from Democracy and rule of
| law and towards Feudalism and aristocracy. In such a system,
| the law is not blind but it is applied depending on the
| accused social status.
|
| Feudalism is not a good goverment system to produce wealth
| nor well-being. It is very good at concentrating the
| diminishing wealth in a few hands, thou.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| If people elect officials that promise to not enforce
| crimes, how is that not Democracy? I don't get it.
| bippihippi1 wrote:
| democracy is the process of defining what the laws are
| and who enforces them. The executive branch is not
| allowed to decide what laws to enforce. That's what an
| autocracy is.
| iamnothere wrote:
| The problem is would-be aristocrats who prefer neofeudalism
| fighting it out with _other_ would-be aristocrats who
| prefer to rule through directed mobocracy and information
| control. The former pretends they are fighting for decency,
| morals, and individual freedoms, while the latter pretends
| they are fighting for the common good, democracy, and
| "freedom from" various bad things. God help us if either
| group succeeds.
| ActionHank wrote:
| It was a mistake to treat corporations as the legal person
| responsible for these things. The officers of the corporations
| should be held legally responsible for breaking the law.
| pjdesno wrote:
| If you click through to the follow up article, you'll find that
| the city covered the cameras with black plastic.
|
| Sometimes low tech solutions work pretty well. And since the
| cameras are under contract to the city, on city poles, I doubt
| there's anything the feds can do.
| patrickmay wrote:
| And here I was about to post this completely unrelated link:
| https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Thermite
| sli wrote:
| I've always maintained that if a corporation breaks the law,
| the entire C-suite should be individually charged as if they
| personally committed the crime. It's their company and their
| responsibility.
| miltonlost wrote:
| That's Silicon Valley and tech's whole thing: move fast and
| break things (the law). Uber, Spotify, OpenAI: all began by
| flouting laws and were rewarded. And of course now we have a
| convicted felon of fraud as President doing his best to remove
| any chance of prosecuting fraud. This whole site is built on
| people wanting to break laws.
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| So Fun facts about digital cameras like these: Strong infrared
| leds at night blind them completely. They sometimes even switch
| into daymode and become useless at night. Also, lasers are
| usually not enough to destroy the ccd sensor but only cause small
| dots to appear[0]. But a Spraycan on a stick can be very
| effective and of course a silenced airgun for those hard to reach
| places can be very effective.
|
| [0] Lab Test here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNWNQb2AvQM
| privatelypublic wrote:
| Firing projectiles to _destroy_ cameras (it doesn 't matter how
| the slug is thrown) is... oh why bother, people won't change.
|
| spray-chalk on a stick.
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| But airguns are usually much less regulated, much quieter and
| easier to supress and the legal liability for firing an
| airgun somewhere vs a firearm is usually much different. And
| they usually have enough power for that purpose without
| risking too much colleteral damage.
| hopelite wrote:
| I don't even think an airgun could really have an effect,
| but for anyone contemplating this kind of thing, please at
| least deconstruct the device and put it into something
| different looking. There is no point in getting offed with
| impunity by some Idiocracy goon because he saw a finger
| gun.
|
| Better use of one's efforts could be to support legal
| challenges of this clearly unconstitutional mass
| surveillance by the government through its corporate, or in
| this case, YC cutouts.
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| There are airguns available otc with the power equal to
| roughly a 45 ACP fired from a pistol. I doubt these
| cameras can resist that.
| themafia wrote:
| Installing cameras to _violate_ peoples rights is.. why
| bother, corporations won't change.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Nobody is saying "do nothing". The point is that shooting
| guns into the air is dangerous and you shouldn't do it. If
| you want to disable the cameras, do so in a way that
| doesn't recklessly endanger people (i.e spray chalk on a
| stick).
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Shine a Blue laser at the iris of the camera, burn the
| sensor from inside out.
|
| Hack the planet. But yeah, don't do this.
