330 pointsby NDlurker4 hours ago42 comments
  • jeremyberemy3 hours ago
    > Police use the technology to investigate crimes such as hit-and-runs and to locate missing persons. > No suspects have been identified.

    Yeah, that tracks.

    > Camera data is owned by the police department and permanently deleted after 30 days.

    I assume this means that the police department deletes one local copy?

    • advisedwang3 hours ago
      > Camera data is owned by the police department and permanently deleted after 30 days

      There's so much going on in that sentence! What a thing of pure PR beauty.

      What does "owned" mean in this sentence? Probably fairly little.

      What data does it even refer to? Just the actual video footage? Does the statement include derived data like license plate reads or ML models?

      And surely if data is flagged as relevant to an investigation it is not deleted, so is there an implicit "*unless retained"?

      • rconti3 hours ago
        You know, unless they get a national security letter, or change their TOS, or....
        • duped3 hours ago
          Or their app was configured to let other LE agencies access it without their knowledge in violation of state law (1). Only linked one case but afaik it happened in a number of CA cities.

          (1) https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/privacy/2026/02/flock-came...

          • toomuchtodo43 minutes ago
            https://www.ilsos.gov/news/2025/august-25-2025-giannoulias-a...

            > Giannoulias’ Audit Finds License Plate Reader Company in Violation of Illinois State Law

            > Flock Safety Shared Illinois Data with U.S. Customs and Border Protection Secretary, Orders Flock to Shut off Data Access

            https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas...

            > Last May, 404 Media obtained data revealing the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office conducted a nationwide search of more than 83,000 Flock ALPR cameras, giving the reason in the search log: “had an abortion, search for female.” Both the Sheriff's Office and Flock Safety have attempted to downplay the search as akin to a search for a missing person, claiming deputies were only looking for the woman to “check on her welfare” and that officers found a large amount of blood at the scene – a claim now contradicted by the responding investigator’s affidavit. Flock Safety went so far as to assert that journalists and advocates covering the story intentionally misrepresented the facts, describing it as "misreporting" and "clickbait-driven."

            > Earlier this month, there was purposefully misleading reporting that a Texas police officer with the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office used LPR “to target people seeking reproductive healthcare.” This organization is actively perpetuating narratives that have been proven false, even after the record has been corrected. According to the Sheriff in Johnson County himself, this claim is unequivocally false. That sheriff has since been arrested and indicted on felony counts in an unrelated sexual harassment and whistleblower retaliation case. He has also been charged with aggravated perjury for allegedly lying to a grand jury. EFF filed public records requests with Johnson County to obtain a more definitive account of events.

      • devsda3 hours ago
        What if "owning" here means the same as "owning" any movie online.

        If questioned, I can already imagine someone defending that sort of agreement as a standard consumer, contractual terms and practices of the time.

      • joe_the_user2 hours ago
        Yes, the police own the videos they take of you? Like LLM companies own the models they digest from the texts they don't own?
        • advisedwang2 hours ago
          There's no such thing as legal ownership of data. There's IP rights, contracts and innumerable data regulation laws, but not actual ownership. "Ownership" here just provides a vague cover that sounds like something definite but is not.
        • ranger_danger2 hours ago
          I believe they're implying that Flock still has access to it even if the police technically retain legal ownership.
      • cyanydeez3 hours ago
        most likely the videos are deleted because it'd be a ginormous expense to keep it around; everything else, yeah, it's not being deleted.
        • dessimus2 hours ago
          It might be deleted at the PD, does not mean it wasn't uploaded to Flock DCs for metadata analysis and retained there.
      • roysting3 hours ago
        [dead]
    • GolfPopper3 hours ago
      Police used Flock's license plate network to stalk women in at least 50 cases

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-used-flocks-lice...

      • stackghost3 hours ago
        Police officers are also statistically more likely to abuse their spouses. Don't let the women you care about get involved with cops.
        • alwa2 hours ago
          Lesbians too [0]. And people who don’t make much money [1]. And people who aren’t Asian [2]. And athletes, and people who like sports [3].

          Applying group statistics to judge individual people is almost never proper, and lies at the root of an awful lot of inhumanity. I hope and imagine the women in question are capable of thinking (and judging) for themselves.

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

          [1] https://www.cawc.org/news/socioeconomic-risk-factors-for-dom...

          [2] https://bjs.ojp.gov/violent-victimization-race-or-hispanic-o...

          [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10087409/#hsc14028-...

          • magicalist3 minutes ago
            > Lesbians too [0]

            > A 2010 CDC survey compared domestic violence victimization rates between lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women. The differences between most forms of reported domestic violence rates between lesbian women and heterosexual women were found to be non-significant due to insufficient statistical power.

            ??

        • f6v2 hours ago
          > Don't let the women you care about get involved with cops.

          I don't see any difference between what you just said and "13-85".

          • UncleMeat24 minutes ago
            Being a cop is a choice. Being black is not.
          • john_strinlai2 hours ago
            >and "13-85".

            what does this specific lingo mean? normal searches and ai are both as confused as i am

            • dessimus2 hours ago
              I'm going to assume that commenter is referring to 'black crime rates' claiming that they make up 13% of the population while claiming that 85% of crime or some segment like violent crime is committed by them.
          • an hour ago
            undefined
          • an hour ago
            undefined
        • quickthrowman2 hours ago
          People who use the threat of violence and actual violence to control people at work being more likely to do so at home to their own family seems self-evident to me.

