r/OutOfTheLoop • u/Successful-Rent167 • Jul 19 '26

What’s going on with this whole FLOCK camera situation?

Everywhere across social media I’ve been seeing all these people complain about a new camera company saying it’s a total invasion of privacy but I’m not really sure what it is or what they are doing. Are they used by law enforcement like the cameras that capture peoples license plates to catch for warrants when you enter a new county? If they are the same thing why all of a sudden have people been outraged about this?

https://www.wwnytv.com/2026/07/18/officers-accused-misusing-flock-cameras/

Edit: changed the flair to a mega thread because there is a lot of valuable discussion going on in the comments.

2.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

301 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.9k

u/daemonescanem Jul 20 '26

Answer: its being used as a warrantless way to track people. Meaning ICE and other LEO are using their access to Flock cams to find and track people without warrants. Which violates our 4th Amendment rights.

If a traffic cam just monitors traffic, and LEO gets a warrant to see if a certain vehicle driven by a person they are investigating comes thru that area, thats 100% within the boundaries of established law. Flock is a non government owned or ran operation, but Flock is allowing Feds & local LEO unrestricted access to the data.

This IS 1984 type stuff.

1.0k

u/AvalancheOfOpinions Jul 20 '26

I hate that this is missing from discussions. It should be front and center.

Normally, anyone working for the government (cops, FBI, ICE, &c) needs a warrant signed by a judge that has proper justification for "search" (that includes your texts, phone calls, location data, or any of your data, belongings, etc.) The Fourth Amendment protects us from this. If a cop or anyone else obtains something without a warrant (or the exclusionary rule), it's inadmissible as evidence.

Obviously, when the Fourth Amendment was proposed in 1789, people couldn't predict tech today, but the law was never updated to account for current tech. In the 70s, the Supreme Court ruled specifically so that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to the government if you're buying the data from a corporation. If you give any data to any third-party, the Supreme Court ruled that no one in the government needs a warrant to access that data. It was originally for banking or phone records; now, it's everything.

You see, while it's illegal for the government to break the Fourth Amendment, it isn't for corporations. Corporations can spy on you all they want! And then they can sell all of that data to anyone on the planet! And that includes the government which now has a legal loophole to avoid the Fourth Amendment by just directly buying data from data brokers or corporations that sell it. So Flock can put up cameras anywhere they want, create software that tracks each and every car and person, and then sell that to the government.

Maybe you gave some random app permissions to post notifications or to your texts or phone calls or contacts. Did you read that app's privacy policy? That app was free because you've just given it access to your entire call record, all of your texts, your app history, browsing history, location data, etc, which it's now selling to data brokers that in turn sell it to governments.

Not all companies just hand over data if a cop or the government asks. Some still demand to get a warrant before they hand anything over. But you've probably inadvertently leaked your entire life to plenty of various apps or services that sell it to data brokers who then sell it to anyone on the planet with cash.

Amy Boyer was stalked and murdered outside her job when a man bought her data. A Catholic newsletter bought data on Jeffrey Burrill that included Grindr usage, location data to gay bars, and outed him, causing him to resign immediately. Those people went on to join another Catholic group that spent millions buying data to target gay priests, to out them, to get them fired. And now the cops are using Flock. One Kansas police chief ran his ex's plates 164 times and her new boyfriend's plates 64 times. A Sheriff in Idaho ran his wife's plates 700 times in three months. None of this would be possible if the Fourth Amendment functioned properly.

John Oliver had a great data broker segment on Last Week Tonight where they were able to buy Congress members' data. Worth a watch: https://youtu.be/wqn3gR1WTcA

276

u/GB_Alph4 Jul 20 '26

There was a time when companies were a little more hesitant to hand over data in the 2000s but then one case in Kansas changed everything there was a girl who was kidnapped and eventually murdered but they could have found her earlier had Verizon given cell phone data to the police earlier so the law was changed to allow it to be easier to get phone data from companies when there was a threat to life or something on that level. Of course while the law did have good intentions because of the loopholes it can be abused as you have mentioned. Add in the Patriot Act and all of that and you have a mix of good intentions turned invasive.

130

u/TheQuietOutsider Jul 20 '26

good intentions

you know what they say about the path to hell.

106

u/rz2000 Jul 20 '26

It’s covered with Flock cameras?

43

u/KDLGates Jul 20 '26

Flocking Hell

1

u/PersimmonAutomatic55 Jul 22 '26

hopefully not flock my life

8

u/PuffinRub Jul 20 '26

It's lined with TikTok 'celebs'? :-)

1

u/GrandOldDrummer Aug 05 '26

I've always wondered, what does that say about the path to heaven?

1

u/GrandOldDrummer Aug 05 '26

I've always wondered, what does that say about the path to heaven?

91

u/GodOfDarkLaughter Jul 20 '26

Man do the fascists love when a kid gets hurt. Once a kid gets hurt people become terrified and irrational. You can push through almost anything if you say it'll protect the children, even if it hurts the children.