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| As I linked in my original post, that doesn't really
| work.
| etchalon wrote:
| If these were installed without authorization, I assume citizens
| can rip them down without the same.
| userbinator wrote:
| Or more likely, make use of the 2nd Amendment on them.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| I've given this a lot of thought.
|
| Unfortunately, in addition to being dangerous to others, this
| approach pretty much always comes with increased exposure to
| prosecution and increased penalties.
|
| The optimal approach seems to be vandalism - spray painting
| over the front of the cameras, placing other objects to block
| their view, or permanently blinding them with lasers. All of
| these things are still illegal and would likely subject you
| to the legal system, but they at least require on-site
| intervention to remedy and keep the actor out of prison (but
| maybe not jail).
|
| The least risky approach I've found is also the least
| effective - they're often on public property, so place
| _yourself_ in front of them. It takes them out of commission
| for a while and should be legal. Coordinated action would
| likely get the attention of Flock, law enforcement, and the
| media. Unfortunately, even that could be construed as
| "interfering with law enforcement operations" or similar,
| and/or conspiracy if you're organizing or participating in
| mass resistance.
|
| If the federal government decides they want to step in on
| Flock's behalf, they could put you _under_ the jail. :\
| dawnerd wrote:
| Black trash bags would be a cheap, non damaging way to cost
| them money removing them.
| fakedang wrote:
| https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety
| tamimio wrote:
| Literally looks like every stereotypical villain in any "crime
| prevention" movie, which is usually the puppet of some other
| entity behind him.
| saubeidl wrote:
| "Are we the baddies?"
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Yes. Absolutely. We incrementally pushed society to this
| point by incrementally approving more and more surveillance
| and government intervention across a myriad of issue until it
| ultimately built up the institutions and precedents and honed
| the workflows that we're now seeing used for stuff that even
| the stupid are at least kinda uneasy about.
| jbullock35 wrote:
| There is a larger issue that other commenters are missing:
|
| > The city has paid the first two years of that extension but
| would still owe $145,500 for the final three years if the
| contract is upheld. The city intends to terminate the contract on
| Sept. 26 under its notice to Flock, but the company is
| challenging that termination, and the dispute could escalate to
| litigation.
|
| The city is trying to terminate a contract with Flock. Under that
| contract, the city agreed to pay Flock for three more years of
| service. Flock maintains that the city doesn't have the right to
| nullify the contract. The linked article says almost nothing
| about the contract dispute, but another article [1] has some
| details.
|
| I don't know whether the city is correct about its power to
| terminate the contract, or whether instead Flock is correct.
| Either way, I wonder whether Flock is re-installing the cameras
| out of fear that, if it doesn't, it will be voiding its right to
| future payment under the contract.
|
| [1] https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/08/28/flock-
| challenges-c...
| conartist6 wrote:
| I would think the commission of state crimes would have an
| impact on the contract. If the city does nothing they would be
| an accessory to those crimes
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| The core of the debate is that Flock has "fixed the issue",
| and hence doesn't think the contract should be escapable, the
| services provided today are ostensibly legal. Definitely a
| question for lawyers on how the exact terms shake out, if the
| city has an out or if Flock met their obligations by fixing
| the access issue.
| pyrale wrote:
| > Flock has "fixed the issue"
|
| Strong office space vibes in this one [1].
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is
| SlightlyLeftPad wrote:
| It'll just work itself out naturally.
| themafia wrote:
| > I wonder whether Flock is re-installing the cameras out of
| fear that
|
| They are already being accused of breach and the city ordered
| them to remove them. Reinstalling devices out of "fear" is not
| a reasonable response.
| rs186 wrote:
| "Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access
| Illinois cameras in a 'pilot program' against state law" they
| are already violating state law, aren't they?
| tehwebguy wrote:
| Company fears not being paid, has no fear of committing a
| crime.
| terminalbraid wrote:
| > I don't know whether the city is correct about its power to
| terminate the contract
|
| They were unambiguously violating state law intended to prevent
| this exact scenario when they were sharing the data with the
| federal government. Some lawyer is going to be having a bad
| year and a black mark on their resume if they didn't have a
| statutory breach clause in the contract with a city government
| and even if such a clause doesn't exist there is an extremely
| strong case for it regardless.
|
| They have self-inflicted a business disaster upon themselves
| for doing that in a state like Illinois. In the event this
| holds up under that legal theory _every_ municipality in the
| state has a case to dump them, to say nothing of getting new
| contracts there and in any place that has the same values.
