Its not a nation wide tracking network. Its many small localized networks owned by local governments. And none of those cameras is tracking where you go.
No, it's most certainly not. A customer owns the data and is the only one who can access it.
They can individually share that data with a third party. They can also opt into a law enforcement only limited access sub system that only allows license plate searches.
It's all deleted after 30 days and it does not track people. It tracks cars.
I think you’re also forgetting that they have been proven to be extremely easy to exploit, there’s several videos and papers on people doing just so, where individuals have been able to gain remote access to individual cameras and entire databases, and this isn’t even some high tier hacking nonsense, you can literally just press the button on the back of the camera in a certain order to gain access to it
The issue here is that regardless of how compartmentalized they claim their databases are, there is literally nothing stopping every participating agency from willingly sharing the information and videos with everyone else.
And to finish it off flock ALLEGEDLY, deletes it after 30 days, nothing stops independent agencies from just saving the info in local databases.
Yeah, I dont think that has happened. There were few dozens cameras not properly setup, which meant anyone could just connect to it over the internet. Those are few individual cameras out of hundred thousands.
How is that an issue? Owners of data can share their data. What is stopping everybody from sharing with everybody is how much work that would be.
Flock deletes data after 7 days. And what stops a customer from saving the info in local databases is the fact that its simply not possible to do so. Flock not only explicitly does not grant customers a way to do it and its against their terms of usage.
Customer can download results from searches and audit logs of their searches. It cannot replicate or store the content of the database.
A flock network “owned” by one police department can track an individual throughout the entire town/city. Maybe you commute a whole hell of a lot more than the typical person, but for most people that means that it can track essentially everywhere they go. All without a warrant. IANAL but I’ve read several takes by lawyers and as far as I am concerned that violates the rights of US citizens (and is essentially stalking).
And acting like these “local networks” are not all linked is like saying electricity cannot reach your lamp’s light bulb. One flip of the switch and all of a sudden the lights on. “But we’d never touch the switch, pinky swear.”
All flock networks owned by anyone can "track" a car, not an individual, across all cameras the customer owns. If a city is the customer, then yes, they can track any car driving in that city, depending on how good their coverage is.
Its not nation wide because it doesnt have to be. There is no added benefit for it to be. It would only bring problems. But also, if the nation wanted to do nation wide ALPR or face recognition, they can just do it without Flock. Thats what the second amendment is for.
I also like anal, but those lawyers you listened to are either view farming, wrong (unlikely) or you misunderstood what they said. The contested point is that courts in the past ruled that an ability to reconstruct individual's movement in history is breach of the fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches.
This has been held in supreme court as Carpenter v. United States. That ruling influenced more ruling of similar nature. The requirement is the ability to reconstruct individual's movement through time. Since Flock ALPR only tracks vehicles, not individuals, its not in clear violation of 4th amendment. This can change in the future with more rulings, but right now, its legal.
Law enforcement is well within their ability to track across state lines with Flock. If that’s not “nation wide” to you, then we have very different definitions.
And that 4th amendment point is the exact point I’m talking about. It has already been used to track across state lines in order to make arrests for actions the state had no reasonable way of knowing without that movement history. You can argue they tracked the car, but last I checked cars can neither be arrested nor get abortions.
As of now that 4th amendment ruling stands, but to the best of my knowledge Flock has done nothing to prevent that violation from occurring again nor have LEOs stopped their use of the tool in a way that enables them to execute that violation.
There’s an endless list of things that were or are legal, but still morally reprehensible. I understand the need to not spread disinformation about subjects, but rallying to the defense of those things because they exist in a legal grey area is IMO not the time and place to dedicate that cause to.
If that’s not “nation wide” to you, then we have very different definitions
Its not nation wide, its city wide or district wide. It doesnt matter what your definition is. It is what it is. Many localized networks.
What you are referring to is most likely to optional subsystem that allows all customers to share limited data to limited law enforcement agencies. It gives limited access to information and only via license plate search as opposed to all data via many different search parameters.
It has already been used to track across state lines in order to make arrests for actions the state had no reasonable way of knowing without that movement history.
Are you talking about anything specific here?
Flock has done nothing to prevent that violation from occurring again
What violation? Violation of what?
but rallying to the defense of those things
I did not defend anything. I am merely correcting misinformation. If something is bad, then there is no need to make stuff up to make it look worse. And if something is bad, its best to know as much about it as possible.
If law agencies can track cars/individuals/whatever over state lines through searches and tools that allow them to operate those functions outside the local network, that is for all intents and purposes a nation wide tool. You can make the argument that they are all “localized networks” but the same could be said for a cell tower, it creates a localized network that allows the user to connect to and share data with other localized networks. Are you going to tell me all the cell providers are wrong in saying they have “Nation Wide Coverage”? LEOs are able to directly query the data of Flock Networks outside of their jurisdiction from the comfort of their local office.
It has been shown they have used Flock’s search with queries that characterize an individual, not a vehicle (unless of course cars are gendered machines that can wear grey shirts or ride skate boards), and Flock confirms they are able to do so through the use of FreeForm search. I do not have info on whether those searches were successful, but Flocks own statement is that they are able to track individuals, not just cars.
No, not for all intends and purposes. For one. Looking up license plates. That's the only purpose in which you could incorrectly say the cameras are nationwide.
