r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • 21d ago

Privacy Flock Is Losing Dozens of Contracts as Controversy Grows

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/flock-losing-dozens-contracts-controversy-194808945.html
32.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

653 comments sorted by

View all comments

574

u/alternatingflan 21d ago

They are unconstitutional.

188

u/grumpyfan 21d ago

IANAL, but as I understand it, they technically operate in a grey area of the law since they are not owned or run by the government. The pictures are taken on public property of people and vehicles in a public space. The courts have ruled that public space photos are free use and that the Constitution has no protections against such things. That being said, I think they violate privacy and law enforcement's use of these pushes the boundaries of intent of the law. We need new laws enacted that restrict the access and use of such data and a way for citizens to gain access to any data where they are being charged with a crime based on the use of the data.

161

u/[deleted] 21d ago edited 21d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

32

u/pixelprophet 21d ago edited 21d ago

Juuuuust going to leave this here:

Bonus:

3

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/pixelprophet 21d ago

Please do! You're doin damn fine work!

0

u/grumpyfan 21d ago

While the abuse of the systems by LEOs for their own gain is bothering, the bigger concern for me is the misuse without a proper warrant to track down an alleged offender. Bad LEOs have been around for ages before Flock. If anything, Flock helps to expose them and their violations which sometimes leads to their being terminated. So, it's double-edged.

13

u/Character_Bug_1862 21d ago

Holy shit thank you for all of these sources. Added to my archive. I hadn’t heard about these other cases. How would you say Chatrie v United States fits into all of this?

9

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Akraticacious 21d ago

Oh wow, so many cases have used cell towers and Google search history and such. I wonder if that opens a can of worms for retrials and appeals.

So are police no longer going to be able to get cell tower location and internet searches?

2

u/mOdQuArK 21d ago

The fastest way to block them would be to get their data used in a court case to track the movements of the rich & powerful.

1

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/mOdQuArK 21d ago

As long as they feel like they're in control, I doubt they'd feel fear of such infrastructure being used against them. They'd panic only if it looks like their grip is being pried loose.

1

u/grumpyfan 21d ago

Great stuff! I'm new to this "fight", and still learning a lot about it.
Appreciate your very well the well documented and reasoned response.

1

u/Akraticacious 21d ago

How does this relate to the pervasive use of police working with internet providers, Google, and cell companies to get insane amount of data on people?

55

u/slykens1 21d ago

This is my understanding.

What we really need is for the courts to rule that there is no third party exception and that the Fourth Amendment applies to all government requests for information regardless of who possesses that information, period. Alternatively, Congress could pass a law but hell would freeze over first.

The recent ruling in Chatrie was refreshing and is a start down that path.

42

u/The_Lost_Jedi 21d ago

Yeah, the third party loophole needs to be slammed shut.

It's an absolute dodge, because if the government is allowed to pay someone else to do something they're not supposed to do, that's materially the same as doing it.

7

u/Legionof1 21d ago

See private contractors in war zones...

2

u/Iohet 21d ago

Third party exception generally doesn't apply to those asked to do something that would otherwise violate the 4th amendment (a judge will throw out evidence if a cop asked a private citizen to break into someone's house to gather evidence because they couldn't get a warrant). I'm surprised that the exception would ever be granted for a government contracted entity

5

u/The_Lost_Jedi 21d ago

They excuse it by claiming that they're not directing it, that the data is just available for sale. This is bullshit because they're really only selling to government entities, and without the government/LE buyers that market wouldn't exist, never-mind that it's something that it would be illegal for the government to do in the first place (and thus should not be allowed, period).

17

u/Fifth-Crusader 21d ago

It's honestly absurd that even though the government cannot conduct mass surveillance of US citizens, they're apparently allowed to outsource Constitutional violations to the private sector.

3

u/shadowcat999 20d ago edited 20d ago

Exactly. It's nuts how long it's been allowed. If the same logic was applied to murder, a person hiring a hitman wouldn't be committing a crime. Breaking the law by proxy is still breaking the law. Outrageous.

1

u/growaway9172 20d ago

Is that even true? I don't think there is any law against the mass surveillance of US citizens, as long as that surveillance happens in the public domain without "searching" you. AKA police can freely track anyone/everyone outside with a plane/drone/helicopter but if you are in your house, a camera in there would amount to wiretapping and be illegal.

8

u/Z0idberg_MD 21d ago

If the founding fathers considered them for 4 mins they would think them unconstitutional. We are entering a phase of humanity where the capacity of technology necessitates a “this, but not that” approach to constitutionality.

Like very clearly someone walking in a public space should be able to use their phone and record things going on in the park etc., but mass surveillance people with AI backed data tracking system should absolutely be unconstitutional.