| burnte wrote:
| What you're missing is they can get that money without putting
| the cameras back up. That's what you do when a customer doesn't
| want your service/product but they still have an active
| contract.
| delfinom wrote:
| Yep, paying out the remaining value of the contract is
| generally the default-court acceptable manner to terminate a
| contract. And it's probably in there as a clause.
|
| However, if Flock was really being evil, they could argue in
| court they are losing on the value of spying on the American
| populace.
| burnte wrote:
| > However, if Flock was really being evil, they could argue
| in court they are losing on the value of spying on the
| American populace.
|
| We don't know they won't say this! All the surveillance
| they do absolutely has value in being able to sell it to
| other government agencies and private security. Later on,
| once they've been around a while each customer is less
| important, but right now every single one is key so I would
| not be surprised if they fight to keep the cameras up so
| they can gather metrics for internal use and
| marketing/sales. They very well may say, "the contract
| calls for the surveillance to be active. Removing the
| cameras reduces our ability to further improve the system,
| so we're financially harmed by that." They won't win, but
| they very well may try it.
| EasyMark wrote:
| If what they did was illegal and against city law then the
| contract with flock is not binding anyway. A bookie can't force
| you via "the legal system" to pay him back for a bet you made
| since gambling is illegal. However, he has the option to hit
| your knee cap with a ball peen hammer until you pay up, also
| not legal, but effective. Not sure if Flock has similar
| remedies.
| Orochikaku wrote:
| Relevant video about Flock's ALPRs
|
| https://youtu.be/vWj26RIlN_I [18:56]
| Ancapistani wrote:
| Community note: it is my understanding, based on teardowns that
| I've found online, that Flock cameras should be assumed to
| contain a cellular modem and at least one GPS receiver. At least
| some have been found to contain an addition, obfuscated GPS
| receiver.
| debarshri wrote:
| Yes, worked for speed camera company. It does have a cellular
| modem connecting over VPN or some tunneling with cloud
| infrastructure.
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| So they aren't even hardwired to the net and can easily be
| jammed with commonly available Jamming hardware?
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Pretty casual about committing federal crimes.
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| Not an american, here in germany you'd barely get a fine if
| they even bother to prosecute you for using a jammer for a
| few minutes here and there. But I don't yet have to deal
| with ai powered surveillance cams by private companies in
| my city.
| kube-system wrote:
| Well that is too bad. I am glad it is taken seriously
| here in the US because wireless jamming is a serious
| public safety issue.
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| if the EU maintains it's current trajectory, you'll be
| dealing with this or a similar problem in the future.
| nenenejej wrote:
| Dog whistle!
| Ancapistani wrote:
| I thought I was being pretty explicit TBH.
|
| I'm curious - what dog whistle do you see?
| Ancapistani wrote:
| I'm playing with a new "AI browser" these days (Dia), so
| here's an excerpt from its interpretation of how it could
| be seen as a dog whistle:
|
| > There are a few ways this lands: > * Benign
| interpretation: it's a factual note from teardown reports,
| relevant to understanding capabilities and privacy
| implications. > * Critical interpretation: in context of
| posts about jamming or blinding cameras, component details
| function as implicit guidance for defeating them, which
| some view as incitement. > * Political reading: emphasizing
| hidden/"obfuscated" tracking signals an anti-surveillance
| stance and rallies opponents of privatized policing
|
| That seems fair to me, but to be clear - I didn't mean to
| hide that. I wanted to give people who might be considering
| action a warning of a hidden anti-theft measure that could
| get them in trouble while stopping short of encouraging it.
|
| I can see the justification to act, and I generally agree.
| The risk/reward just isn't right for me.
| nenenejej wrote:
| On many forums. Cough reddit. You can barely say anything
| slightly spicy without a warning/ban so people are
| constantly talking in riddles to say more sinister stuff
| especially if there is implication of encouraging direct
| action. This is like that. At 30khz it says "get your
| jammers out!"
|
| To a dog the whistle is explicit. (Not using dog as a
| derogatory or complimentary term here... more the fact the
| dog can hear the high frequency)
| camillomiller wrote:
| Would destroying the cameras be a legitimate act of social
| disobedience, considering that the company shows a total defiance
| and lack of respect for the law and society? I would argue it is.