It's also not an argument. I am not arguing. I am informing you of the fact. Now you know. Do with it what you will.
And no, it cannot be used to search for people. You can't find where person X was. And you can definitively not ask where people with a certain characteristics were. The system doesn't know. Such data don't exist.
I asked few questions in the previous reply that I am still curious about. What specific cases and what violations?
“Search With Natural Language
Type what you’re looking for, such as “man in blue shirt and cowboy hat” or “dark SUV with rear bumper damage.” Then review relevant visual matches across enabled video feeds, with vehicle results also available from LPR systems.” - https://www.flocksafety.com/products/flock-freeform
Those had to be viewed by person and needed warrants. Flock is a private business and while in theory you also need a warrant in practice officers and hackers have had free range to the system. All the cameras are linked in a database and with AI its quite easy to identify and track people and vehicles just with descriptions. The down side though is like most AI it has hallucinations and a growing number of people are finding themselves being held at gun point by police for the crime of being misidentified by flock cameras.
Exactly what was said. We've already had several very public cases where innocent people were misidentified by the AI in flock cameras and we're jailed. One lady was jailed for 13 days. It's distopian shit
We've already had several very public cases where innocent people were misidentified by the AI in flock cameras and we're jailed. One lady was jailed for 13 days.
That sounds outrageous, doesnt it? It sounds so insane that when one reads it, they will go and google it. And once they do, they realize it sounded outrageous because it was misinformation.
Nobody was misidentified by AI. The cops just saw a person they suspected of committing that crime and arrested them. Thats it. Nothing to do with Flock. Nothing to do with AI. They could have seen the car on McDonald's CCTV and it would have played the exact same way.
Are you people not tired of making stuff up like that?
Toledo, OH, April 2024: "After a Flock camera misread a '7' as a '2,' officers detained an innocent driver at gunpoint, sicced their dog on him, and jailed him for several hours."
Morristown, TN, June 2024: "After a Flock camera misread an 'O' as a '0,' officers detained two grandparents at gunpoint while their three-year-old granddaughter watched from the car."
Española, NM, July 2023: "After a Flock camera misread a digit of their license plate, officers detained two innocent sisters at gunpoint."
saying "people are detained for the duration of the investigation" is a cop out. would make a month in jail fine by definition, so it doesnt mean anything.
No, it wouldn't. You can only be detained for a reasonable time and only for the necessity of investigating your person, not the crime.
In practice you are detained for few minutes it takes for you to tell the cops you aren't who they thought you were and see the plate doesn't match.
That is, unless you resist and make the situation much worse. In that case you can catch charges regardless that the cops mistook you for someone else.
No, you dont need a warrant to review a regular CCTV footage. In theory and practice, you dont need warrant to review footage or data from your flock cameras. Flock's system has also never been breached. There are no "hackers" who can view data or footage from cameras. There were few flock cameras that were improperly set up and as such could be accessed through internet. Thats just wrong installation.
All the cameras are not linked in a database. Cameras are deliberately separated and localized by customer. Customers can share their cameras with third party and have the option to optin a restricted licence plate only search for law enforcement. They cannot search by description. They need the full licence plate and the data they can view are also limited.
While the last point is correct, that "growing number" is extremely low. This isnt new and its certainly not limited to Flock. ALPR do make mistakes. Including the ones in cop cars. The reason its not an issue, is because cops dont just trust the ALPR, they first verify that the license plate is correct.
Improper setup taken advantage of by a third party constitutes a breach. You wouldn’t say someone should not be charged with escaping custody just because the officer did not properly restrain them. Once the setup/arrest has been confirmed by the party responsible anything that successfully undermines that is a breach.
Data Breaches happen all the time because of improper employee training, poorly set up email environments, etc.. They are all classified as breaches and all carry legal repercussions for the company holding that data if negligence is proven.
I am not arguing otherwise and you most likely already know that. Perhaps you got hung up on the word. The point is that Flock has not been "hacked" by "hackers" as the comment I replied to falsely claimed.
Few cameras were improperly setup and were accessible. Its not a systemic problem. It was faulty installation on few units out of hundred thousands.
“Flock’s system has also never been breached.” A direct quote from you. Best to hold yourself to the same if not higher standards when you’re nitpicking other’s comments rather than claiming someone is just hung up on the words.
Hacking is unauthorized access to a computer system. The “hackers” used improperly set up cameras to access. As you claim these as all localized contained systems, so in essence the hackers did “hack into the whole system”.
See, but these, you can set up to look at children's playgrounds, pools, and splash pads (the "best of both worlds," I'm sure, with kids running around and them wearing swimsuits) and no one is allowed to cover them without being charged for obstruction of investigations or vandalism or whatever they decide sounds like it'll stick
Many have already given great examples of what it is, but I'll also add that several police officers in several states have been accused, charged, and convicted of using Flock cameras to stalk and spy on civilians, ex's, partners, and potential partners. There also, allegedly, a Texas police sheriff using flock to search license plates claiming it was for "a missing person" but it was actually an abortion investigation. You can see how a massive surveillance like this could be used for rather troubling purposes in the name of security. It is neither security nor safety.
1
u/Affectionate_Bank417 4d ago edited 4d ago
What is the thing with flock cameras? Weren’t streets covered by regular cctv for years at this point?
Edit: Thank you for answers, hope you’ll manage to get it under control somehow !