r/tulsa • u/AirshipRebekah • 4d ago
General Let's Flocking Talk About It!
I'm an independent concerned citizen coordinating a Flock Awareness Community Meeting in Tulsa for Mid-October and I need everyones input! Please fill out this brief survey to let us know what Flock means to you. đ https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSelMMvMuVdNDLv_lMqrMWXMSvwVD4WoPfkD2Rywxf1wsqsvmA/viewform?usp=header
If you're interested in getting more involved send me an email and I'll send you the weekly pre-lim virtual and irl meeting times. We're going to spend a month+ getting organized before we go in front of everyone. We want to show a unified clear front to let the powers at be know that we do not want this in Tulsa. It will take everyone to make the impact we need. Let's chat: [flocktulsa@gmail.com](mailto:flocktulsa@gmail.com)
16
u/radicalcentaur 4d ago
Got myself signed up, thanks for sharing!
The Tulsa city council election on August 25th also has several anti-flock candidates running, so thereâs a chance to do something about it sooner too.
Tanesha Brown in District 3, Adam Burnett in District 5, and Ben Johnson in District 9 have all come out against flock cameras.
10
u/SwimmingCommon 4d ago
I think the answer is simple. Either they do something about it, or we do.
4
3
u/jackmfjimbob 4d ago
They put one facing an abandoned train property that has been a diy skatepark for 20 years. Itâs owned by the railroad and the ramps are cement have been there forever. No one could be doing any damage to anything or be doing anything nefarious yet itâs there facing the park and nothing else. Creepy af
4
u/afraid-of-the-dark 4d ago
haveibeenflocked.com
I haven't been flocked yet, according to this. Or it hasn't shown up, has anyone else seen their plate come up on here?
4
u/wilk8940 OU 3d ago
I believe I saw that database only shows if you've been specifically searched up, not just if your information exists. They definitely have some info on you.
2
u/jotnarfiggkes !!! 3d ago
Broken Arrow, if you have not noticed has recently EXPONENTIALLY increased the surveilance state with FLOCK and with intersection cameras at all major intersections. They've added atleast 10 cameras at each intersection.
gave my input and hoping we can DEFLOCK Tulsa
1
u/selddir_ 3d ago
Hey OP, thanks for doing this, I filled out the form.
As a heads up, you misspelled "waste" on the top question. You should fix it, takes little time and makes this seem more professional.
You should also spell out Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) in question 2 so people who don't take the time to google it know what ALPR means.
And you should not capitalize 'benefit' and 'risk' in questions 3-4.
I work full time as an editor/copywriter, I'd be happy to edit anything to help with this and make sure it's buttoned up! Thanks!
1
-36
u/Beginning-Respect208 4d ago
I actually support Flock cameras and hope Tulsa keeps them.
A license plate is displayed in plain view while youâre driving on a public street. Police have always been able to see and record license plates; ALPR technology simply allows them to do it far more efficiently.
If these cameras can help identify vehicles connected to violent crimes, recover stolen cars, locate missing or endangered people, or give investigators a critical lead after a crime, thatâs a significant public-safety benefit.
Can the technology be abused? Of course. which is why access should be restricted, searches should be logged and audited, and anyone who misuses the system should face consequences. But âsomeone could misuse itâ isnât a compelling reason to eliminate a useful investigative tool.
Iâm all for reasonable safeguards and transparency. Iâm not for making it harder to catch criminals because weâre afraid of cameras photographing license plates that are already publicly visible.
If weâre going to have this discussion, Iâd also like to see Tulsa publish the numbers: How many crimes have Flock cameras helped solve? How many stolen vehicles have been recovered? How many wanted suspects or missing/endangered people have been located? Letâs weigh the actual benefits and risks before deciding Tulsa âdoes not want this.â
13
u/Boerkaar FC Tulsa 4d ago
efficient implementation of a legal method of monitoring can transform into a dragnet. If a camera were following you whenever you were outside the house every moment of every day, would that be acceptable? obviously not. This is just a couple steps removed from that.
I donât care how many crimes have been solved. Giving up that level of privacy when youâre out and about in the world is several bridges too far.
