70 pointsby skadamat3 hours ago10 comments
  • tptacek43 minutes ago
    Part of the backstory here I think is that ALPR cameras are a commodity technology. They're not defensible by themselves medium term; the market will go to whoever ships the cheapest most reliable cameras with the best pre-sales team, which is a tough space to compete in. For Flock to defend a growth-stage startup valuation, it needs to come up with value-adds.

    For a while it looked like that was going to take the form of single-pane-of-glass fusion products (think: Grafana for public safety orgs), but post-AI that seems pretty hard to defend too; Axon doesn't need deep roots in SFBA tech culture to compete on that anymore.

    So I guess expect a lot of wacky ideas.

  • nulloremptyan hour ago
    Hm, two questions:

    - Who is paying for surveillance? - To whose benefit is it used?

    • bigbuppo39 minutes ago
      Police departments until the constitutional aspects are settled, then they'll be cut down en masse.
      • Eddy_Viscosity231 minutes ago
        If the constitutional aspects are settled in favor of people, but current SCOTUS suggests this be unlikely. But.. even it were, then police departments would just buy the data second hand instead via direct contracts.
        • bigbuppo23 minutes ago
          Flock has already made their billions. They'll pivot to something else, probably budget gunshot tracking cameras that also accidentally eavesdrops on all conversations near by and sends it to the cloud for analysis.
        • joering213 minutes ago
          > but current SCOTUS suggests this be unlikely

          Are you referring to "temporary inconvenience" or some other decision I'm not aware of?

          The phrase "temporary inconvenience" refers to a statement by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his September 2025 concurrence in [Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo]. Defending an order allowing immigration enforcement stops based partly on apparent ethnicity or workplace, Kavanaugh wrote that questioning of legal residents or U.S. citizens would be "typically brief" and a minor inconvenience.

      • downrightmike23 minutes ago
        well, tax payers. Cops wanted millions extra to hire more cops, and they blow it on start ups instead.
        • bigbuppo22 minutes ago
          You're not wrong. But they' also got the extra officers, too.
    • ihsw32 minutes ago
      [dead]
  • anymouse123456an hour ago
    Pretty sure this is the same person who made "your flowing data" many years ago. Assuming it is, that was a really cool project!

    You could follow their twitter account and DM semi-structured messages at it. He would generate personalized charts and tables from the message you sent.

    Looks like it's the same account, but that service seems down at the moment.

    https://x.com/yfd

    Really great demonstration that created value from semi-structured data streams.

  • 0xbadcafebeean hour ago
    The CEO of Flock said his mission is to "completely eliminate and eradicate crime in America". I think I saw that movie, it was called Minority Report.
    • hypercube3327 minutes ago
      Sumaritan from Person of Interest is more like what they are aiming for I think.
    • flockingbird34 minutes ago
      To eliminate only very specific types of crime, to be clear.
      • rc515025 minutes ago
        poor people crime, and of course the crime of being poor in and of itself.
        • JohnFen13 minutes ago
          And the crime of just living a normal life without the constant surveillance threat and constant threat of inappropriate police attention.

          In my view, these systems are themselves a very large threat to the public.

    • downrightmike20 minutes ago
      With the final movie in the series being Saving Private Ryan.
  • LadyCailinan hour ago
    I’m not convinced that there’s any solution to this besides direct government regulation and an enshrinement of privacy rights into the law. Cities stop paying for flock access? Other cities still will. Regulations preventing public property from being used for cameras? Private companies will allow it. Vigilantes destroying cameras? Start using mobile drones or something. It’s a losing battle, and everything done so far to fight it is just causes an escalation. Constitutional right to privacy (from government and private companies) is probably the only durable solution.
  • tamimioan hour ago
    Fitting the typical stereotype of a villain company, the greed with no ethics isn’t surprising, what’s surprising that it’s backed by “hacker” news.. shouldn’t HN be backing the counter efforts against such company not the other way around?
    • WalterGR38 minutes ago
      Flock is a Y Combinator alumnus. It’s not backed by Hacker News, scare quotes or no.
    • flockingbird14 minutes ago
      Why is it surprising?

      YC is a billionaire led organization whose founder has written openly about the virtue of discriminating against women and parents, and more recently has written bad faith responses to criticisms of billionaires.

      This site is a Safe Space to promote those investments, regardless of societal impact.

      edit: to be fair, pg walked back some of his pro-bigotry-against-parents shit once he became a parent. But that's the kind of sociopathic cunt who runs this place...

  • jsrozneran hour ago
    Highly anti social people (flock executives, mark zuckerberg, other surveillance capitalists, etc.) should simply be expelled from society to a separate island to fight each other for scarce resources.
  • steviewonderbrean hour ago
    [dead]
  • fearmerchantan hour ago
    For an Amber Alert that could be really helpful.
    • edot44 minutes ago
      Kidnapping like how you’re thinking of it (stranger grabbing your kid from the park) is a myth. Non-family abductions are 1% of cases.

      Straight from the horse’s mouth: https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/nonfamily

    • an hour ago
      undefined