Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Guaranteed this is being used against journalists and their sources by the feds.by altcognito
- Here's my thoughts on how Flock and related tech should be handled. Nothing gets stored unless there's a specific judicial warrant. They can take a pic of my license plate, I'm in public, ok. But unless they have a warrant naming my license plate specifically, then nothing gets stored. At all. No log of the plate, no photo of the car, driver, etc. NOTHING. And this needs to be easily auditable.
Those are my thoughts, curious about holes in my idea.
by bdavisx - is anyone else old enough to remember when cops first got tasers
suddenly EVERYONE was getting tased
it's like that
give them a new "toy" to combat violent crime and instead it's used on everything else because zero repercussions
I am starting to see Flock on the side of the road at every major shopping center
unfortunately like "kavanaugh stops" I suspect the supreme court is going to put their permission into concrete regardless how they are abused
by ck2 - "Don't flock camera me bro"by saghm
- Um, what? Have you seen any cop tasing videos? I've never seen it abused in every video I've seen (hundreds).by hereme888
- >give them a new "toy"
Indeed. Like, no shit strapping a camera and microphone and sending it to an all knowing AI to analyze it all is going to reduce crime. But it's a violation of our human rights.
It's clear these people do not understand the importance of privacy or rights. Crime is already decreasing. The bigger improvements would come from improving society, not restricting people's rights for more "safety".
by Cider9986 - > “Every child in this video is home tonight because Flock gave officers the right information at the right second,” ... “That’s the mission. That’s the whole company. I wouldn't trade that for anything.”
I think it's clear that, if these things (flock cameras) continue to be a part of modern society, they need significantly higher oversight. What's painful with statements like above is that it shows that we just don't have good enough leadership to set appropriate standards for when things like flock cameras are appropriate.
by gwbas1c - Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-crimeby CharlesW
- https://i.ibb.co/WWWYznHX/flock-future.png
;-)
See also:
* https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/
* https://medium.com/@speechgeek/scaling-joy-part-2-the-tech-t...
by thangalin - I'm using legal liability for stalking and illegal searches as a tactic to get my town to take these down. Has anyone tried this route? https://rmnoflock.com/2026/07/29/rolling-meadows-flock-camer...by rmnoflock
- I've seen it suggested to add a warrant requirement for police to use ALPRs. A warrant requirement is not a reasonable bandaid to consider allowing mass spying. There should be no mass spying by default.
A warrant requirement makes sense for something like the locations of customers on cellular networks, because it's built into the tech.
When you make the optional choice to create mass spying, safeguards do not make it acceptable.
by Cider9986 - Fun fact, they'd already need one if they weren't buying the data from private companies. This is because both the courts and legislature have been busy desecrating and burying the fourth amendment for decades.by empyrrhicist
- I am misunderstanding the article, if "The searches came to light in a Wisconsin criminal complaint against Edward Abrams-Phillips, who was wanted for bail jumping on domestic violence charges." he was wanted, why do they need a pretext for the stop?by rileymat2
- The article is wrong on this point: the fact that he was crossing state lines was not a pretext for the stop.
They actually wanted to add another charge. The cameras helped them find the right opportunity to do that.
If they just picked him up driving around, they would only be able to charge those existing crimes.
By waiting for him to cross state lines, they have a chance to add on another charge.
They already had enough PC for the stop, and they could have searched the car as incident to the arrest at any time.
by tantalor - Ok, the article is confusing but the complaint is a little better.
> The vehicle was registered to Edward 12-01-1993. Edward had an active Brown County felony warrant with nationwide extradition.
so he wasn't just wanted but also had an active warrant.
> Multiple Deputies checked the area but were unable to locate the vehicle at that time
Police tried arresting him before, but couldn't find him. The police then used flock to find a pattern of coming/going over the state line. I'm guessing they stationed someone nearby to wait for a flock alert and arrest him.
The following is total speculation on my part: The police are including the "Based on prior flock hits, the vehicle travels to Michigan frequently which is a known source State for Marijuana as it is legal there." to build probable cause for searching the car and finding the marijuana.
Otherwise the only PC is: "He declined consent to search his vehicle. However, DeputyKowalski informed him he would be conducting a search of his vehicle due to the odor of marijuana".
Maybe the olfactory skills of officers are so dubious that courts need more facts than just an odor? That'd be my guess.
direct link to the complaint (it's also embedded in the article) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28537132/2025cf000671...
by fusslo - IANAL - if they break the bail conditions the judge may issue a warrant depending on severity, clearly a warrant was not issued here, otherwise there’s no need for pretext like you said.
Article also states bail jumping charge was dismissed but the weed charge is the only charge that remains.
- > The bail jumping charge was dismissed; Abrams-Phillips was found guilty only of weed possession in the case, according to the court records.