          Not making any moral judgements, if I used violence professionally I’d expect myself to be more violent in general.

        • Henchman212 hours ago
          60% of the spouses of police officers report being victims of domestic violence. The other 40% are too scared to answer honestly.

          Seems like that might be indicative of a problem?

          • s1artibartfastan hour ago
            Not necessarily. One can accept that violent people do a violent job and commit violence in their home life.

            Anyways, that study that everyone loves to cite is like 30 or 40 years old and unreplicated.

    • Merad3 hours ago
      Flock data can be accessed by cops nationwide who have different (or no) restrictions on data retention or privacy compared to local police.
    • whatisthiseven3 hours ago
      Flock has been known to lie and there isn't any reason to believe they are telling the truth. Why would they? There isn't some duty for them to tell the truth in an article.

      Trying to parse what that sentence means is useless. It isnt designed to mean anything. Their various mouth pieces have claimed every manner of excuse.

      Semantic games are for everyone else to play and lose. Corporations always win.

    • mapotofu3 hours ago
      > deletes one local copy.

      I think you’re being a little too generous here.

    • alwa2 hours ago
      > raise concerns about data being shared with third-party companies or federal agencies.

      What, you don’t like “sharing”? It would be selfish not to “share”!

      Truly the move from “send copies to” to “share” is one of the great linguistic dirty tricks the social-media-era firms have pulled.

      Especially here, where what’s being “shared” is, in a meaningful sense, operational control and enforcement prerogative.

      And don’t get me started on the minimizing formulation “third-party companies and federal agencies”…

    • ibejoeb2 hours ago
      That whole paragraph is like a paid placement.

      > Flock Safety cameras are automated license plate readers

      Like Ring is a door chime.

    • mlfreeman3 hours ago
      Eventually the copy in the officer's browser's cache expires...I figure that's what they mean.
    • culi3 hours ago
      > I assume this means that the police department deletes one local copy?

      Ben Jordan got ahold of one of them and proved that they even had footage from the f'n factory they were made in! Flock is lying to cities and/or cities are lying to us

    • gowld3 hours ago
      No, Flock plays a semantic game where data on Flock's servers os "owned" by the client, so Flock is not responsible for the content or management of the data.
      • skybrian3 hours ago
        Isn't that what you'd expect from a camera service provider? I'd certainly want any videos taken by my own cameras to be owned by me.
        • eli2 hours ago
          I'm not familiar with North Dakota in particular, but at the federal level and in some states ALL works created by the government are exempt from copyright. The public paid for it, so the public owns it.
        • ButlerianJihad3 hours ago
          • Terr_2 hours ago
            I don't see how that relates to any of this. If I record a video of a crowd in public, under US law I have copyright to that video. The crowd isn't creating the record, I am.

            The issue of which group (Flock/police/city) has the real copyright versus an expensive license is interesting to contemplate, but that list doesn't include monkey-agency either.

  • semiquaver3 hours ago

      > and stolen
    
    I’m sure flock’s agreement with the Winona Police Department makes clear that they are only purchasing a license to use these cameras, so in fact the department’s cameras have not been stolen at all, they’ve merely been prevented from enjoying licensed use.
    • yapyap3 hours ago
      > I’m sure flock’s agreement with the Winona Police Department makes clear that they are only purchasing a license to use these cameras

      License to use but responsible for loss

    • s1artibartfast41 minutes ago
      Why would you think that and be so confident?
    • kotaKat3 hours ago
      > That cost falls directly on the Winona Police Department’s budget.

      Nope, Flock bills out the ass for replacement cost right to the taxpayer. The grift continues!

      Alternatively, "defunding the police" by way of smashing Flocks is another view point, from what I've heard.

      • eli2 hours ago
        They bill out the ass to lease them
  • ryandvm3 hours ago
    Curious about the official YCombinator stance on this extremely unpopular YCombinator-backed startup (unpopular here at HN anyway).
    • chuckadams3 hours ago
      I believe "money good" is YC's only guiding principle. HN is a nice resource, but let's not have any illusions about the morals of the owners.
      • 3 hours ago
        undefined
    • avree3 hours ago
      The official YCombinator stance is that Flock was a huge success as an investment - which it seemingly was, given that they managed to sign deals with what seems like every tiny municipality/sheriff/government organization.

      https://www.ycombinator.com/library/N0-unpopular-ideas-that-...

      • SoftTalker2 hours ago
        Because for police departments, they are a huge benefit and well worth the cost. A lot of crimes have been solved with Flock cameras. Stolen cars, or cars linked to criminal activity have been tracked and located. Missing persons have been found.

        None of that justifies the massive invasion of privacy that these cameras represent. You don't have a right to not be individually surveiled in public, but that doesn't mean it's OK for the government to warrantlessly track everyone everywhere they go 24x7, or to do it by proxy with a private company such as Flock. The potential for abuse is just too high, and we've seen many cases of that too.