| stavros wrote:
| I would agree.
| patrickmay wrote:
| No, no, that would be wrong. https://www.wikihow.com/Make-
| Thermite
| motbus3 wrote:
| It would be a shame if people starting to break it
| tamimio wrote:
| That city should just make it legal that the citizens can
| paintball or spray those cameras anytime and anywhere.
| mbf1 wrote:
| This will escalate - every new car on the road comes with a
| bevy of cheap cameras integrated - I get 360 degree views when
| backing up from my 2018 Chevy Bolt. It's really only a matter
| of time before license plate scanning computers get integrated
| - there's already a cellular modem integrated into the vehicle
| - I don't use or pay for that feature, but it's an opportunity.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Cop and other enforcement cars routinely get plate scanner
| cameras built in these days, so... that's already there.
| kotaKat wrote:
| There's already a full cottage market of ALPR-on-cellphone
| applications. They can just mount a cellphone on the
| windshield and it's gonna run ALPR all day every day.
|
| Same thing with fingerprint capture - they've now just got
| mobile apps to take a picture of your hands and submit for
| print processing.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _This will escalate - every new car on the road comes with a
| bevy of cheap cameras integrated_
|
| Back when DOGE was making headlines and a certain car
| salesman was using the Oval Office as daycare for his kid,
| there were a people on HN and elsewhere noting that every
| Tesla could easily be turned into a roving real-time
| government surveillance unit.
| sschueller wrote:
| https://deflock.me/
| DoctorOW wrote:
| One of the closest points in my area is Made/Operated by:
| "Unknown".
|
| Very helpful. In my general area there are almost 100.
| Bender wrote:
| Neat. There's only one city in my state that has these cameras.
| Its the wealthy blue city of Jackson Hole [1] that can't manage
| to fix potholes. I only pass through that place when taking
| someone to the airport. Curious if they were able to read my
| previous military plate _which changes number every 5 years_.
| Now I want to get one of these things to play with to see how
| it interprets my plate. I think I can see a flock on a pole in
| the live stream.
|
| [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoUOrTJbIu4 [live camera,
| town square]
| nxobject wrote:
| Thankfully, in my city, it seems to be all retail parking lots.
| But it's disturbing to see other very, very adjacent cities go
| all-in on flock.
| delfinom wrote:
| Same in mine very large suburb. Pretty obvious why they are
| putting them in Home Depot parking lots too given the amount
| of shoplifting we've gone through the last few years.
| sschueller wrote:
| "Move fast, break things" seems to me that is also the Trump
| admin's MO at the sacrifice of democracy. The SV mantra has moved
| up into politics and is causing permanent damage. If rules aren't
| enforced why would anyone follow them?
| Animats wrote:
| There's a Flock camera at the end of my driveway. I'm next to a
| city line, so it's a reasonable location.
|
| I wonder if I can file a CCPA request and get a list of my
| comings and goings.
| boston_clone wrote:
| ...or someone could knock the damn thing offline.
| SlightlyLeftPad wrote:
| No that's vandalism, what you do is get a nice printout of
| the exact view the camera has and just plop it in front of
| the thing, like a for sale sign or something. Tape if you
| have to.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Engaging official channels instantly gets you on a list.
| These institutions aren't stupid, they're evil. Easier to
| just back a trailer into it or something. And if some
| scrappers haul the downed pole off a week after that you
| didn't see them.
|
| Furthermore, it's beyond naive to care about whether it's
| technically vandalism. You can't beat the establishment
| within the law because the establishment makes the law.
| SlightlyLeftPad wrote:
| In theory, constitutional rights would be the ideal tool
| of choice on your second point. Of course that requires a
| civil suit against the state and really expensive
| attorneys.
|
| To add to your point, it's naive to believe that those
| protections are effective for anyone who isn't incredibly
| wealthy at this point. The issue is most people can't
| afford to take a case all the way, let alone start one.
| mindslight wrote:
| Our constitutional rights have been effectively nullified
| - first with a slowly creeping "it's fine if a corpo does
| it", then with "it's fine if the President directs it",
| and now recently with a shameless full-on embrace of
| both.
| boston_clone wrote:
| vandalism is kinda funny - personally, i'd rather see
| graffiti than billboards. but with that, my affinity for
| jaywalking, and willingness to smash surveillance devices
| well you can just call me a hardened scofflaw!
