Flock cameras haven't improved Atlanta's crime clearance rates(atlpresscollective.com)
47 pointsby jimt12343 hours ago7 comments
  • pton_xdan hour ago
    Who thinks a surveillance state is about reducing crime? It's about control!
    • chipgap98an hour ago
      And about earning a return for YC partners
  • fraserphysicsan hour ago
    Sort of related. Across the street from my cousin's house in Portland, OR, a car ran over the curb and into landscape features that knocked off the car's bumper and license plate. The perpetrator then backed up and drove away. My cousin's doorbell camera caught it all. Police are not interested, saying no one can prove who was driving. Who needs a license plate reader when you can get a license plate?
  • arjiean hour ago
    That seems fine. Flock's partnership began in 2021.

    2021 homicides: 161

    2025 homicides: 96

    The purpose of enforcement is to reduce the amount of crime not to maximize the percentage of prosecuted crime.

    https://www.atlantaga.gov/Home/Components/News/News/13687/67...

    https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/sharp-drop-in-atl...

    • cam_l11 minutes ago
      Ooh, fact cherry picking..

      From wiki.. "The number of murders in Atlanta was 80 in 2009, 92 in 2010, 88 in 2011, 85 in 2012, 82 in 2013, 93 in 2014, 95 in 2015, and 111 in 2016." [0]

      In fact, 2016 is also a blip and then it goes back down again until 2019, and 2022 was the high point. It is almost as if the incidence of homicides is entirely unrelated to flock.

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

    • lacy_tinpotan hour ago
      I think the case against Flock isn't about its efficacy, it's simply about civil rights.

      Similar to how gun laws aren't about the safety of guns, I think Flock cameras, and other surveillance technologies simply encroach on individual freedoms.

      A citizen should be reasonably free from government surveillance.

      • nomel43 minutes ago
        Please note the article you're commenting under, where the case presented is entirely about efficacy.
    • nomelan hour ago
      I would also assume surveillance would increase crime that's reported, at least a little bit, since it would mean the police would be less likely to say what anyone who has lived in a higher crime area is familiar with hearing: "There's nothing we can do about it".
    • stevenwooan hour ago
      I think that purpose statement implies good intentions - we all know measurement stats become the thing that is gamed to make one's organization look good and this is well documented for American law enforcement. Unless absolutely forced to, they simply do not measure things they do not want to report, i.e. prosecutors do not have to document racial backgrounds of accused to prevent racial discrimination from being proved in court (The New Jim Crow), crimes by law enforcement are underreported - especially fatal use of force - justified because "cop scared for his life" (Copoganda), tons of anecdotal evidence many cops will not investigate petty theft even when owners track down thief. The Wire kind of made fun of this "juking the stats" more than ten years ago (co-written by formal journalist David Simon).
    • chapsan hour ago
      This reduction is happening across the board and isn't "because of flock".
    • ehhthingan hour ago
      The reduction in crime cannot be attributed to using Flock cameras, so the figures you give aren't meaningful for this conversation.
      • Incipientan hour ago
        Correlation does not mean causation!

        ...but it can. Unfortunately something like this with a huge number of independent variables, it's hard to know.

    • rockskonan hour ago
      Seems a bit premature to attribute that solely (or even primarily) to Flock.

      It also begs the question of if there is a deterrent effect from cameras to commit homicide, couldn't that deterrent be achieved with a far less controversial technology?

    • hilariouslyan hour ago
      2021: I ate more hamburgers 2025: I ate less hamburgers

      Prove to me it wasn't my hamburger eating.

    • smt88an hour ago
      Homicide rates have dropped similarly (or more) in less-surveilled cities like Baltimore.

      Crime is complex, and it’s incredibly silly to look at those two variables and call it a day.

      • cm2012an hour ago
        Baltimore's crime drop is surveillance-related. They have over 800 city watch cameras across Baltimore. They even sent personalized custom messages to certain gang members who they've tracked doing crime adjacent things and tell them to stop or they will be arrested. If anything, Baltimore's recent crime drop is the tale of the success of surveillance policing mixed with good social service options.
        • chapsan hour ago
          That's creepy as fuck.

