Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • That seems fine. Flock's partnership began in 2021.

    2021 homicides: 161

    2025 homicides: 96

    The purpose of enforcement is to reduce the amount of crime not to maximize the percentage of prosecuted crime.

    https://www.atlantaga.gov/Home/Components/News/News/13687/67...

    https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/sharp-drop-in-atl...

    by arjie
  • 2021: I ate more hamburgers 2025: I ate less hamburgers

    Prove to me it wasn't my hamburger eating.

    by hilariously
  • The reduction in crime cannot be attributed to using Flock cameras, so the figures you give aren't meaningful for this conversation.
    by ehhthing
  • I think that purpose statement implies good intentions - we all know measurement stats become the thing that is gamed to make one's organization look good and this is well documented for American law enforcement. Unless absolutely forced to, they simply do not measure things they do not want to report, i.e. prosecutors do not have to document racial backgrounds of accused to prevent racial discrimination from being proved in court (The New Jim Crow), crimes by law enforcement are underreported - especially fatal use of force - justified because "cop scared for his life" (Copoganda), tons of anecdotal evidence many cops will not investigate petty theft even when owners track down thief. The Wire kind of made fun of this "juking the stats" more than ten years ago (co-written by formal journalist David Simon).
    by stevenwoo
  • This reduction is happening across the board and isn't "because of flock".
    by chaps
  • I would also assume surveillance would increase crime that's reported, at least a little bit, since it would mean the police would be less likely to say what anyone who has lived in a higher crime area is familiar with hearing: "There's nothing we can do about it".
    by nomel
  • I think the case against Flock isn't about its efficacy, it's simply about civil rights.

    Similar to how gun laws aren't about the safety of guns, I think Flock cameras, and other surveillance technologies simply encroach on individual freedoms.

    A citizen should be reasonably free from government surveillance.

    by lacy_tinpot
  • Ooh, fact cherry picking..

    From wiki.. "The number of murders in Atlanta was 80 in 2009, 92 in 2010, 88 in 2011, 85 in 2012, 82 in 2013, 93 in 2014, 95 in 2015, and 111 in 2016." [0]

    In fact, 2016 is also a blip and then it goes back down again until 2019, and 2022 was the high point. It is almost as if the incidence of homicides is entirely unrelated to flock.

    [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Atlanta

    by cam_l
  • Conspiracy theory: Cops are worried about essentially being replaced by Flock cameras (if Flock cameras do, in fact, reduce crime rates, it's only a matter of time before the city council starts looking for ways to reduce the budget, and the police is often the biggest spend for cities), so they intentionally report slightly inflated crime rate data to remind the public: "See? Y'all still need us!"
    by jimt1234
  • They are for identifying dissidents to round up in the future, not for reducing the incidence rate of petty crime.

    Governments and AI billionaires are all talking about some utopian future where we are all free to do what we want and have a universal basic income to support us. But the deployment of a draconian surveillance network, militarised police, domestic concentration camps and 'left wing terrorist' rhetoric is not painting a picture of a future utopia.

    by King-Aaron
  • Please don't spread FUD.
    by majorchord
  • Crime?

    I thought these were deployed so that Cops could keep track of the women they want to beat.

    by protocolture
  • People who like Flock: is this a surprise?
    by chaps
  • Flock is about surveillance for profit sometimes that also has positive results but often the costs are too high
    by nothercastle
  • That loosely resembles research about economic impact of adopting PC. Which was not as great as could be imagined. Increased competition sets prices lower, increased data flows are not compatible with manual labour. Like in running faster in "Through the looking glass"
    by OCTAGRAM
  • Sort of related. Across the street from my cousin's house in Portland, OR, a car ran over the curb and into landscape features that knocked off the car's bumper and license plate. The perpetrator then backed up and drove away. My cousin's doorbell camera caught it all. Police are not interested, saying no one can prove who was driving. Who needs a license plate reader when you can get a license plate?
    by fraserphysics
  • > Police are not interested, saying no one can prove who was driving.

    How about asking the owner?

    by M95D
  • I spent half my day today in Atlanta's inner loop... soooo many Nissans just don't even have license plates, anymore (and other cars, too; but all other OEMs summed == Nissans).

    It makes me want to purchase a beat-up silver Nissan (without plates also) and then I can blend in through obscurity?

    ----

    My own ATL adventure today involved zero license plate scans, but obviously the machines are doing way more than just LPR (I have no illusions that my activities aren't still traced, even without a legible tag).

    by ProllyInfamous
  • Who thinks a surveillance state is about reducing crime? It's about control!
    by pton_xd
  • And about earning a return for YC partners
    by chipgap98
  • Unfortunately most people think that surveillance is a deterrent ...
    by lukasbm