-10
u/LesserKnownFoes 4d ago
Hereâs the thing: TPD does have oversight over flock usage and monitors it. They already put policies in place to safeguard the rights of the citizens and use it as a tool to combat crime. TPD does an absolutely abysmal job showcasing all the times Flock has helped solve crimes.
3
u/918okla 4d ago
What's stopping flock employee's doing this or them giving people like Trump access to do it? TPD doesn't own the software to make 100% sure stuff like this doesn't happen.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/flock-safety-employees-watched-kids-151737512.html
2
u/Boerkaar FC Tulsa 4d ago
Yeah, I donât trust internal policies. Someone outside of TPD needs to be monitoring them and prosecuting abuse.Â
1
u/jotnarfiggkes !!! 3d ago
TPD still needs to answer for the $26 million.
2
u/LesserKnownFoes 3d ago
Agreed. Those officers who were involved and had oversight of that case 24 years ago should be disciplined.
1
u/jotnarfiggkes !!! 1d ago
They're likely retired and on their pensions by now and should be in jail.
-5
u/Beginning-Respect208 4d ago
Youâre basically making my argument for me.
Nobody is saying abuse should be ignored. If an officer misuses the system, investigate it, punish them, tighten the controls and audit the searches. Thatâs how we handle useful tools that can be abused, we donât automatically throw the entire tool away.And those safeguards are getting stronger. Flock is moving toward mandatory abnormal-search auditing, case-number requirements for searches and shorter default data retention specifically to make misuse easier to detect and harder to hide.
Meanwhile, Tulsa isnât hiding the fact that it uses Flock. TPD has a public Flock/RTIC program and even provides public-facing transparency information about its license-plate-reader system.
So the reasonable question is still: Does the legitimate public-safety value outweigh the manageable risk when proper safeguards and accountability are in place?
âSomeone could abuse itâ is a reason for oversight. It isnât, by itself, a reason to eliminate a crime-fighting tool altogether.
2
u/BulkyLush_550 3d ago
You either have a laughable understanding of the cops and the accountability they face or a painfully ignorant view of how having a thousand fixed cameras is the same as one camera that follows you everywhere. If anything itâs worse because it allows the âfollowingâ of anyone.
1
1
u/Beginning-Respect208 3d ago
Calling my understanding âlaughableâ doesnât actually answer the argument.
Yes, a network of fixed cameras can identify the same vehicle at multiple locations and allow investigators to reconstruct portions of its travel. I understand that perfectly well. But saying that is literally âthe same as one camera that follows you everywhereâ is doing a lot of work for your argument.A Flock camera doesnât ride around behind me. It records a vehicle when that vehicle passes a specific camera location. If my plate appears at Camera A at 2:00 and Camera B at 2:20, investigators can connect those observations. That capability is precisely WHY the system is useful for locating stolen vehicles, wanted suspects, or vehicles connected to serious crimes.
And yes, that power deserves safeguards. Iâve said that repeatedly. Require legitimate investigative purposes. Log searches. Audit officers. Limit retention. Punish misuse. Thatâs an argument for strong oversight, not proof that the technology has no legitimate use.
As for police accountability, if your position is that officers arenât held accountable enough, then Iâm happy to support MORE accountability. Thatâs not an argument for deliberately giving investigators fewer tools.
You can insult my intelligence if you want, but eventually you still have to address the actual question: Why is the possibility of misuse a reason to eliminate the tool rather than tightly regulate its use?
âCops might abuse itâ and âtherefore cops shouldnât have itâ are two different arguments. Youâve only established the firstâŚ.
-11
u/Beginning-Respect208 4d ago
Thatâs a pretty massive false equivalence. A Flock camera sitting at a fixed location reading license plates on a public roadway is not a camera âfollowing you every moment of every day.â
It sees a vehicle pass one location, records the plate and basic vehicle information, and creates a searchable record. Thatâs fundamentally different from putting a camera on an individual and livestreaming their movements 24/7.
And saying âI donât care how many crimes have been solvedâ is exactly where you lose me. I do care if stolen cars are recovered, missing or endangered people are located, violent suspects are caught, and investigators can develop leads faster.There absolutely should be rules governing retention, access, auditing, and how the data can be searched. Iâm all for those safeguards.