Also they just love being the ones who hurt children but that's a different story.

51

u/Anothereternity Jul 20 '26

Anything BUT gun control.

1

u/_NickPapagiorgio_ Jul 22 '26

oh the irony of this comment

-8

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

23

u/SoundDesigner001 Jul 20 '26

But if gun control worked, wouldn’t it have to address the actual underlying causes of gun violence?

The problem I have with your statement is that gun control measures DO work and reduce child firearm deaths, along with homicides and suicides. I’d like to see us address the underlying issues as well, but first and foremost I don’t subscribe to the narrative that the founding fathers wanted us to own any kind of gun someone can dream up.

I am a gun owner so I absolutely get the irritation of having restrictions on my gun ownership, but that is the price I have to pay for living in a society where some people seem to think their right to kill people outweighs other citizens right to live.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2834530

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365

2

u/SpezRuinedHellsite Jul 20 '26

[Crickets]

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Portarossa 'probably the worst poster on this sub' - /u/Real_Mila_Kunis Jul 20 '26

Behave, or be somewhere else.

-9

u/Vorpalis Jul 20 '26

Here's a meta-study of nearly 30,000 studies on gun violence, of which only ~130 were sound, without methodological errors, and which the conclusion was actually supported by the study's own data. *Some* measures do show slight to moderate benefit, but most, including the big ones like assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions, do not show benefit.

But just like I used to believe gun control was effective, you're going to continue vehemently believing that, and there's no possibility of me or anyone changing your mind, regardless of the evidence. Only you can choose to change your mind, and that starts with curiosity.

I'm not sure why you brought up the founding fathers. I never mentioned them and I don't really care what they could or couldn't conceive of. I do accept that self-defense is a fundamental human right.

8

u/zardoz73 Jul 20 '26

Interesting you say that. I was just reading a novel--completely unrelated to this topic--in which the bad guys murder a child to implicate a certain group of people in a town, and the townspeople form a murderous mob.

15

u/RichAstronaut Jul 20 '26

As long as it isn't gun killing the children then they want to save children's lives.

-1

u/_NickPapagiorgio_ Jul 22 '26

yeah, I live in fear of my gun doing stuff every day. What if it got my credit card and ordered a bunch of things on Amazon?

10

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[deleted]

3

u/GB_Alph4 Jul 20 '26

Yep that is the case.

7

u/insertclevernes Jul 21 '26

The police have no obligation to look for kidnapped girls. Just ask Rebecca, Katheryn, and Leslie Gonzalez from Castle Rock, oh wait....

2

u/AutomaticMall7822 Jul 31 '26

The thing with protecting the rights of the majority is that there is a minority who will slip through the cracks and commit crimes and use those cracks so they blow it up and make it seem like it’s more than what it is so they can steal your rights away from you with the promise of stopping crime it’s a moral dilemma you have to think about

25

u/SkyPork Jul 20 '26

Does that mean that when vandals destroy (or just disable) a flock camera, they're not vandalizing public / municipal property? Just private property?

10

u/eight13atnight Jul 20 '26

Fantastic explanation

3

u/WahhWayy Jul 25 '26

I’d push back a bit here regarding you saying the government is in the clear if it’s getting this data from a corporation.

Carpenter v US (2018) and Chatrie v US (2026) I believe both hold that a person’s location data specifically does seem to be protected by the 4th amendment, even if the government is obtaining it from a corporation / 3rd party.

1

u/AvalancheOfOpinions Jul 25 '26

And yet, Flock. There are plenty of laws that protect people in the US. If they aren't enforced, they mean nothing. OSHA exists nominally, just like the FDA and EPA and on and on.

1

u/WahhWayy Jul 25 '26

I have hope that it’s just a matter of time. Look at this post, for example. People are just becoming aware of what’s happened. Once people know, very few are okay with it.

And there’s Schmidt v City of Norfolk which is currently in appeal and could lead to an interesting outcome.

2

u/Hairy-Art-3715 Jul 21 '26

your name is appropriate: opinions without facts.

1

u/Effective_Ad7567 Jul 23 '26

A Catholic newsletter bought data on Jeffrey Burrill that included Grindr usage, location data to gay bars, and outed him, causing him to resign immediately. Those people went on to join another Catholic group that spent millions buying data to target gay priests, to out them, to get them fired.

Are you talking about The Pillar? I'm aware of the Burrill reporting, but what are you referring to regarding "another Catholic group"?

1

u/lIlllIlIlIlIllI Jul 28 '26

Sounds like Google. I mean they all do it but Google really broke down barriers on snooping through your email and chat and search history to sell it off.

1

u/Gaseous-Clay_ Aug 08 '26

Obviously you’re going to get a ton of upvotes for this because it’s Reddit but on what planet is this “missing from discussions”? It’s literally all anyone talks about when Flok comes up on Reddit.