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Or dress up in a gorilla suit, then paint it in festive
| Halloween colors.
| tlavoie wrote:
| It's almost like battery-powered angle grinders should be
| regular items in the neighbourhood tool lending library.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| It takes no longer than five minutes to cut through the
| poles used to hold this equipment up with a sawzall, when
| metal straps aren't used to attach it to existing
| infrastructure, I've been told.
|
| https://deflock.me/
| r2_pilot wrote:
| I'm basically in the same boat. There is no practical way for
| me to avoid having my picture taken 6 or more times every
| single day. I flip the camera off each and every time I
| drive/walk by it. It's infuriating.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Maybe you need to pick up a box of black plastic bags next
| time you pass by the grocery store?
| toephu2 wrote:
| Why do you care if you're not doing anything illegal?
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| This argument has been shot down so many times, it's a
| wonder anyone bothers to bring it up without googling it
| first.
| r2_pilot wrote:
| In this particular case, because criminals can hack Flock's
| databases. You can tell whether I'm leaving to go to work,
| coming home for lunch, figure out my patterns, and schedule
| a robbery. There are PLENTY of other reasons why I don't
| appreciate having a camera sitting at the end of my
| driveway, I wasn't notified about their decision nor had
| any input so it feels a bit intrusive, but surely you can
| appreciate that no system is 100% secure and that's why
| these persistent surveillance gear are so troubling.
| segmondy wrote:
| Yes you can, see this article
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-f...
| kstrauser wrote:
| I think you can file a CCPA request to demand that they never
| store your data at all. Yes, that would be an utter pain in the
| ass for them, if so. And yet, that's their problem, not yours.
| apwheele wrote:
| You might reach out to the folks at the Institute for Justice,
| they have written letters to the cities to get the cameras
| taken down in these scenarios, https://ij.org/press-
| release/victory-arkansas-city-moves-sur...
| boston_clone wrote:
| sounds like it's your civic responsibility to take these devices
| offline.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| I mean, your local enforcers have publicly stated they're
| annoyed about them there.
|
| What are they gonna do other than wring their hands and say "oh
| no, anyway" if they go missing?
| asmor wrote:
| Aside the topic, but I wonder how HN, as a community, and as a
| moderation team, weighs this on the intellectual curiosity vs
| primarily politics scale.
|
| This seems politics to me. Very important politics that a lot of
| people in tech have a special interest for, but politics
| nonetheless, and much more pressing topics seem to be absent
| through the on-topic rule.
| saubeidl wrote:
| That rule is ... kind of nonsense anyways.
|
| One can't be intellectually curious and not think about
| politics. Politics is applied intellectual curiosity.
| asmor wrote:
| This does not seem to be a prevalent opinion on here, and I
| was trying to be diplomatic, but I guess it still comes out
| as "why is it OK to post / comment politics here if it's a
| less contentious topic many people on HN care about, but I
| regularly get downvoted for even relating information to my
| association with a demographic group forcefully enlisted to
| the front of the culture war".
|
| Orange site bad.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Because this has a tech angle and its local. Plus it
| connects to big tech companies collecting data on everyone.
|
| Which is different from a Gaza discussion which has no tech
| angle and two sides telling each other what the other side
| has done.
| asmor wrote:
| Calling anything "local" to HN is pretty funny US-
| centrism, for someone posting before 8 AM EST. And I'd
| never call what's happening in Gaza a "culture war", that
| would seem trivializing - although my issue seems to be
| escalating more and more as well.
| lurk2 wrote:
| > One can't be intellectually curious and not think about
| politics.
|
| You post about nothing but politics and none of your
| commentary is remotely reflective of someone who is
| intellectually curious.
| saubeidl wrote:
| I'm sorry you feel that way, but it seems kind of crappy of
| you to devolve into personal attacks. Be better.
| iamnothere wrote:
| I tend to dislike it when purely political posts show up here,
| but I appreciate the ones that intersect with technology,
| particularly ones that relate to privacy issues.