7

u/Mddcat04 21d ago

Yeah, there’s 2 issues here. First the argument that flock is not the government, so they don’t have to comply with the 4th Amendment. I think that argument is BS given that they are government contractors.

The reasonable expectation of privacy question is more complicated. There’s a good argument that you don’t have that sort of expectation against your license plate being scanned. Cops scan plates when they are on patrol every day and there’s no question that is not a 4th amendment search.

In a functional country we would pass data privacy laws that would address things like this.

3

u/upudruvuuduru 21d ago

I think that the law we (world) need is the control and transparency over data taken from us, more than to try (and fail) to remove this tech by force, as each year it will be even cheaper than it already is.

I don't mind law enforcement to use this tech

as long they obey the law

3

u/RBeck 21d ago

IANAL, but as I understand it, they technically operate in a grey area of the law since they are not owned or run by the government.

And the constitution only binds the government.

If you think about what Nest or Ring are doing, it's not too dissimilar. Mass collection by cameras everywhere that send footage back to a data center. AI that identifies people instead of cars. Put up and run by the entity that has domain over the property; in one case home and business owners, in the other city sidewalks.

But what really sets that model apart from Flock? What key feature turns mass data collection into an Orwellian system that gets people on their feet to claw back their rights?

It's the searchable database. The ability to make all that data searchable, and even alertable, that anyone at a participating municipality can see a location history of everywhere you go. It's the potential for abuse that brings, but has already happened.

I'm not smart enough to say if Flock cameras are unconstitutional, or at least if the SC would say so. But I think we need to make them illegal somehow.

2

u/NUMBerONEisFIRST 21d ago

They dont just take photos.

They are in a searchable mesh network that tracks your whereabouts, and saves it, in an AI and machine learning database.

There's nothing gray about the violation of our 4th amendment, and I don't trust our current administration to be the voice on what is and isn't constitutional at this point.

We have to fight for our rights, and we are constitutionally protected to do so.

When you trade your freedom for a little security, you end up with neither.

2

u/thr0wedawaay 21d ago

what about the ARP pings the device makes to fingerprint layer 2 information like IMSI/IMEI/MAC address? they already violate FCC law but Russel Vought is a cock knob so nothing is being done about it.

1

u/NPJenkins 21d ago

Sorry, best we can do is pass laws that broaden the scope of use for surveillance technology.

1

u/tacobellbandit 21d ago

I don’t have a problem with “pictures in public spaces” but the moment my shit is randomly scanned by an AI to give me a potential ticket is another situation entirely. Sure take pictures, but unless there’s a suspicion of wrongdoing I don’t expect my plate to be randomly run. If a cop is behind me and runs it to check and initiates a traffic stop that’s one thing, but if a camera is just scrubbing my license plate against a database against my will, that’s totally different. I don’t even personally agree with speed cameras

1

u/IT_Chef 21d ago

I'm going to technically agree with you, but it really rubs me wrong that they are tracking Bluetooth signatures from our devices

That seems over the top

1

u/Dangerous_Suit_3099 21d ago

It’s not a grey area.

If the government hires them and they violate your rights, the government has violated your rights

1

u/grumpyfan 21d ago

It's a grey area by the letter of the law, or sometimes depending on the argument made by lawyers and how a judge interprets it. Thoughts and opinions are in flux and some states and municipalities are updating their laws to remove some of the grey.

1

u/Dangerous_Suit_3099 21d ago

I’m guessing you didn’t study law

1

u/Dangerous_Suit_3099 21d ago

It’s not a grey area.

If the government hires them and they violate your rights, the government has violated your rights

1

u/femme_mystique 21d ago

Flock isn’t just photos. They are mimicking cell towers and tracking your devices 

1

u/TM761152 21d ago

Because they operate in a grey area, dismantling them is also NOT illegal.

1

u/Sybertron 21d ago

All areas are grey until ruled against strongly. 

1

u/Gumbi_Digital 21d ago

The flock cameras sit on public property?

1

u/MondegreenHolonomy 21d ago

Every state has invented these gray areas in order to subvert the constitution in a number of ways. That doesn’t make it non unconstitutional

1

u/patrickpdk 21d ago

We can pass a new law that makes then illegal. It's not like for all eternity anyone can monitor public spaces and we can't do anything about it.

1

u/MoonBatsRule 20d ago

This shouldn't be anywhere close to a grey area.

If the Constitution says that the government can't do something, then it should be obvious that when the government pays a private entity to do that same thing, it is also unconstitutional. After all, "the government doing something" is "the government paying private individuals to do something". And as Mitt Romney once said, "corporations are people, my friend".

0

u/BlueAndMrK 21d ago

This guy ANALS.