Flock surveillance cameras 20billion scans/month

[NotFuzzyWarm]

I knew Flock readers were widespread but is far more pervasive then I thought. https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/license-plate-cameras-scan-20-191258625.html
20 billion scans per month...

[_Miracle]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaQxZ53q7eh/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Public servants have more privacy than private citizens.

When we exchange liberty for a false sense of security, we have neither.

[Akbarkoe]

It will be very bad because civilian privacy will be seriously threatened, the camera tracks all the data and is collected and then many externals can access from here it is a form of misuse of the policy that is used to use the tool.

At least if only agencies are responsible and have the right to access for security and traffic purposes it is not a problem, but from what is stated there external parties can use it for their interests.

[Majestic-milf]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaQxZ53q7eh/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Public servants have more privacy than private citizens.

When we exchange liberty for a false sense of security, we have neither.

It's ironic really. Although this is because private citizens seems to have more dirt and are more interesting than public servants. My thoughts tho but still it's not cool.

[_Miracle]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaQxZ53q7eh/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Public servants have more privacy than private citizens.

When we exchange liberty for a false sense of security, we have neither.

It's ironic really. Although this is because private citizens seems to have more dirt and are more interesting than public servants. My thoughts tho but still it's not cool.

Even if that were true:

---Politicians literally profit off of war and are currently doing so out in the open [which is filthy dirty and should be of interest to everyone].
---Citizens in America have a right to privacy especially from their government and most especially regarding protected 1st amendment assembly.
Just because some of our citizens are willing to give up their privacy while fearfully simping for those who are abusing power...

  doesn't make either one of those things acceptable even when the power structure wants to make it legal.


Garret Langley (cover of Forbes 2025)


Rage Against the Machine - Evil Empire (Album cover 1996)

[OgNasty]

It makes me a little happy when I see these sorts of things being destroyed.  I don't think anyone really wants the government to have this level of surveillance on citizens.  Maybe I'm wrong, but at some point you have to push back a little bit.  I'm too old to be out doing this sort of thing, but when it comes to destruction of property, this is one I can get on board with.  Too many people are becoming ok with giving up their privacy and other freedoms in the name of fear.

[JeromeTash]

The excuse is always the same... to "fight crime". You give us your privacy so that the government makes you feel "safe", but the honest question is, are we really safe? I personally don't think so. From tracking transactions to cameras racking license plates. Our countries are becoming one big prison with overseers from above. It looks like some people want to play master/God so bad.

I will only believe surveillance is a good thing if crime drops to close to 0%, but no, the crime rates are still high. Someone is fooling the masses.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

I have nothing against LPR's (License Plate Readers) per se, I thinks their usage by local law enforcement for targeted searches eg, missing persons, stolen vehicles, criminal suspects, etc is fine. Of course to do that the LPR's are continuously collecting data just as any other surveillance camera system does. Thing is, with 'normal' cameras the pictures/video is only accessed when something happens in the local area. My problem is with Flock's data being used in very broad searches by agencies outside of the local areas or states for blanket non-specific target searches - that is going way beyond reasonable surveillance.

Per Flock's general ToS, by default Flock's data is held for 30-days or per local regulations. After that it is moved to trash and not freely shared with contracted agencies but is NOT completely deleted. Trash files are only totally deleted after 5 years. That last bit is what really has concerned people up in arms because it means that law enforcement agencies can request (with warrants) that searches can be tracked for as far back as 5 years. Do note that with active cases the clock is stopped until a case is closed.

Something to note is that recently Ring (doorbell cameras) canceled their contracts with Flock because of public backlash. The idea of consumers being able to opt-in for LOCAL neighborhood targeted usage of it to find lost pets or people who have wandered off - fine. In those cases the parties concerned submit a picture of the missing pet/person along with a defined local area search radius and the Flock systems search using only that criteria.

Allowing Ring camera footage to automatically be available w/o consumer permission for all interested parties to use as part of Flock's data for an all-areas blanket search - terrible idea. That is what caused the backlash of many MANY Ring subscribers cancelling their cloud storage subscriptions which is Ring's main money maker. Losing that revenue stream is why Ring cancelled all consumer contracts with Flock. Do note that private businesses, HOA's, etc still can allow their data to be used in the Flock database after opting-in.