| rsynnott wrote:
| This site has always been fairly interested in mass
| surveillance stuff (which is, naturally, inherently political).
| SoftTalker wrote:
| HN is 90% AI and politics these days, or so it seems.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| If I were a corrupt government official I would:
|
| - install these cameras everywhere
|
| - make the data available for everyone via an API
|
| - make content about how we're all being spied on
|
| - form sponsorship deals from Incogni & DeleteMe
|
| - profit
| forkerenok wrote:
| > This decision came after Illinois Secretary of State [...]
| discovered that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border
| Protection to access Illinois cameras in a "pilot program"
| against state law, and after the RoundTable reported in June that
| out-of-state law enforcement agencies were able to search Flock's
| data for assistance in immigration cases.
|
| This illustrates the textbook argument for why mass surveillance
| is bad: these tools can quickly end up in the wrong hands.
|
| Play silly games, win silly prizes.
| burnte wrote:
| > these tools can quickly end up in the wrong hands.
|
| With respect, they ALWAYS end up in the wrong hands.
| EasyMark wrote:
| The people pitching for said surveillance are always the
| wrong hands if they're from the government. "We here from the
| government, we're here to help" are very scary words, and be
| careful if you take them up on the offer
| burnte wrote:
| I don't really want private parties doing mass surveillance
| either.
| EasyMark wrote:
| me either, but their power is limit. Governments can ruin
| you forever and even disappear you without any real
| consequences
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I feel as if ALPRs are already a fact of life. Not thrilled about
| it, but that's sort of what license plates are for (ALPRs are
| really just automated cop eyeballs).
|
| The most disturbing thing, is the behavior of the company. It's
| pretty clear that they have a separate contract with the feds,
| and that contract is the one they care about more.
|
| It's also an illustration of the faustian bargain that customers
| make, when establishing these types of contracts. That goes for
| regular customers, like consumers of social media, SaaS, or data
| storage apps; not just municipalities, running ALPRs and redlight
| cameras. It's like a roach motel; your data checks in, but
| doesn't check out. Camel's nose, and all that.
|
| Basically, all of SV's business, is about gathering data. That's
| why my solitaire apps keep trying to get me to sign onto public
| challenges and leaderboards.
|
| As lots of folks here have indicated, this behavior will only be
| changed, by _truly_ holding corporations and corporate directors
| (and maybe also shareholders) accountable. That's pretty
| difficult, in practice. I guess it shouldn't be easy, as we'd
| have endless frivolous litigation, but it shouldn't be
| impossible, either.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Licesne plates were never intended to be recorded all the time
| to create a data set of who went where when.
|
| They were so that in the non-standard case where something
| other than "business as usual" has happened an owner could be
| identified.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| You're right, of course, but the _real_ issue is the lack of
| corporate accountability, and data stewardship. Since HN has
| a _lot_ of folks that _really_ don 't want people talking
| about corporate accountability, the discussions are pretty
| much guaranteed to devolve into macguffins.
|
| Case in point: notice how fast this discussion will dive off
| the front page. Happens quite frequently, when the topic is
| one that makes certain folks uncomfortable.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Because having the .gov build and maintain the lists would
| be so much better?
|
| The problem isn't that "evil capitalists are doing the
| thing" it's that _anyone_ is doing the thing.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I can't help but notice that we're _still_ not talking
| about corporate accountability.
| xp84 wrote:
| I don't think that's the current desired use either. (What
| they were intended for 120 years ago, doesn't seem super
| important though). Setting aside the concerns that dominate
| all political discussion today on this topic amongst the 31%
| of voters who voted for Harris (that's turnout * popular
| vote), these things are used every day to solve actual
| crimes. For instance, recently in my state, some dude
| murdered a woman and then hopped in his car and was caught
| because of an ALPR about an hour and a half away from the
| scene of the crime. When the police cornered him, he fired on
| them repeatedly. If it was not for ALPRs that guy would
| probably still be on the loose.