    • overfeed3 hours ago
      If you've read anything Garry Tan has said, you wouldn't be curious.
      • rconti3 hours ago
        Care to enlighten us?
        • an0malous3 hours ago
          • bix63 hours ago
            lol love that he is quoting an AI that is quoting KTVU
        • 3 hours ago
          undefined
        • UncleMeat23 minutes ago
          Garry is basically a fascist who thinks that democratic governance ruins society and that instead society should be run by tech elite.
        • nchmy3 hours ago
          I believe Garry Tan would enlighten you if you read/listened to him

          edit: to be clear, I dont think Tan is capable of "enlightening" anyone. I was responding to the lazy comment above...

          • Hikikomori3 hours ago
            Garry tan was enlightened by thiels Greta is the anti Christ talk.
          • 3 hours ago
            undefined
    • stickfigure2 hours ago
      Flock threads attract a narrow slice of hotheads on HN, just like anti-social media threads. It's not really possible to say anything definitive about the popularity of Flock in the broad HN community.
      • rcontian hour ago
        Flock seems to be pretty unpopular, internet-wide, in bipartisan tech/very online worlds; feels like 90% to me.

        Where things start coming into balance a bit more is among the Nextdoor paranoia crowd.

        • fckgwan hour ago
          Flock is popular with 1) local police departments and 2) local city councils who don't want to upset the police

          It's pretty unpopular with mainly everyone else.

    • doctorpangloss3 hours ago
      if you want to tackle the POV of the true believers at Y Combinator*: look, flock can't be that effective if all it takes is a guy with a ladder to defeat it, right? same thing with pervasive facial detection, you can wear a mask. you don't have to go into all this philosophical stuff to see how the promises will not be fulfilled.

      *Garry Tan has been characterized as a True Believer, in that he sincerely believes Flock's vision will reduce crime and not be misused. on the flip side they don't invest in Palantir, Anduril, Applied Intuition, etc. or other defense stuff. so it's very exceptional for them.

      • nerdsniper3 hours ago
        YC is definitely pivoting into Defense. Besides 9mothers, there’s a list of 22 defense startups accepted into YC just this year so far:

        https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/industry/defense

        And beyond this there are a number of defense-dependent companies like ProvenMetal (whose value proposition largely depends on a customer’s deep need to do onshore manufacturing)

        It makes sense. From 2000-2015 it was pretty difficult for anyone to break into defense and really own a brand. Breakout companies like EOTech were really rare. Generally founders would be at the mercy/grace of the major defense incumbents ('primes'), getting scraps from their tables.

        That’s changed lately. For a wide variety of reasons (political, technical, and on active battlefields) there’s a lot more room for startups to really own their own slice of the industry and build some moats of their own.

        • doctorpangloss25 minutes ago
          they invest in defense stuff now, that's new!

          but. paul graham doesn't like defense stuff. there were plenty of great defense seed investments (palantir), and he runs the best seed venture firm in the world, always has, so his opinion matters. but it was out of a righteous place, it wasn't because he thought it couldn't make money.

          y combinator is a much bigger fund now with lots of people in charge. the "2000-2015" era you are talking about: valuations of everything were 1/10th of what they are now. it's hard to make any definitive comparisons about venture trends.

      • giancarlostoro3 hours ago
        > or other defense stuff. so it's very exceptional for them.

        9 Mothers.

        https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/9-mothers-corporation

      • etc-hosts2 hours ago
        the Thiel Anti Christ Chats at Garry Tan's house is run by Anduril founders.

        https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/08/michelle-stephens-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trae_Stephens

        It's hard for me to understand how any of this is very Christian.

      • iepathos2 hours ago
        For additional context, for first I've ever seen their rfs specifically asked for startups focused on military applications and warfare "The Future of American Defense" https://www.ycombinator.com/rfs

        Disappointing to see this is the future they are trying to invest in.

      • SlightlyLeftPad2 hours ago
        Palantir and Terminator enter the chat.
    • snootypoot3 hours ago
      [dead]
  • adzm3 hours ago
    What alerts are they getting so often anyway? It's a little town of 25k people.

    I can understand the benefit of being able to track coming and going and criminal activity etc but there is no oversight and it is already being abused.

    Keeping this data within the municipality and requiring bureaucracy to coordinate with others might be the best solution I've heard, since it prevents dragnets and builds in auditing as part of the process.

    See also this article about hiding usage of flock https://www.404media.co/do-not-mention-alpr-usage-how-cops-a...

    • reactordev3 hours ago
      Small towns don't want people spying on them. Small towns also are prime targets for pushing over with your federal approvals to force them into giving you their tax money in the name of "safety". Someone got paid.
      • ricardobayes3 hours ago
        [flagged]
        • AlotOfReading3 hours ago
          Do you have any hard numbers from your community on how many cases had flock as crucial to resolving the case?

          When my community banned them, the police were only able to offer a single vehicle theft case as positive evidence, but the data was being sent to police stations and locally unpopular federal agencies clear across the country. We could have spent the municipal budget on giving the victims a new car with far fewer privacy concerns and still saved money.

          • mlfreeman2 hours ago
            And vehicle theft doesn't even need cameras logging EVERYONE to Flock's databases - just cameras that only report in to the mothership when they see a plate on an internal "most-wanted" list.

