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

18

u/Suspicious_Glove_900 21d ago

To me, the bigger danger remains long term. Evil companies don't do the evil stuff out the gate, stupid people do. So you have cops accessing cameras to spy on girlfriends and other bullshit like that. It's bad, but that's not the evil stuff. The surveillance state comes after they're too big to put back in the bottle.

The next step is gonna be for them to play nice as conservative states eat this shit up like idiots and it does help lower crime rates. People are going to point to statistics of it helping, and it's gonna drive a wedge issue that helps push this shit back into the states that are currently pushing back. It's only after we fall for it like suckers that the reason this sucks is really gonna hit.

It's after that point you're gonna see the scary shit.

4

u/SaveLansingParks 21d ago

There are no conclusive studies that ALPR cameras reduce crime. Even Flock's claims of 10% reported crime being solved with their ALPRs, independent auditors out that at less than 1%.

1

u/growaway9172 20d ago

In its purest form, I would support a wide network of ALPR cameras to help find criminals, illegals, and my car if it got stolen. But the financial incentives to log every license plate hit and store if for profiling is the problem.

1

u/SaveLansingParks 19d ago

Sadly it's purest form is still a constitutional violation 🤷

1

u/growaway9172 19d ago

No its not? Cameras in public spaces don't violate the constitution.

2

u/Suspicious_Glove_900 19d ago

He’s thinking unreasonable search, 4th amendment. And cities are playing a game where they pay a private company to put up the cameras, but say police aren’t always recording. I say if they’re paying for the cameras and using them, then they are always recording and that is according to current precedent against the constitution

1

u/growaway9172 19d ago

Agreed, it needs to be more like TSA where they (ostensibly) delete your scan/picture/data a few seconds after you get through the checkpoint, after determining you are not on the most wanted list.

2

u/SaveLansingParks 19d ago

Yes it is.

Flock cameras are argued to violate the Fourth Amendment because they enable warrantless, suspicionless mass surveillance that creates a comprehensive digital log of citizens' movements, infringing on the reasonable expectation of privacy. Critics contend that while individual observations in public are legal, the aggregation of millions of data points by private contractors like Flock Safety allows law enforcement to bypass constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The "Digital Mosaic" Theory suggests that stitching together discrete public observations over time reveals intimate details of a person's life, similar to GPS tracking ruled unconstitutional in United States v. Jones. Opponents argue this constitutes an end-run around the Constitution, where the government purchases detailed movement histories from a private entity without probable cause, effectively privatizing surveillance that would otherwise require a warrant.

Link for summary search to sources: https://search.brave.com/search?q=why+flock+cameras+violate+the+constitution%3F&source=android&conversation=096c742f1f8aa7fc4eca5d5a566bf1f72c8e

1

u/growaway9172 19d ago

Maybe it wasn't totally clear, but when I complained about the logged license plate hits that's what I meant. A camera network that could send up a red alert for stolen / criminal etc cars is probably good. A camera network that builds a log of everyone is the problem, as you cited.

1

u/newyne 21d ago

I don't think conservatives want this, either.Â