|
| Having these keep data for a very short amount of time is a
| reasonable idea. I don't think most reasonable people,
| including law-enforcement really thinks it would be ideal to
| build a permanent database of everywhere everybody goes. If
| anyone is convinced that is what they want, I encourage you
| to try speaking to someone outside your own political party
| instead of only operating in a social media echo chamber
| because I think you'll be surprised how much real people
| _don't_ have cartoon villain ambitions.
| iamnothere wrote:
| > Having these keep data for a very short amount of time is
| a reasonable idea.
|
| I agree that this is more reasonable than the status quo
| (although I'd still prefer no cameras at all). Now show me
| the politicians who are willing to limit ALPR data
| retention by law on the federal level. As far as I know it
| hasn't even been proposed, nor will it be, until some kind
| of major public scandal emerges. I'd rather not wait until
| major harm is done.
|
| The federal government has an unfortunate habit of
| illegally harassing the disfavored group du jour (which
| rotates about once a decade). State and local governments
| are often worse, with personal grudges getting into the
| mix. I'd rather not provide tools to make the harassment
| even more effective! At some point you begin to enable new
| "official" crime with the tools you use to stop typical
| criminals. And the impact of state-level crimes can be much
| larger and more widespread.
|
| > I think you'll be surprised how much real people don't
| have cartoon villain ambitions.
|
| Most don't, but some do, and unfortunately they are
| attracted to power like moths to a flame. Not that everyone
| in government is a bad guy, but many are when given means
| and motive.
|
| Edit: edited to specify data retention at the federal
| level, actually I was surprised to see that a few states do
| limit data retention.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I think there is probably a core difference between recording
| the position of any plate which is wanted pertaining to a crime
| and recording the position of every plate. I have zero issue
| with Flock finding suspect plates, but the fact some
| journalists were able to get logs of where their cars were
| indicates it is far more overbroad of collection than an
| automated cop's eyeballs.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Yes, but most of my comment was about corporate
| accountability, which no one wants to talk about.
| me_vinayakakv wrote:
| There was a YouTube video published about them yesterday -
| https://youtu.be/vWj26RIlN_I
|
| It is really amazing how much power and impact private company
| can have on public.
| daft_pink wrote:
| Wow. License plate readers are everywhere.
| toephu2 wrote:
| Is that a bad thing? I would imagine the only people who don't
| like this are criminals. But why are so many seemingly law-
| abiding citizens here up in arms about it?
| xp84 wrote:
| A ton of people hold some of these core beliefs, which are
| subjective (meaning not exactly provable/disprovable) and
| aren't subject to critical reevaluation:
|
| * the federal government cannot be trusted when the president
| belongs to the other "team" regardless of whether the
| election was fair
|
| * all decision makers in such a government are seeking a
| fascist and racist agenda that is a threat to all of us, and
| they are also seeking to harm anyone who even uses their
| First Amendment right to speak against them.
|
| * therefore, they cannot be allowed to enforce immigration
| laws at all because we cannot trust them to not make any
| mistakes/break any rules
|
| * the dangers of those rules being broken outweighs any
| dangers posed by criminals who happen to be undocumented
| immigrants.
|
| * also as a result they cannot be trusted with any data that
| could aid in enforcement of laws or aid them in pursuing
| their political enemies.
| gs17 wrote:
| > I would imagine the only people who don't like this are
| criminals
|
| The problem is that the system doesn't only work on
| criminals, there's rarely enough oversight to prevent abuse,
| and it's only going to get more invasive. There's been case
| after case where cops use it to stalk their ex-
| girlfriends/ex-wives or similar, for example:
| https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-
| government/article29105...
| patrickmay wrote:
| They collect data that allows tracking the movement and
| locations of individuals to a reasonably high degree of
| fidelity. Governments cannot be trusted to protect this data
| or to use it legally and responsibly.
| exabrial wrote:
| Legal questions aside, thats another thread, hypothetically
| speaking, would a burning laser pointer be effective on these?
| jmward01 wrote:
| Documenting the downfall isn't enough. What are people going to
| do about it? Get involved with your local government. Go to city
| counsel meetings. Join local boards. This is one city that is
| doing the right thing but more cities could do the right thing if
| people showed up and demanded this type of invasive blanket
| search is blocked. We slipped slowly into this but we can claw it
| back by just showing up.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-09-26 23:01 UTC)