            Person reports car stolen, cop adds car info to plate reader most wanted list, most wanted list is transmitted to cameras, cameras don't let plate readings leave RAM unless they're 90% or higher confident that it's on the most wanted list.

            • SoftTalker2 hours ago
              Are the cameras doing the plate recognition and OCR locally? Or (my guess) they are uploading images to a Flock data center where they are processed and then the plate number and location data saved to a database where active search queries are processed?
          • ricardobayes2 hours ago
            For disclosure I'm not in the US and I'm not well versed how things are set up over there. However the cameras seemed to have worked, here: crime has dropped by 10% year on year.
            • phoghed2 hours ago
              I can’t find any evidence that Spain has deployed Flock or any Flock-like system. Do you have an article? I know they have plate cameras in Europe, but the traditional ANPR systems, speed traps and whatnot, they’ve had everywhere. That’s not the same class of system imo.
          • pinkyboy2 hours ago
            He does not, because he's a shitposter who lives in Spain.
        • reactordev2 hours ago
          sounds like you need to move west of 8-mile...

          If you live in a community that can't police, then sure, flock is your answer. Everyone is under surveillance now. Except you are innocent until proven guilty. Video evidence is becoming less and less credible due to AI. It's a slippery slope. I would rather police be trained to look for clues and do actual police work than wait for a "ping" on some automated system that they check from their computer desk.

          • gs172 hours ago
            8 Mile is an east-west road. He'd want north of 8-mile. Sorry to nitpick, but it's hard not to being from just north of 8 Mile Road.
            • reactordev2 hours ago
              I had a 50/50 chance. :)
              • gs172 hours ago
                To be fair, 8 Mile's west endpoint is in a decent enough place, so it's not even wrong, really.
        • DeusExMachina2 hours ago
          Wait, aren't they just licence plate readers? How do they help with all these other crimes?
        • buellerbueller2 hours ago
          What small town is that?
        • pinkyboy2 hours ago
          [flagged]
    • toomuchtodo3 hours ago
      One can easily research if curious and/or interested with a $5 FOIA request using Muckrock if interested. FOIA request templates are available. I see no existing FOIA requests for this jurisdiction within scope of Flock as of this comment.

      https://deflock.org/foia

      https://www.muckrock.com/search/?q=Winona+Flock

  • nchmy3 hours ago
    > Each camera is valued at approximately $3,000, putting the total loss at roughly $24,000. That cost falls directly on the Winona Police Department’s budget.

    Only if they replace them...

    • ortusdux3 hours ago
      Are they contractually obligated to replace them? IIRC, some municipalities have been covering the cameras with trash bags because they cannot turn them off or remove them until their contract expires.
      • dgrin913 hours ago
        I think there is a difference between turning them off/removing and having them be stolen/destroyed. I would be shocked if they would be forced to repurchase them.
        • eli2 hours ago
          They're usually leased. So yeah they probably owe Flock new ones.
    • monkpit3 hours ago
      That would make the loss $48,000 ;)
      • thegrim333 hours ago
        Wait until you find out where they get the money from to replace them
        • mohamedkoubaa3 hours ago
          The city planning pyramid scheme: buy things you can't afford with bonds so that 20 years later when everyone is done raising their kids and moves out the people who move in have to debt service with crumbling infrastructure and schools.
          • cucumber37328422 hours ago
            Bonus points if you pass a bunch of laws and rules that make it nigh on impossible for the next generation to develop any commerce that could possibly pay back your debt right before cashing out all your equity and moving to Idaho or Florida.
    • fourseventy3 hours ago
      If you own a $20,000 car and I steal it, is your loss not $20k? (excluding depreciation etc)
      • nchmy3 hours ago
        Sure, if we're talking about total "wealth". Towns might put the cameras on their balance sheet (unless they're just leased in some way), but I strongly doubt that any towns are selling their flock cameras.

        Moreover, the quote was about budget - it only hits the budget if they replace them. Likewise, if someone steals your car, it only hits your budget if you replace it or otherwise incur other expenses (taxi, etc). If you shrug because you have 4 other cars, or just walk and bike most of the time, its not really hitting your budget.

        • s1artibartfast2 hours ago
          If you are leasing your car, you are absolutely on the hook to the dealership.

          The city is basically leasing the cameras, and responsible for their cost.

      • dozerly3 hours ago
        They do not own them.
    • jbs7893 hours ago
      Haha I had the same thought.
  • calculatte3 hours ago
    So one of the public-private backdoors to erode citizen's rights is being undermined. Such a shame.
    • Cyclone_3 hours ago
      Can you explain how it's eroding rights? It's taking video in public places. Are you against people taking videos in public on their cell phones?
      • fckgw3 hours ago
        I would be against people standing on every single corner taking video of other citizens 24/7 and handing it over to a private company, yes.
        • rconti2 hours ago
          don't forget the taxpayer funds being spent on it!
      • rconti3 hours ago
        US courts have held, in multiple cases now, that creating a massive network of datapoints over time, aggregated together, can be a 4th amendment violation in a way that a single datapoint is not.
      • ooopsss3 hours ago
        Without a physical human operating the camera, at the site, yes, it should not be allowed.

        This is actually the distinction in many EU countries, i.e. it’s allowed to record a movie if the operator is present, but doing the same thing remotely requires permission from a special authority/agency (that’s not in cahoots with the police).