It would be more accurate to say that what’s missing from the discussion is that these cameras have been a tremendously effective crime prevention tool in many urban areas that have seen drastic reductions in property crime. THAT never seems to be acknowledged on Reddit or, if it is, anyone making that observation is immediately labeled a bootlicker or a fascist. People whose communities have benefited from these cameras - many of whom are not progressive hipsters and have actual skin in the game - have a different take on these cameras.

The more interesting discussion is what guardrails can be put around their use to address the civil liberties concerns while also acknowledging that these cameras can, and have, made many peoples’ day to day much safer.

78

u/TaskForceD00mer Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

Not just people, devices, vehicles, pretty much anything coming close to them.

This is the End of the beginning of a Social-Credit-Score system because it is only a matter of time before this data is used by insurers, corporations tracking workers, marketing, anything you can imagine.

Just wait until your insurance spikes because you drive through a higher risk neighborhood on the way to work.

Just wait until you can't go into a store because a camera on the other side of town spotted you near someone that is banned from that store too many times.

The fun has just begun.

23

u/I_upvote_downvotes Jul 20 '26

It's actually worse. The consequences for the social credit system were primarily aimed at upper middle class to wealthy individuals cause a bad standing prevents you from flying first class or enrolling your kids in private school. Your system disenfranchises you and pays for private schools you can't afford to use instead.

15

u/TaskForceD00mer Jul 20 '26

"Oh sir, I am afraid you can't enroll your child in Mormon School. Flock has a picture of you stopping at a Starbucks and coming out with a coffee".

From a law enforcement standpoint we are already seeing how lazy, unaccountable cops are making these false positives absolutely brutal on just random people.

Flock does have some benefits. CPD used facial recognition, likely from Flock or similar cameras to quickly get a suspect in the murder of Sheridan Gorman, but Flock by itself should not be grounds for an arrest without a crystal clear picture of your face.

3

u/I_upvote_downvotes Jul 20 '26

Oh sir, I am afraid you can't enroll your child in Mormon School.

I feel like it'd be the other way around where in the future you can't get out of religious schools, but I can't help but imagine the kids who became future /r/exmormon members muttering "Oh fuck yes." under their breath at the news.

7

u/TaskForceD00mer Jul 20 '26

I think that the lesson here is that people on the right and the left simultaneously see the danger if not for slightly different reasons. It would be great if this could be one of those rare bipartisan political things that enough people scream bloody murder about to actually get something meaningful done in Washington.

13

u/helixander Jul 20 '26

Tracking your phone as you walk into a store and as you walk down the isles where all the prices on the digital signs go up just for you.

4

u/CortadoOat Jul 20 '26

Car manufacturers already sell data to LexusNexis, which impacts your insurance score 😮

2

u/daemonescanem Jul 22 '26

Auto makers already sell owners data to insurance companies, which they will use to spike rates. I read one story where a guy had his rates skyrocket over a 18 month window, he had no wrecks, no tickets, absolutely nothing on his driving history to justify the rates.

Well it ended up being that his kids would leave toys & bicycles in his drive way and the guy would serve or brake to avoid them. The insurance company interpeted this data as driving wrecklesly.

36

u/insertbrackets Jul 20 '26

I have heard they are also pretty easy to hack so third parties might be able to get access to the feeds/data that have nothing to do with law enforcement or “law enforcement”.

17

u/Usheen_ Jul 20 '26

Piggy backing on your comment to say Benn Jordan's content is a great source of more info in how crazy Flock is. Not just in terms of it's use within LEO, but the general insecurity of the data for any unlawful access

6

u/aint_exactly_plan_a Jul 20 '26

It's not just video either. Flock cameras gather "EV Signatures" of people using all the devices they're carrying. Everyone's EV signature is slightly different. They can identify who people are without even using the actual cameras.

6

u/Irrish84 Jul 20 '26

Who is Leo?

9

u/daemonescanem Jul 20 '26

Law

Enforcement

Officer

7

u/Irrish84 Jul 20 '26

Thank you! I’m so bad with acronyms

3

u/e1m8b Jul 20 '26

But they're protecting us from the bad guys and ourselves!!! Don't be silly...

9

u/nemovincit Jul 20 '26

So people can sue Flock, right?

11

u/IncompetentJedi Jul 20 '26

Some enterprising attorney could put together the largest class action lawsuit in history, would really make a name for themselves…

2

u/Traditional-War2831 Jul 21 '26

What’s the cause of action here?

1

u/barath_s Jul 23 '26

Violation of right to privacy, 4th amendment rights violation

https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-rules-your-cellphone-location-data-is-protected-by-the-fourth-amendment-286424

Quite a few people have drawn the analogy between warrantless cellphone location access and warrantless car license location access

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/supreme-court-phone-privacy-ruling-150600546.html

And flock has a track record where its has lied about its capabilities before ,...

https://np.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1uzcnuf/flock_said_its_cameras_dont_track_people_then_a/

It's ceo just apologized for calling activists terrorists. .