          Also, show proof.

          • cm2012an hour ago
            Sure there are lots of articles but here is one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/16/baltimore-vi...
            • chaps44 minutes ago
              Okay but can you give me an article that's relevant to the use of surveillance that speaks to your central claim?
              • cm201231 minutes ago
                Sure here is more research for you. This is the last one I will do though, Google for yourself after.

                "At a high level, the strategy involves three parts: identification, notification, and action. First, a series of weekly meetings led by BPD identifies people at high risk of committing a shooting or being the victim of one. Then, a team of people—usually a combination of a detective, an outreach worker and a community member—notify the person, either during an individual visit or as part of a group “call- in,” that they are at risk of being involved in a shooting and that they have become a focus of GVRS and law enforcement. "

                https://crimejusticelab.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/w3529...

                • 26 minutes ago
                  undefined
                • chaps20 minutes ago
                  ...and in the context of ALPR and such?

                  I do this research stuff for a living and you're not really giving me good reason to believe that surveillance is the key factor.

                  So, please try again. :)

    • protocolture41 minutes ago
      If Cameras prevented crime, London would be some kind of Utopia.
    • llm_nerdan hour ago
      2019 had 99 murders. This has absolutely nothing to do with Flock, and the notion is perverse nonsense.

      Cameras do not prevent crime. This has been eminently shown endlessly. Now ideally they help then find the culprits, but in practice this just isn't happening.

    • muglugan hour ago
      Eh 2020-2022 saw a nationwide increase in crime.
      • derektankan hour ago
        The national homicide rate in 2025 fell below the levels seen in 2019, even exceeding the previous historical minimum set in 2014. There is clearly something new going on in the last 4 years besides simply reversing the rise seen during and immediately following Covid
        • chaps40 minutes ago
          Quick: give us 10 correlative reasons why this could be that don't include surveillance tech.

          You'll do great.

  • nothercastlean hour ago
    Flock is about surveillance for profit sometimes that also has positive results but often the costs are too high
  • chapsan hour ago
    People who like Flock: is this a surprise?
    • Mistletoean hour ago
      They’d be shocked if they could read.
  • protocolturean hour ago
    Crime?

    I thought these were deployed so that Cops could keep track of the women they want to beat.

  • King-Aaronan hour ago
    They are for identifying dissidents to round up in the future, not for reducing the incidence rate of petty crime.

    Governments and AI billionaires are all talking about some utopian future where we are all free to do what we want and have a universal basic income to support us. But the deployment of a draconian surveillance network, militarised police, domestic concentration camps and 'left wing terrorist' rhetoric is not painting a picture of a future utopia.

    • an hour ago
      undefined
    • majorchordan hour ago
      Please don't spread FUD.
      • 4MOAisgoodenufan hour ago
        I’m not afraid to say that we can be quite certain that the Flock surveillance network will be detrimental to civil liberties. No doubt.
        • King-Aaronan hour ago
          It literally already has been used to monitor activists.

          I am so done sugar coating shit for these people who refuse to acknowledge the direction our civil liberties are heading.

      • kayodelycaon22 minutes ago
        It’s not FUD. Flock is permanently storing information when they say they’re not and the police are can look back at least six months. I imagine this is a premium feature.

        A police department had to get more evidence because they got the wrong suspect in six months elapsed before the prosecutor got to see the case and tell them there was zero evidence.

        After searching, back six months for the right color of car near the accident, in the flock database, they were able to locate another suspect.

        Flock has location data for every car and have months of knowing when and where image recognition has seen a similar enough car. I hope they don’t get into tracking people. This is already horrifying.

      • hilariouslyan hour ago
        Which part? Let's talk about it.
      • King-Aaronan hour ago
        Not a single thing I have said above is in any way, shape or form incorrect.
        • jojobasan hour ago
          The "dissidents" are in plain view, you don't need flock to identify them. Track them down, catch some traffic violations to throw the book for - maybe.