      • Eueudhsbsj323 hours ago
        If those people recording on their cell phones are going to coordinate and provide mass surveillance to the government, then yes, I would hope most people are against that.
      • sellmesoap2 hours ago
        The concern is that these cameras can track all your movements in a vehicle (you can make a graph of license plate locations and times), continuously record audio, collect information from other sensors, and that is an affront to the right to privacy. For some reason despite all this surveillance the drugs still flow on the streets. A very Orwellian situation.
      • 3 hours ago
        undefined
      • nsxwolf3 hours ago
        Eventually, yes, if it goes as far as what Flock is doing.
      • goatlover3 hours ago
        It's a network of nation wide cameras tracking movement, which can include foot traffic from people's phones. You're giving police and a private company a lot of power with that sort of data. There was a case of a sheriff in Texas town using a nation wide search to find a woman who had an abortion using Flock cameras after claiming it was used for a missing person case.

        This because Texas has a hard on for trying to prosecute women who have abortions.

      • Spivak2 hours ago
        I feel like none of the replies are really cutting to the core of what the problem with your logic actually is—because your way of thinking is incredibly common in tech since it's what we do all day. The fallacy is scale invariance, that the nature of a thing doesn't change when the scale does. Anything you can do you can put in a for loop.

        And the equivalence you're drawing is that the fundamental nature of someone recording a video with their phone is the same as a digital panopticon.

      • jasonlotito2 hours ago
        The same way we can't have a database of gun owners.

        > Are you against people taking videos in public on their cell phones?

        That's literally not what's happening, though. And any suggestion that it is comes from either ignorance or lies.

        I'll let you in on a little secret: there are things you and I can do that the government cannot do, and the police are the government.

        I'll forgive you for thinking that the police are just private citizens.

      • TiredOfLife3 hours ago
        Criminals are people too.
      • moate2 hours ago
        So you know how like, "the government" and "private citizens" aren't the same thing, right? Like there are different obligations for both? You do know and understand this, correct? The government has a constitutional requirement not to perform undue/unnecessary search or seizure.

        Pretty sure "search" includes "building a panopticon from which all citizens can be viewed at all times", but explain why you disagree.

  • dhosek3 hours ago
    One thing I’ve learned from reading accounts of Flock camera thefts is that you shouldn’t do more than one per outing. This sounds like a group arranged to do them all at once which also works.
    • oceansky3 hours ago
      Impressive what a community can do together if that's true .
  • NDlurker4 hours ago
    WINONA, Minn. (Valley News Live) - Every Flock license plate reader camera operated by the Winona Police Department has been sawed off and stolen in what investigators believe was a coordinated theft.

    All eight cameras were taken Aug. 1, according to the Winona Police Department. A patrol officer first noticed the cameras had not sent any alerts in 24 hours. When officers checked the locations, they found the cameras had been cut from their poles and taken. The poles were left behind.

    Two additional Flock cameras on the Mississippi River Bridge, owned by Buffalo County, were also stolen in the same manner.

    Each camera is valued at approximately $3,000, putting the total loss at roughly $24,000. That cost falls directly on the Winona Police Department’s budget.

    The eight WPD cameras were positioned at key highway entry and exit points throughout the city: near Highway 61 and Bundy Boulevard, Highway 43 and Homer Road, Highway 14 and Knapp Valley Drive, and Highway 61 and Highway 14. Two cameras were stationed at each location.

    Flock Safety cameras are automated license plate readers that capture images of plates along with a vehicle’s make, model and color. Police use the technology to investigate crimes such as hit-and-runs and to locate missing persons. Camera data is owned by the police department and permanently deleted after 30 days.

    The thefts are part of a broader national trend. Flock cameras have been vandalized and cut down in communities across the country. The technology has drawn criticism from civil liberties advocates who argue the cameras expand government surveillance and raise concerns about data being shared with third-party companies or federal agencies.

    No suspects have been identified. The investigation is ongoing. Anyone with information is asked to contact the Winona Police Department.

    • thomastjeffery3 hours ago
      > Police use the technology to investigate crimes such as hit-and-runs and to locate missing persons.

      Disgusting copy. We all know that's not their primary function.

      • SoftTalker2 hours ago
        I for one do believe that is their primary function. However good intentions don't justify violating our rights or accepting the (demonstrated) potential for abuse.
        • thomastjefferyan hour ago
          It might be their intended use (from a police department's perspective), but it's certainly not their intended function.

          Flock collects these images, and uses them to train statistical models, and sells those models to police departments as a one-click crime solving solution.

          That means that their primary function is to passively aggregate driver behavior into an automated judgement system, where the entire judicial system (designed to check and balance itself) is laundered away. Flock cameras exist to fundamentally replace police work, not to assist with it.

    • goatlover3 hours ago
      Would be a shame if the public had no such information. /s
    • lukan3 hours ago
      LLM summary I suppose?

      Who would include "Anyone with information is asked to contact the Winona Police Department." in a HN comment?

      • NDlurker3 hours ago
        That right there is the FA from the acronym RTFA
      • AngryData3 hours ago
        Looks like a direct copy from the news site.
      • fhdkweig3 hours ago
        It isn't a summary. It is every word of the original article copied and pasted. I can understand doing that in something that is paywalled, but I didn't have any problems getting to the article.
      • 3 hours ago
        undefined
      • 3 hours ago
        undefined
      • metamet3 hours ago
        ...LLM summary?