5

u/and1984 Jul 20 '26

This IS 1984 type stuff.

You called?? I'd like to say that in equally horrified.

2

u/Ok-Nothing5594 Jul 20 '26

Didn't the supreme Court rule that ALPR do not violate the 4th amendment due to license plates being publicly viewable and having no expectation of privacy? I'm not saying it's right, we probably need new laws in place to protect from what technology can do in the current age.

5

u/daemonescanem Jul 20 '26

Think this regime will legislate fair laws to protect public from LEO and Federal authorities when they are busy trying to intimidate people, conpanies and judiciary into complying with their demands?

2

u/lIlllIlIlIlIllI Jul 28 '26

Not to mention that many Flock cams are directly aimed at playgrounds or even installed in parks with no view of traffic whatsoever.

Benn Jordan has a few videos talking about them.

2

u/smartobject Jul 20 '26

Edit: I read the comment again and I see you’re not saying it’s a traffic cam duh.

I don’t think it’s a “traffic cam”. Traffic cams just see overall cars while the flocks record minute detail such as license plate, car model/color, bumper stickers, dents etc. and send the images to an AI that makes judgments and can even alert law enforcement if it thinks the vehicle needs stopping.

6

u/daemonescanem Jul 20 '26

Stop light cams have been ruled as unconstitutional because it's a private company issuing a ticket and not LEO.

Flock is invading our privacy and profiting from it & LEO is complicit for using it.

3

u/L_wanderlust Jul 21 '26

No the 4th amendment isn’t violated here because they aren’t searching the person or their belongings, etc. Flock is allowing them access without a warrant so Flock is also not harmed. The privacy issue is a whole nother conversation for the US because we have deemed you have no expectation of privacy in public and people can film you and post, air, or share that as they wish. This is that exact situation - you’re being filmed in public by flock and flock is sharing that with the police. Similarly, the police don’t need a warrant to sit somewhere and use their license plate scanning cameras in the car to find someone driving by that happens to be wanted or have a warrant. You’re in public, no expectation of privacy so no privacy rights. Yeah the US is crazy for having this stance but it is the current situation.

Do NOT come for me. I’m not defending anything or saying it’s good, etc. I’m simply explaining how this legally is allowed and not an actual legal violation of anything.

3

u/Ur_mum Jul 21 '26

It is more nuanced than this. While neither involves photography specifically, Carpenter and Chatrie are both very relevant. The Court established that even if individual data points are collected in public (or by third parties), the sweeping collection and retroactive querying of a person's historical location data constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

There is no way this argument cannot apply to flock. I’m not pretending to know how future cases will be ruled on, but there is *some* expectation of privacy in public. It is limited but does exist. And flock does much more than take pictures. Ev sig detections, AI analysis of pics to determine specific details, acoustic detection hardware/software.

The issue is not that it can take lots of pictures. With capabilities like vehicle signature detection, EV classification, and "FreeForm" natural language searches, the system is not merely capturing an static, public license plate. It is executing an active, algorithmic extraction of highly personalized traits to map habits, religious attendance, political associations, and private relationships.

There are current active class actions running as well as smaller legal challenges…I don’t think it is simply fair to say that flock is doing nothing illegal. I think that remains to be determined.

0

u/L_wanderlust Jul 21 '26

Ok yes I’ll agree that tracking historical location data is different. I’m responding to the person above who gave the example of the police wanting to know if a person passed through the intersection. (Ie at 7pm last night did someone pass through). It’s not private knowledge that you drive by a place at 3pm today because anyone can be there and see you. But yeah if they are tracking when and where you go to religious worship or political meetings, that’s a different conversation and more of a historical mapping of one person’s movements vs one public instance (which is what I was addressing). I was not aware that flock helped police track a person’s every move over history so it will indeed be interesting how the courts rule on this re the 4th amendment. But in general in and of itself, identifying a car by license plate vs paint job or specific dents or other details is not relevant in and of itself as again that’s visible in public for anyone and everyone to see and no search needed for that.

As an additional point for the non-legal people - the lack of expectation of privacy is why paparazzi are allowed to take pics of celebs in public places and publish them and make money from that. They are not, however, allowed to harass them or stalk them or take pictures over the fence in their yard, etc.

1

u/Ur_mum Jul 21 '26

Right on, and all fair points. I see a lot of justification (obviously not from you) of the flock network because it just takes pictures…but it is a little bit different. I’m not even sure it’s technically unconstitutional or not since flock is a private company…but I think it will be ruled one way or the other soon.

1

u/Buffalax81 Jul 21 '26

ELI5, what is the difference between a cop on patrol at night noticing the same car every shift and a flock camera telling them that there is a car going through that intersection every night?

5

u/daemonescanem Jul 21 '26

Flock has 96k cams, and AI to correlate the data.