Apparently the bail jumping charge was weak? That seems like a black-and-white situation to me so no idea what the details were, but there was clearly something wrong with that charge.
If the charge was so weak then they probably couldn't get a warrant to arrest him outright? Therefore they needed the marijuana probable cause to stop and search him.
Regardless the disturbing part is that they're using surveillance state footage of a person traveling to a state where something is legal as "probable cause" for a crime.
by jordanb - 1. those charges were dismissed
2. the article address that specifically:
> The case is an example of Flock cameras being used to arrest a wanted alleged criminal suspected of committing a violent crime. But it is also an example of police surveillance overreach *in that the cameras were specifically used to create a pretext to tack on additional petty crimes* based primarily on where a person’s vehicle had traveled.
by hwillis - Based on my observations (news reports, local chatter, etc) it seems that every state that borders a state with legal Cannabis does this. Idaho does this very frequently (since just about every border is a legal source). They take advantages of the bottlenecks on highways and have cameras and/or officers there.
If it is Flock, interagency communications, license plate readers or just "enhanced stops" for things like a crack in the windshield.
People seem to forget that while buying in one state is legal it actually can become a much larger crime than just possession as soon as you cross state lines. It "can" become a federal matter...
This person in the article attracted the gaze of Sauron.
by Ccecil - They are making an assumption that someone is buying when they go into the dispensary. Not necessarily the case. They aren't compelled to buy anything when entering.by asdff
- They did this in my state, and now that other state has been legal for over a year and a half, but the cameras are all still thereby WarmWash
- Also Flock, in the past week:
All of Winona Police Department's Flock cameras cut down and stolen
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49171656
241 comments
How Cops Are Trying to Hide Their Use of Flock
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49172076
9 comments
Flock's CEO Faced Me After Its Cameras Led to My Wrongful Stop
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49156650
118 comments
Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49148541
38 comments
Leaked Flock Guide Shows How It Teaches Cops to Promote Its Tech
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49158837
17 comments
by Cider9986 - Man outlines how hardened criminals take down Flock cameras, detailing it step-by-step:
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1v78ihu/...
by Windchaser - This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak.
This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down.
Lives will be completely derailed, police and judges will not be held accountable. The wrongful arrestees will still be in debt to the local jail and court for various fees they racked up. Trust in the justice system will continue to degrade and more and more violence will be used against people to maintain order.
We hold police to high standards for search/arrest because they have the monopoly on violence. Even if they're wrong, you can't shoot back. Even if they're slamming your loved ones into the pavement, breaking their teeth, you cannot kick the cop in the head or else they have permission to murder you both.
Mass surveillance is a loophole to this contract.
by MSFT_Edging - > This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak.
This sounds like a problem with an unaccountable police force. London has had a CCTV system for 60 years.
by xnx - Maybe the goal isn't really to protect the public's interests, but to protect a privileged class of people.by mannanj
- Too many people will see this type of thing and go "I don't smoke weed so this is not a problem for me"by pstuart
- I am playing devil's advocate here, but mass surveillance can also save you.
Let's say your just broke up with your girlfriend, shortly after, her house get burgled and a bunch of jewelry is stolen, including some you gave her when you were together. A surveillance camera catches the burglar, a drug addict with a criminal record, he gets caught, tried and sentenced to 2 years in prison. The kind of case that won't get a news article, you may not even be aware of what happened.
Without the surveillance camera, you would be a prime suspect, and even if you don't get convicted in the end, there is a good chance for the police to give you a hard time.
Here is the asymmetry, if a surveillance camera prevents a wrongful arrest, no one will notice, because you don't notice things that don't happen. Only wrongful arrests caused by surveillance cameras will be noticed.
More surveillance doesn't mean more arrests, trials and convictions. These are limited by the availability of police forces, magistrates and jails respectively. Even with a total surveillance zero privacy dystopia, you can't have more arrests without the means to do so. What will change is on what grounds the arrests are made: video footage, a witness testimony, etc...
It doesn't mean I support mass surveillance (I told you I was going to play devil's advocate), but that alone doesn't mean more wrongful arrests as a whole unless something else in the system is promoting wrongful arrests.
There are legitimate concerns about Flock that don't involve wrongful arrests, such as misuse of data by operators, like for stalking, data security, which may leak to criminals, and usage for purpose other than law enforcement, like marketing. The fact that it is a private company funded by public money with dubious contracts is another concern.
by GuB-42 - I went on a grand jury in early 2025, and it was eye opening to see that under my state's laws the "smell of weed" is enough to justify a traffic stop and search of a vehicle.
- How do the municipalities "own" this data if anyone from any agency outside of a jurisdiction is allowed to access the data?