        If you clicked the link and read the article, you'd quickly realize that they copy/pasted the article into a comment.

  • jgbuddy3 hours ago
    Find flock cameras near you here! https://maps.deflock.org/
    • Cider9986an hour ago
      And contribute additional ones on iOS or Android.

      https://deflock.org/app

    • amanaplanacanal2 hours ago
      Heads up though: not every camera on that map is Flock. In my town, only a couple of Flock cameras are in place, on private property (Lowes is a big user). All the others are owned by my local police department.
      • altairprimean hour ago
        Hopefully they had the wits to put a sticker on them saying as much!
  • rmarques72 hours ago
    Curious that an hour ago, this was the top post on hackernews, and now it has been relegated to the 3rd page.
    • NDlurker13 minutes ago
      I thought that was interesting too. I was excited that I got a post to the top and then was like what the heck?
  • metamet3 hours ago
    Seems these days the only cross-partisan agreement is resistance to Flock and Axon.

    People don't want Big Brother. Politicians unironically trying to positively refer to them as an enhanced Big Brother is completely tone deaf.

    And we know that police departments were working with ICE during Metro Surge:

    > But the Star Tribune found law enforcement agencies around the country searched several Twin Cities suburbs’ camera data and labeled their queries as civil immigration enforcement — a mechanism used to detain those in the country illegally who have not committed other crimes. A vast majority of the searches were run on Fridley’s Flock Safety cameras as it had looser restrictions on its data than other agencies.

    https://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-suburbs-license-plat...

    This dozen even get into the dozens of documented instances of officers using the system to stalk people... couple that with Stingray devices. It's not hyperbole to say we're existing under the thumb of Big Brother.

    Resistance to or acceptance of Flock/Axon is going to be a big tipping point in an already over-surveilled country.

    • buellerbueller2 hours ago
      >Seems these days the only cross-partisan agreement is resistance to Flock and Axon.

      Also: Don't sell the World Cup to Private Equity.

    • JuniperMesos3 hours ago
      [flagged]
  • thangalin3 hours ago
  • avdwrks3 hours ago
    I just watched Benn Jordan's video about Flock's (numerous) vulnerabilities last night. Pretty crazy to think what people can do with these if they can get their hands on them.
  • rconti3 hours ago
    Does anyone actually know how the data is stored? They seem to _imply_ they're not storing images, merely license plates. Oh, and presence of bumper stickers bike racks and other vehicle metadata to create a unique fingerprint. So are they implying they merely store a descriptive hash, and discard the images?

    Of course, until the revenue knob needs a little tweak, and they start hashing the human data....

    • GiorgioG3 hours ago
      Does it matter? It's stored. If you have the data it can be misused.
      • rconti2 hours ago
        Yes, it matters to me, because I'm curious.
        • an hour ago
          undefined
  • LetsGetTechnicl3 hours ago
    This is good. I'm pretty sure Flock cameras have been used more often to stalk cops' exes than solving any crime.
  • balozi3 hours ago
    I hope all the cool people doing all the cool things in current year are not doing cool vandalism just because its a cool thing-to-do that they saw on Reddit in current year. Other cool things cool people are into in current year; Cyber trucks are still on the road, and data centers are still being built.
  • arjie2 hours ago
    The anti-camera things are also somewhat effective at getting rid of London's ULEZ cameras. Quite admirable that this coalition of quite disparate interests was able to form around opposition to the specific device used to manage different objectives.
  • havefunbesafe3 hours ago
    Maybe I'm overly confident in Flock's ability to triangulate, but wouldn't government agencies be able to know exactly who is cutting down Flock cameras? Isn't that the entire purpose of these things?
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
    • fckgw3 hours ago
      If you roll up on a bicycle with a hat and sunglasses then probably not!
    • asadotzler3 hours ago
      You're so close.
  • 2 hours ago
    undefined
  • sssilver3 hours ago
    > Winona Police Department's Flock cameras

    Does Winona Police Department actually own these cameras? Or is this heading technically deceptive.

  • maerF0x03 hours ago
    Gotta vote out those who voted this in.
  • Havoc2 hours ago
    >Each camera is valued at approximately $3,000

    Wow. Those must be some really nice cameras...

  • culi3 hours ago
    > All eight cameras were taken Aug. 1, according to the Winona Police Department. A patrol officer first noticed the cameras had not sent any alerts in 24 hours. When officers checked the locations, they found the cameras had been cut from their poles and taken. The poles were left behind.

    Wow so they did all 8 in in 24 hours. That's quite impressive

  • Eueudhsbsj323 hours ago
    Good. It's nice to finally see some mainstream support for privacy rights.
  • 1-63 hours ago
    You can't have nice things until you can trust the government: https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/en/info/1320/12059.htm /sarcasm
  • imthatsteve2 hours ago
    Good, keep fighting the good fight!
  • esilverman3 hours ago
    good
  • a2ff6eeb03 hours ago
    Good, but when do the nerds put on suits and lobby to make mass surveillance tools like Flock illegal?
  • jauntywundrkind3 hours ago
    Coincidentally, ran into a YouTube short testing how to cut down steel poles quickly yesterday, with battery powered tools.