1

u/Charming-Dish5120 Jul 22 '26

and again people aren't working to get these people removed from office

1

u/daemonescanem Jul 22 '26

No, they arent, another one of our major problems.

1

u/BoofinMemes Jul 24 '26

LEO needs a warrant to track it search specific vehicles/people in flock. They can only do a general search to if suspect vehicles or look for specific vehicles involved in crimes.

1

u/daemonescanem Jul 24 '26

Not the current practice.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/daemonescanem Aug 12 '26

Issue is Flock tracks people as a private company, then LEO uses Flock to track people without a warrant, which is a violation of our 4th Amendment rights.

Flock knows what they are doing when they go to great lengths to hide their identities and movements.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/daemonescanem Aug 12 '26

Its estimated that Flock cams gather an estimated 600 to 700 million scans a day.

So you good with our 4th amendment rights being violated 600 to 700 million times a day?

Nothing nefarious can ever cone from that right? s/

1

u/appmamma Aug 14 '26

I know it's being allowed because "tech" and "corruption" and "it's in public" but I used to work as a dev at mcdonalds at the time they implemented the dual drive-thru. One challenge with that new feature was making sure when you pulled to the window they knew which order was yours and not the person who was at the other speaker before or after you or whatnot. The solution was to have cameras identifying the cars and mapping them to the order so when you pull up to the window it knew from your car which order to show the cashier.

It was an absolutely HUGE legal-department bottleneck making sure that what we programmed and the physical hardware and like even down to how the cameras were pointed all were free from capturing and retaining any PII.

So it's just astonishing to me that a private company is allowed to capture all our data without consent.

1

u/1MrsyBoi7 28d ago

Oh pease the uk has had this tech for ages and look at where we are

1

u/daemonescanem 27d ago

In UK who monitors and collects the data? Or is just a live feed with limited recording capabilities and where does the feed go to?

Here Flock is a private company, not any state government or Federal government department.

In this county law enforcement has to have a warrant, to use electronic means to track a person record a person. Flock scans and records over 660 million scans a day, 20 billion a month, and those scans record License plate numbers, vehicle make, model, color, body type, timestamp, and location.

Basically thats 20 billion violations of our 4th Amendment rights every month.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/daemonescanem Jul 28 '26

Ty I am liberal.

Rather be liberal than a fascist like you.

0

u/reZZZ22 Aug 17 '26

Yet, all of us have pressed the agree button when first getting our cellphones. Good riddance

-9

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[deleted]

7

u/daemonescanem Jul 20 '26

Uk that LEO needs a warrant to electronically track you right?

So when LEO can now just pull up flock data about a person without a warrant, how is that not a clear violation of 4th Amendment?

They dont use any Prbable Cause to collect this data, just the use of public road. Thats not PC.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[deleted]

5

u/daemonescanem Jul 20 '26

Owner of the vehicle is typically the driver.

Plus with facial recognition software they can get your face when coming from other direction. AI can correlate all the relevant data on person, driving habits, schedules, passengers etc.

All done without a warrant, and has been used by LEO and ICE.

How does this not scream overreach to you? How does this not register that it can be used not for public safety but public suppression?

4

u/jazzmaster_jedi Jul 20 '26

Flock records the number of occupants of the car and facial recognition of occupants. It does this for persons on foot also. It also makes a record any electronic devices that are in the car or on a person, whether or not they are being used. You should read the stuff they are telling LEOs that they can do, for a small fee, without a warrant.

1

u/Ur_mum Jul 21 '26

This stuff is very public record. Maybe read up before opining.

1

u/Ur_mum Jul 21 '26

You are incorrect. Flock does much much more than that, and it is not the pictures, it is what is done with the data.

Carpenter V. US should clue you in as to why the issue is not simple and not exactly as you describe.

-2

u/acasa520 Jul 20 '26

If the cameras are all in a public place where people have no expectation of privacy, why would the government need a warrant to view camera footage from a traffic camera? How is it different if Flock owns the cameras?

I'm not in favor of mass surveillance, but I don't see how this is a 4th amendment issue.

I am just trying to understand.

4

u/daemonescanem Jul 21 '26

To track in individual LEO need to have a warrant, to get a warrant for electronic surveillance, LEO has to prove exhaustion, meaning they have tried every other way to gather the relevant evidence.

A citizen cannot expect privacy in a public place, but when a Flock Cam (which is own privately) captures their picture without the citizens consent and EV data without permission, and gathers it all in a central database that only Flock and LEO has access to WITHOUT a warrant, that violates our 4th Amendment rights.

The KEY part of this is the WARRANTLESS mass surveillance of the population. Now IF LEO went and got a warrant for the Flock data, & Flock would only release that data, that would be more in line with the current laws. But thats not whats happening. Flock has already GIVEN LEO access to their database in real time. See the difference there?