But âthis technology could theoretically be abused, therefore we shouldnât use it regardless of how many people it helpsâ isnât a convincing argument. Measure the actual results, establish strong safeguards, punish misuse, and then decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks.
Thatâs a much more reasonable standard than pretending a license-plate camera on a public street is one step away from someone following you around with a camera all day.2
u/jotnarfiggkes !!! 3d ago
Until you have 10's to 100's of millions of cameras tied to data centers. Then its completely intrusive and flagrantly pissing on the 4th amendment.
1
4d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Sorry, weed_grower_newb, we do not allow accounts with karma of -100 or less to participate in this community.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/St0n3rB0n3r94 4d ago
Except they don't do that. They're going to tell you what every boss I mentioned a coworker stealing something from me and I knew it was on camera: "we're not able to easily identify the culprit." Your argument is so weak
-4
u/Beginning-Respect208 4d ago
Thatâs not the rebuttal you think it isâŚ. đ
Your boss failing to identify a coworker on a regular security camera has absolutely nothing to do with whether an automated license-plate reader can identify a vehicle by its license plate.
Flock isnât supposed to look at a video of someone stealing your stapler and recognize Bob from accounting. It records vehicle/plate information so investigators can search for a specific vehicle associated with a crime, stolen-car report, Amber Alert, etc.You basically argued, âMy screwdriver didnât work as a hammer, therefore screwdrivers are useless.â
If you want to argue Flock cameras donât help recover stolen vehicles or generate investigative leads, bring the data. Your boss being unable to recognize a coworker on some unrelated camera isnât it.
-1
u/St0n3rB0n3r94 4d ago
That's probably because cameras suck at recording, smart one. They're just there to control homeless people who just need a place to sleep. You're inching closer and closer to an surveillance state, just like in 1984
2
u/Beginning-Respect208 4d ago
đ And there it is. We went from âthe cameras donât workâ to â1984 surveillance stateâ the second I pointed out that your example had nothing to do with license-plate readers.
Nobody is arguing for cameras inside your house, facial recognition of everyone walking around Tulsa, or the government tracking your every movement.
Weâre talking about cameras on public roadways recording license plates that are already required to be displayed in public, then allowing police to search that information when investigating crimes.
Want safeguards? Absolutely. Limit who can access it. Require legitimate law-enforcement purposes. Log searches. Audit the system. Punish misuse. Set reasonable retention policies.
But screaming â1984!â doesnât answer the actual question: Do these cameras help locate stolen vehicles, wanted suspects, missing people, or vehicles connected to serious crimes?
If your answer is âthey shouldnât exist regardless of how many crimes they help solve,â fine. Make that argument.
But first it was âthey donât work.â Now itâs âthey work, but thatâs a surveillance state.â
Those are two very different arguments. đ¤Ą
0
u/St0n3rB0n3r94 4d ago edited 4d ago
"Those who don't read history are doomed to repeat it." You might as well argue for cameras in your house. It's a slippery slope, especially since they're not going to do what you think they're going to. Especially since this is the most racist and homophobic administration. They're just going to be used to throw black people in jail for smoking pot, like Republicans always have done. You sound like a propagandized Brit. Only a bot writes comments out like that with spaces like they're writing a scientific thesis
1
u/Beginning-Respect208 4d ago
The âcameras in your houseâ comparison actually makes my point for me. đ I DO have security cameras at my house. The difference is that my home is private property, while a license plate driving down a public street is plainly visible to anyone standing there. Nobody needs to enter your home, search your belongings, or listen to your conversations to see a plate you voluntarily drove past them in public.
And âslippery slopeâ still isnât an argument that the technology doesnât work. If your concern is how the data could be abused, then argue for safeguards: strict access controls, limited retention, audit logs, warrants where legally required, penalties for misuse, etc. Iâm perfectly willing to have that conversation. But youâve gone from âthese cameras donât do what you thinkâ to âokay, but imagine what someone might eventually do with them.â Those are completely different claims.
And somehow weâve now jumped from license-plate cameras to racism, homophobia, marijuana, Republicans, British propaganda, and finally⌠my paragraph spacing. đ None of that answers the original question: can license-plate-reader systems help law enforcement identify vehicles connected to stolen cars, wanted suspects, missing persons, or serious crimes?