    Sawzall, 1m 15s, circular saw 1m, circular saw like 20s.

    https://youtube.com/shorts/aAc3Kq0bFPs

    Yet to see anyone describe what to do once they are down. They for sure have all manners of wicked battery backed up trackers etc, I'm sure.

    (This would be highly illegal to do and you should not do it, even to evil surveillance cameras that hoover up our lives to terrifying central databases, even if these are ragingly unpopular.)

    • reaperducer2 hours ago
      an into a YouTube short testing how to cut down steel poles quickly yesterday, with battery powered tools. Sawzall, 1m 15s, circular saw 1m, circular saw like 20s.

      Manual pole cutters have existed for at least 100 years. No batteries. Almost zero noise.

      You put one on the pole, walk around the pole once, and it's cut. They were used a lot in the 1970's when people were rebelling against parking meters.

      I believe it's part of the opening scene of the film Cool Hand Luke.

    • patrickmay3 hours ago
      Flock cameras are typically mounted on aluminum alloy poles. Easier to cut than steel.
    • Ancalagon3 hours ago
      rocks and rivers my friend :)
    • convolvatron3 hours ago
      not exactly right. the first is an abrasive disc. that's the right guy for steel, but doesn't work great in aluminum because its very sticky and melty. the third is a metal skill saw blade. I really wouldn't use this with steel at all, but you definitely want to cut aluminum and not grind it. the tool I would normally use for this is a portable bandsaw, with speed control that you would set high for Al and low for steel, probably pretty close to the skill saw.
  • sfmikean hour ago
    what if this was a ultra genius move to end authoritarianism by being so blatantly bad that we actually get a new amendment added for right to privacy and flock was a non profit all along
  • FireBeyond2 hours ago
    One of my bigger concerns with this story, given the Flock CEO's public statements, and this Administration's attitude towards such things is how easy it might be to attempt to spin, or pursue, this as "domestic terrorism" rather than "vandalism".
    • cucumber37328422 hours ago
      Half the country already considers that label a joke.
  • superkuh3 hours ago
    Lets be clear, Flock itself is is also breaking the law and refusing to remove it's camera's from city's properties. The cities, apparently, have no recourse but to cover Flock's vigalante cameras with plastic bags to block their view. This is not a one sided case of illegal property damage and trespass. Flock corporation is acting illegally too. Only no one in government is willing to hold them accountable in a court of law.
  • doublerabbit3 hours ago
    I'm not saying you should, but cheap laser pens can do fair damage to a camera CMOS sensor.

    I discovered that with my Sony Ericsson k700i with a laser pointer when trying to take a picture of the laser.

  • tencentshill3 hours ago
    ...total loss at roughly $24,000. That cost falls directly on the Winona Police Department’s budget.

    I thought flocked owned the hardware?

  • GiorgioG3 hours ago
    Fuck Flock and any other mass surveillance company.
  • bdangubic3 hours ago
    The need to double the number of cameras so that they can see from one camera who is cutting the other camera.
  • ck23 hours ago
    sure hope whomever did that knows what they signed up for

    this is not how you affect political change no matter how noble

    over $1000 in damage so felony

    and if they went from location to location with a smartphone pinging, all cops have to do is find out what phone was at all those locations

  • nightsun3 hours ago
    [dead]
  • charcircuit3 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • marky19913 hours ago
      What do you mean by 'removed from society'? Do you really mean you think someone should get a life sentence for stealing some cameras? Do you mean they should be executed? Something else? And then you say 'to set an example'. By that, do you mean 'they should be punished in excess of the harm they caused, to deter others from doing the same'? If so, by its very nature, that's obviously unjust and immoral.

      Your reaction sounds far more third-world-country than the original act you're responding to. 'Straight to jail': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw It sounds like a desire to turn the country into an authoritarian paradise. In my opinion, such opinions are unamerican.

      • charcircuit2 hours ago
        I mean that a person or group of people who intentionally plan and execute a campaign of crimes in order to become the new rule of law should not be tolerated. Frankly, I do not care what happens to them, but it should send a clear signal that others are unable to enforce their own rule no longer.

        The idea that different random groups can enforce their own rules of law leads to anarchy and must be quenched.

        • buellerbueller2 hours ago
          When Flock camera or data center agreements are negotiated in secret with no public input, or are done over the overwhelming rejection by the public, is that not its own "new rule of law"?
          • charcircuit2 hours ago
            I assume those agreements were done under the power that the public gave them, so no I would not consider it a new rule of law. The public delegating decision making to specific roles is a regular occurrence. If the process is creating bad results then people should change the process instead of trying to find people to "override" it.
    • netsharc3 hours ago
      A book review of "Thieves of State", about corruption:

      > In the face of flagrant misappropriation, she found, ordinary citizens could experience a sense of grievance so potent that it filled them with something worse than anger—a desire for revenge. Nurallah, an employee at the factory who once worked as a police officer, told her about the humiliation that his brother experienced during a shakedown by Afghan police. “If I see someone plant an I.E.D. on the road, and then I see a police truck coming . . . I will not warn them,” Nurallah said. This is the central revelation in “Thieves of the State”: at a certain point, systemic corruption became not just a lamentable by-product of the war but an accelerant of conflict. All those bribes and kickbacks radicalized the local population, turning it against the Afghan government and, at least some of the time, toward the Taliban.