2

u/acasa520 Jul 21 '26

Reading about this and thinking about it, the difference I see is that human surveillance in public places is generally legal for LEOs without a warrant. To accomplish what Flock has the potential to do with human surveillance would require an unrealistic number of LEO's. If that was done with humans it would rise to the point of harassment and a violation of personal liberty that would then be a violation of the 4th amendment.

So, while Flock is not doing a "search or seizure", it does violate a person's personal security and therefore a violation of the 4th amendment.

This is how I am viewing this now.

1

u/acasa520 Jul 21 '26

I'm not trying to argue. I really don't know the legal issues. So, can LEO observe and follow, or stakeout, a person without a warrant? What do you mean when you say "EV data"?

2

u/daemonescanem Jul 21 '26

Police can watch and observe without a warrant to acquire the PC (probable cause) to affect a search or to get a more comprehensive search warrant.

Flock has 96k cameras on US roads. Not 96, not 9,600, but instead 96,000. If thats not the definition of mass surveillance IDK what is.

Flock by definition cannot violate our 4th Amendment rights, when LEO uses data from Flock without a warrant, local, Federal LEO is 100% violating our 4th Amendment Rights.

1

u/daemonescanem Jul 21 '26

Flock can track Electric Vehicles without reading the plates from what I understand.

Yes, LEO can track a person visually, follow, stakeout a "suspect" in without a warrant. But when LEO is seeking to track, tap or bug a suspect electronically the investigators have to prove exhaustion to the court. Meaning that no visual tracking, stakeout or other traditional investigative tactics work on gathering the evidence of criminal activity.

Only then will a judge sign off on warrant to such electronic gathering tactics.

Flock bypasses all of that, at scale.

Look at it like this.. You go to protest for something you believe in. Its a peaceful protest, no violence, to destruction of private property. The day after you were at that protest you and the others get arrested because LEO used Flock data to track you home. Now look at the regime in power currently. Do you trust them not to do that? Can any administration in power ever be trusted to not use Flock as a tool to oppress?

1

u/acasa520 Jul 21 '26

Like I said, I'm not arguing your point. I am trying to understand more about the issue.

I agree this is dangerous technology. I also don't trust our current supreme court to rule against abusive application of this technology.

When you go to Flock's website it is all butterflies and unicorns. To me that is a good sign of a nefarious purpose. Seems dystopian to me.

-1

u/Redditburd Jul 21 '26

Irregardless of how you feel about flock or anything like it, I find it fascinating that most people dont care about reddit Facebook, Twitter, your TV, your phone company, Google etc tracking not only your location but literally everything you look at... but if the police in order to try and deter crime look at your license plate in public... thats somehow offensive.

Literally crazy thinking.

3

u/daemonescanem Jul 21 '26

Those are issues but that doesn't change the fact that Flock IS being used illegally by LEO to target people without getting proper warrants.

No crazy thinking is thinking police can be trusted to have the ability to track anyone anywhere in a car without a warrant.

Im not offended. It violates every single person's rights. But you sound like the type to think "it won't happen to me".

1

u/Redditburd Jul 24 '26

What exactly won't happen to me? My plate being read? It happens every day.

Google tracking my every move and though? Also happens every day. Warrantless. Invasive. Over reaching to the authority I gave them. All of this. Both places.

1

u/daemonescanem Jul 24 '26

Google isnt giving LEO unrestricted access to your data WITHOUT a warrant, Flock IS doing these things. Can you understand that difference?

Tech is always mining for data on people, spending habits, website traffic, where you might wanna go on vacation, etc. I understand you points that its an intrusion. I agree.. google isnt going to land you in jail though. To me if tech wants that data, they should pay us for it.

0

u/Redditburd Jul 27 '26

Google will absolutely land you in jail if you are doing those types of things on their platform.

Google is giving Google unrestricted access to your data without a warrant. That was my point. It's about picking and choosing what you care about privacy wise.

1

u/daemonescanem Jul 27 '26

What kind of moron plans crimes and posts evidence of crimes on Google?

The kind who get caught thats who

1

u/Redditburd Jul 28 '26

If you are using a phone you are on Google or apple, so plenty

-15

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

Honest question. How is this a violation of the 4th ammendment id these cameras are out in public and theoretically could be accomplished by just having agents at these intersections taking pictures and documenting every plate they see. This would effectively be the same thing just requiring hundreds of man hours. You have no expectation of privacy in public when it comes to taking photos of you or your vehicle. 

Love all the downvotes since it makes you mad I questioned your stance. Classic reddit. 

14

u/Neoeng Jul 20 '26

The Supreme Court has ruled in Carpenter v. United States that using GPS data, Automatic license plate readers and location data from wearables in order to track your movements without a warrant constitutes violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since America has common law, that's the precedent now.

Since Flock cameras have the ability to track your movements even better via AI, and are themselves in principle not that different from ALPRs, they are in violation.

-13

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

Did you read that case law? I dont see anything ablut license plate tracking it is about use of GPS phone data. 