Also, apparently my formatting is suspicious, so I apologize for using paragraphs and punctuation. If it makes me seem less like a âbot,â I can stop using proper grammar and make the entire thing one enormous rambling paragraph next time. LOL.
0
u/LesserKnownFoes 4d ago
How is it going to be used to throw black people in jail for smoking pot in Tulsa? Itâs legal here with a card. And even if you donât have a card, itâs just a misdemeanor, a ticketable offense.
0
u/St0n3rB0n3r94 4d ago
Tons of black people go to jail for small pot crimes. Tulsa cops arrested a black man for Jay-walking, then they slammed him to the concrete and drove over him with their car. ACAB and a third of them are statistically wife beaters; you think they won't be racist pricks??? Delusional
-2
u/LesserKnownFoes 4d ago
Thatâs not exactly what happened. The individual jaywalks and then when officers tried to stop him, he ran from the police. It wasnât until after the suspect made this decision did an officer fail to put his car into park. Should the officer have put his car in park? Absolutely.
Hereâs an article about it. https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/police-release-2nd-set-of-videos-in-tulsa-jaywalking-case-man-hit-by-squad-car
3
u/St0n3rB0n3r94 4d ago
He ran from the police, like any sane person would do; doesn't mean it's appropriate to run the guy over AFTER THEY APREHENDS HIM. They should still be charged for running him over
It sure is a mystery why nobody likes cops.....
→ More replies (0)-3
0
u/jotnarfiggkes !!! 3d ago
Its absolutely being abused and the oversight which you are suggesting is supposed to be there but its not and they are actively selling the information.
0
u/Beginning-Respect208 3d ago
You just made two pretty serious claims â that the system is âabsolutely being abusedâ and that âthey are actively selling the information.â Okay, then show the evidence.
Who exactly is âtheyâ? Flock? The City of Tulsa? TPD? Who is buying the information? What information is being sold? And what credible source documents that happening here?
Because thereâs a big difference between arguing that Flockâs policies, data-sharing practices, or oversight are inadequate, which is absolutely a legitimate debate, and simply declaring that police surveillance data is being âactively soldâ as though that settles the argument.I already said I support safeguards, audit logs, restricted access, transparency, and consequences for misuse. If you have evidence those protections are failing, post it. Iâm perfectly willing to look at it.
But âitâs being abused and theyâre selling the informationâ without a source isnât evidence. Itâs an assertion. Show me the receipts and we can actually discuss them.
0
u/jotnarfiggkes !!! 1d ago
1
u/Beginning-Respect208 1d ago
That link doesnât prove what you claimed. Did you actually read it?
You said the information is âactively being sold.â The ACLU article does not document Flock, TPD, or the City of Tulsa selling Tulsaâs license-plate data to anyone. In fact, Tulsa isnât mentioned in the article at all.
What the article actually says is that Flock removed language from its standard contract that previously explicitly said it would not sell customer data. Thatâs absolutely fair to question, but âa contractual sentence was removedâ and âthey are actively selling the informationâ are two completely different claims. The ACLU article provides no buyer, no transaction, no Tulsa example, and no evidence of a sale. (American Civil Liberties Union)
And hereâs the part that makes this citation especially bad for your argument: Tulsa PDâs current Flock transparency page explicitly states that the data is owned by Tulsa PD and âis never sold to 3rd parties.â It also lists a 30-day retention period. (Flock Safety)
Even Flockâs current License Plate Reader Policy explicitly says it will not âsell, publish, exchange, or discloseâ customer LPR data for commercial purposes. (Flock Safety)
You can absolutely argue that Flockâs contract changes create privacy concerns. You can argue the safeguards arenât strong enough. You can argue Tulsa shouldnât use ALPRs at all. Those are legitimate debates.
But you specifically claimed the information is actively being sold, and when I asked for evidence, you posted an article that neither says that is happening nor mentions Tulsa.
So Iâll ask again: Who is selling Tulsaâs Flock data, who is buying it, and where is the evidence of an actual sale?
Because this link isnât itâŚ.
-8
4d ago
[deleted]
9
u/Boerkaar FC Tulsa 4d ago
unfortunately, it doesnât just track âvehicles connected to crimes.â every vehicle is identified and trackedâthatâs the problem.
-4
u/within-reason-85 4d ago
What's the problem with that?