      https://archive.is/E6zXj

    • MSFT_Edging3 hours ago
      You probably don't have that same opinion when Government funds(tax dollars) go to paying out lawsuits over police brutality.
      • charcircuit2 hours ago
        I have the same opinion. Police breaking laws deserve harsh punishments as it lowers the populace's trust in the police.
    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
    • toomuchtodo3 hours ago
      It's private property owned by a corporate surveillance state startup, Flock Group|Safety, typically (but not always) colocated on public property without the consent of local citizens. Various government entities are simply consumers of their data platform. Facts matter.
    • NDlurker3 hours ago
      Your comment is disgusting and goes against the spirit of freedom this country is supposed to be the embodiment of.
      • charcircuit3 hours ago
        In order to protect the freedom of the many we need to be able to effectively remove the few who are causing trouble.
        • NDlurker2 hours ago
          Yes, let's send camera vandals to a prison archipelago. Great idea.
      • gverrilla3 hours ago
        This ship has sailed a long time ago. If anything it's internal national propaganda. USA is known worldwide for corruption, wars, and increasingly for how bad it's own population lives while being so rich.
        • NDlurker3 hours ago
          I know. I still try and call it out when I see it.
  • diego_moita3 hours ago
    I suspect there is more at play here than activism.

    In many 3rd World places you must conceal/hide surveillance cameras because they are a valuable asset worth stealing.

    • mohamedkoubaa3 hours ago
      PSA: third world means non-aligned in the cold war. It's use in 2026 is meaningless at best.
      • john_strinlai2 hours ago
        >It's use in 2026 is meaningless at best.

        not really. the word has evolved enough that dictionaries and wikipedia acknowledge the common-day usage of "underdeveloped"

        • mohamedkoubaa2 hours ago
          Wikipedia and dictionaries are wrong. It has a different usage than "underdeveloped" and that usage at best doesn't have a clear meaning, and at worst does have a clear derogatory meaning
          • john_strinlai2 hours ago
            >Wikipedia and dictionaries are wrong.

            sorry, but no one is taking some random HN user's definition over established dictionaries on what a word means.

            perhaps you can convince enough people that the word will evolve into whatever you imagine it to mean, and then the dictionaries will be updated to match.

      • Eueudhsbsj323 hours ago
        The use and meaning of words shift over time. Today, third world just means less developed.
        • mohamedkoubaa2 hours ago
          In 1995 it meant that. Today it is meaningless
      • funvill3 hours ago
        Today I learned something new. Thank you
  • jmyeet2 hours ago
    If I'm ever on the jury of somebody charged with this, the prosecution has an incredibly high burden to convince me the poles and the cameras on them didn't die of natural causes.

    Maybe if police weren't using Flock cameras to stalk their ex-wives [1][2].

    There's an interesting angle to the Flock issue I heard recently. Some predominantly black communities prefer Flock cameras because they're over-policed, black men in particular are more likely to be pulled over on "routine" traffic stops and those stops have a skewed chance of ending in violence of death. As a reminder, US law enforcement kills over 1000 civilians every single year. Over half of those are black men and black men are only ~6% of the population.

    But that's really a lesser evil type situation because the police simply shouldn't be killing so many people.

    [1]: https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/08/03/brentwood-officer-acc...

    [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/08/02/how-pol...

  • accountrequired3 hours ago
    it is bad to see theft of physical property as a good thing
    • autoexec3 hours ago
      It wasn't private property. It belonged to the people and the people decided they didn't want it. It's bad to see people being forced to break the law to retain their freedom, but it's a good thing that folks are still willing to fight for it.
      • culi3 hours ago
        Good point. It's public money that funded it. Just like drug research. We should be demanding ownership over the fruits of our tax dollars
      • topspin2 hours ago
        "but it's a good thing that folks are still willing to fight for it"

        This is at least as likely to be theft as much as civic action. There are far easier ways one might permanently inhibit these cameras than cutting them down and taking them away.

        • autoexec2 hours ago
          > There are far easier ways one might permanently inhibit these cameras than cutting them down and taking them away.

          Like what? Setting them on fire or shooting them might be easier, but it's more dangerous.

          • topspinan hour ago
            Assuming the enclosure isn't armored (I wouldn't know...) a ladder and a power drill with a long bit would make very short work of these.
      • nchmy3 hours ago
        A handful of thieves/activists are not "the people". A town hall, vote etc... would have the backing of "the people". If that happens and theyre still not removed, then perhaps actions like these might be justified.
        • overfeed2 hours ago
          Perhaps the activists were representing the people, but were unfortunately under a Makita/DeWalt NDA, and cannot make public their deliberations and actions just yet. Rest assured they are acting in your best interests.
    • a2ff6eeb03 hours ago
      It is good to see the public reclaiming ownership of public property, and setting conditions on its use.
    • dointheatl3 hours ago
      it is bad to see 'good thing / bad thing' as the only available frame
    • pinkyboy3 hours ago
      It is good for liberty when tools of authoritarian control are destroyed.