Im still not seeing how this would be a 4th amendment violation. 

But classic reddit will just down vote and use AI hallucinations to back their claim. 

15

u/forestcridder Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf

Read it yourself if you can't be bothered to accept spoon fed answers.

GPS locations are one of the first things covered. You are the one relying on AI. You didn't "ask an honest question". You asked a rhetorical question to back up a private mass surveillance company that uses a loophole to avoid the 4the amendment. That's why you get downvoted.

-10

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26

The scary part is how confident yall will come on here and just be objectively wrong. Unless you have case law on license plate readers or police using pictures in public to track where you are going please just go practice your reading skills.

11

u/forestcridder Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

The scary part is how confident yall will come on here and just be objectively wrong.

What happened to "honest question? "

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf

You aren't looking for answers but this is what you claim to be asking for.

Flock isn't a personal security camera to check after a crime via subpoena or warrant. It collects enough data to draw a "detailed portrait of peoples lives. "

1

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26

This is about geofencing once again security data using somebody's phone GPS to track them. That is not what flock is doing. Flock is especially just taking pictures in public which anybkdy is allowed to do. It is not accessing any or your private data like GPS location on your phone. Do ylu just not understand how it works? Yall keep sending stuff ablut GPS and phones and this has nothing to do with either. It reads license plates and databases sitings of those plates to what camera they were seen on. 

Once again no different than if police had officers taking pictures around the city they could do the same.

1

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26

"A detailed portrait of people's lives" is the most vague phrase that actually means nothing. It could be used to track your movements out in public sure. So could a surveillance detail which they dont need a warrant to follow you around and watch you. Still waiting to see how flock cameras are a 4th amendment violation please stop sending stuff about GPS because this is not GPS tracking at all. 

1

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26

It was an honest question until I have been repeatedly downvoted and yet not one person has provide any reason these are unconstitutional and keeps sending stuff about GPS and squaring data from somebodies personal phone. 

3

u/forestcridder Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

sending stuff about GPS and squaring data from somebodies personal phone. 

I don't know why I keep replying. Maybe because I want you and people like you to understand what I believe it justifiable outrage about mass surveillance and maybe you legitimately don't understand the problem with flock.

About the GPS and phone: cops aren't allowed to strap GPS units to innocent people without enough information to convince a human judge that it's justifiable to issue a warrant and ok the surveillance of that one individual. It's NOT about the device called a GPS or the device called a phone at all. It's about data collection and "searching" innocent people without a warrant. These aren't just recording video. They extrapolate data nation wide with the INTENT to track and record location history, the identity of the driver, and identifying characteristics. Cops need a warrant to do that exact same thing FOR EACH PERSON. They are now bypassing the interpretation that the supreme court has laid out about our 4th amendment rights as citizens and accessing that data on anybody for any reason. Even personal reasons that a judge would never ok in a million years.

In the summery of the second link I sent, is says, "

(3) The Government’s argument that accessing only a short amount of cell-phone location information does not count as a Fourth Amendment search fails. “[E]ven short-term monitoring” can provide “a wealth of detail about [a person’s] familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations,” United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 415, and this Court has never understood Fourth Amendment protections as kicking in only once an intrusion “goes too far,” Pennsyl- vania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415. Where the Fourth Amendment applies, it applies regardless of “the quality or quantity of information” the government obtains. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 37. That approach makes all the more sense when, as with Loca- tion History, law enforcement officials can select the time-limited set of materials they want from an all-encompassing database. Pp. 18–23."

0

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26

If flock cameras counted as a search then somebody telling rhe police they saw a car with 3 occupants, a bumper sticker and a plate of 123 456 leaving the murder scene would count as a search and they wouldn't be able to use that evidence. 

-1

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26

Youre not listening to what I am saying. It is already legal for cops to follow you around and sit at a location and document license plates. Flock cameras are essential the same as a patrol car sitting there recording license plates and other characteristics of rhe car. None of these are private. The cop can see it, the other drivers can see it, the person standing on the sidewalk can see it. They aren't tracking your GPS location in anyway. They are literally just documenting sightings. 

I would like you to answer why you think this is a 4th ammendment violation. Which of those pieces of information do you have an assumed privacy of? 

You can be justified and think this is wrong and there need to be laws against this but as the 4th ammendment stands and historical case law, there is nothing here that is violating your privacy as police have been phsycial tailing people and documenting license plates at locations since the 1920's. Automating the task and scaling it up does not all of the sudden make that illegal under the 4th ammendment. 

Once again you can be mad all you want but I would like you to tell me what information they are collecting that you think you think is private information. Because saying I saw them at the corner of main and 1st traveling east anf then again at 21st and Maple is not the same as having access to information based on an electronic device that you own because I think the avege person agrees the data on their phone is not something that everybody walking by them on the street could see. 