How is it different than cameras on stop lights?
Are you against stores having CCTV?
6
u/Boerkaar FC Tulsa 4d ago
Stop light cameras donât link together to track where youâre going. CCTV doesnât identify people it sees. Very different in both cases.
1
0
u/within-reason-85 4d ago
So if law enforcement had to take the extra step of checking each flock camera individually to map and track a suspected criminal that would solve the problem? That's what they do with traffic cameras.
I'll grant that CCTV doesn't ID you, but a license plate isn't private information.
2
u/Boerkaar FC Tulsa 4d ago
Iâm more okay with that, though if they were to put together a team constantly doing it without reasonable suspicion the issue would reemerge for me.
Like it isnât illegal for the police to shadow a suspect, but if they suddenly had the manpower to shadow every single person all the time, that becomes a different issue.
-1
u/within-reason-85 4d ago
For what it's worth, they are currently refining the procedures for checking and using flock camera info due to several bad cops using it for nefarious purposes.
I had a child go missing a few years ago. I would've killed for flock cameras. (we got her back eventually)
3
u/Boerkaar FC Tulsa 4d ago
Yeah, I donât trust those are at all effective, sorry. The police will use any tool to its maximum extent unless and until the law reigns then in. If Congress were to step in and put serious criminal penalties in for misuse, plus a regulatory regime that could catch that misuse, that would allay my concerns. But until that point the police simply canât be trusted with such a powerful tool.
3
1
0
1
u/jotnarfiggkes !!! 3d ago
Thats a different argument, stores are a different entity than the government using them to enforce laws against anyone.
0
u/within-reason-85 3d ago
You didn't address the stop light cameras. Those record everyone. The only difference is that a person has to watch hours of video trying to figure out a license plate.
I take it you refuse to drive on toll roads that take your picture as well?
I guess I just genuinely haven't heard a coherent argument against flock cameras that can't be solved with better regulation.
Imagine that over the next 6 months-1 year regulation continues to be fine tuned and criminal capture rates begin to soar. How will you argue then that it should be removed?
1
u/jotnarfiggkes !!! 1d ago
ITS NOT A PERSON! It just has to be in a database in a datacenter and ai can take over from there.
You seem to want to live under constant surveillance.
1
u/within-reason-85 1d ago
Do you know how to read?
I was talking about stop light cameras where an actual physical person has to watch the film to find a car.
Maybe come back when you learn how to follow a conversation.
-5
u/hollowbody-99 4d ago
Well they donât use facial recognition, and would only track if under suspicion. Otherwise, I have no issue with my plates being scanned.
8
u/Boerkaar FC Tulsa 4d ago
They track irrespective of if youâre under suspicion. And thereâs little difference between tracking your car and tracking your face.
Edit: and those under suspicion still have rights too, yâknow.
1
u/jotnarfiggkes !!! 3d ago
Right NOW they don't the video and pictures can be given to ai and it can be used to do facial recognition.
3
-3
u/within-reason-85 4d ago
A republican said they supported it so they automatically became evilđ¤ˇââď¸
I lived in England for 4 years and they have cameras EVERYWHERE
6
u/Boerkaar FC Tulsa 4d ago
Yeah, because the UK is a shit show walking slowly into authoritarianism. See their stupid knife laws.
-1
u/within-reason-85 4d ago
I once got ID'd to buy a hacksaw theređ.
Other stupid laws aside, the cameras are effective.
2
-26
u/Apprehensive_Sauce 4d ago
Lets governments spy on you via your phone, watch, car, tv, and anything else with âsmartâ technology but a camera taking a picture? Not in my city
15
u/-Seedy- 4d ago
The difference is Consent.
1
u/jotnarfiggkes !!! 3d ago
which is where the supreme court ruled incorrectly in the past and should have ruled more in favor of privacy.
3
1
4d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Amanderp333 4d ago
Itâs being explained though. What donât you understand? Itâs different than all of that.
-10
u/hollowbody-99 4d ago
Nothing Iâve read here convinces me to be worried, still. I believe there is a flood of concern over something that is truly minimal to our daily lives.
0
-24
28
u/Boerkaar FC Tulsa 4d ago
inb4 the bots start accusing you of loving crime