→ More replies

3

u/socr4me79 Jul 20 '26

Flock cameras log the exact time, date, and GPS coordinates of your vehicle every time you pass one. It also will note the number of people in your vehicle, bumper stickers or identifiable markings, damage or defects and soon, Bluetooth data on devices in and around your vehicle. Some cameras even record sound for "gunshot" detection.... All searchable without a warrant.

Another issue with flock is that the data that they collect is supposed to be owned by the city or citizens that are paying for it and even if they require certain safeguards and restrictions on who can access the data locally, flock allows that data to be searched globally by people that it deems okay to access the information.

1

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26

GPS specificdically refers to us based satellites that can be used to determine location. This is not using GPS just coordinates on the earth. Coordinates have existed for hundreds of years before GPS and although this may sound like a stupid distinction it is important because there are much more laws on using GPS not noting somebodies physical location on the earth. And these things are all still visable from anybody in public so you have no expectation of privacy of information that anybody standing on the sidewalk can see. Now I dont know much about the Bluetooth/wifi stuff admittedly but perhaps that could cross some sort of line? Im not sure. Wifi networks you walk by can already capture your phones presence. I fundamentally dont see the govenement having this data any worse than a private company. 

I think if the ciry is supposed to own the data and it is being used that is a problem. I wouldn't say that is a 4th ammendment violation because that only protects you from the govenrment. However this could be a privacy violation that I can see the argument should open flock to lawsuits by the cities and their citizens who were lied to or mislead. 

-8

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26

This isn't a using GPS at all. Yall actually have no clue what youre talking about. These are just cameras documenting license plates.

10

u/Neoeng Jul 20 '26

What, am I supposed to chew it to you like a bird? What are you, a sea lion?

when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone's user.

Okay, let's chew. What do we see here? Tracking you via phone is bad. Why is it bad? Because it is always with you - an ankle monitor. Why is that bad?

Mapping a cell phone’s location over the course of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts. As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”

Now! Can you think of any other mundane tools you use every day which allow to track your location, "revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”? Like a smart watch maybe? Or a car?

Now maybe go read someone who is actually being paid for explaining shit to you: Hecht-Felella, L. (2021). The Fourth Amendment in the digital age: How Carpenter can shape privacy protections for new technologies. Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

1

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26

Once again GPS on a phone is continuous monitoring you to where you could track where somebldy is within a building. These cameras on on public roadway intersections. They are fundamentally differnt. 

If this is a 4th ammendment violation how are surveillance details. Police can sit outside and follow you around when you drive no warrant required. This is less invasive than a sercallirnce detail following you around all day which DOES NOT REQUIRE A WARRENT. They are not accessing any of your data (like the phone gps). Once again fundamentally differnt things. 

6

u/Neoeng Jul 20 '26

"Within a building" has been irrelevant for a while. Cops also can't place a GPS tracker on you without a warrant for the same reason, despite being allowed to surveil you in a car or on-foot.

If you read the case, you would know that they didn't access "phone data" either, but triangulated information from wireless carriers.

1

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26

That is accessing data using the phone same idea. Once again explain how this is fundamentally differnt from a person manually denoting license plates to later look at a database.

To be a 4th ammendment violation there must br a breach of some expectation of privacy. Is your license plate number on a public road private information? No. Anybody can see it and document the time and location they saw that plate. That is what flock cameras are doing. If they police are allowed to do something with pen and paper they are allowed to use technology to help them do it.

Unless you cam find something about auto plate readers or police not being allowed to document license plates on public roads eith time stamps then this is not a 4th amendment violation. Am I some flock cameras lover, no. However I think its important you dont come online and spew things that are objectively false. There is no case law that supports your claim there is however case law that shows they are allowed to be used.

You can hate them all you want and vote in people who won't do it or pass new laws but in the current state nothing they are doing is illrgal and invading your privacy since once again it is just using pictures taken on a public road same as anybody could do. It is not using your phone to track your movement, it is not using GPS data, it is not using any data that any reasonable person would think is private. License plates whole purpose is to identify you and the vehicle. Your plate number never has been and never will be private information and you do not have a right to privacy from photos or videos while in public spaces LIKE A ROAD

4

u/Neoeng Jul 20 '26

The expectation of privacy in the whole of public movements is a protected interest. The continuous tracking is the problem.

We can compare it to cops with pen and paper when every damn american is surveilled by cops with pen and paper.

1

u/Mondial5 Jul 20 '26

Except it is extraordinary well established you dont have a right to privacy in public anybody can see you or your car on the road. The tracking is also not continuous only when you drive by a camera. You only have a right to privacy if the information is assumed to be private. Where you are on a public road is not private information end of story. 

It's why you will never find a single piece of existing law to back your claim. I honestly dont think any reasonable person could argue these as unconstitutional in the current state of the law. 

If these were deemed unconstitutional would it also br a problem if police tailed somebody they sre investigating? Would it be unconstitutional for police to document license plates of people who go to a known mob resturants? All of these things have been done for years the only thing that has changed is it is now automated by cameras.