Even if you have 100% faith and confidence in the altruistic intentions of Flock and our own government (and you shouldn't), consider that these types of systems can be hacked by others as well...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/w...rgets-ap-sources-say

I'm paranoid that a camera attached to wifi will get hacked and would let criminals monitor when i'm home or not. It's a fierce debate I have whether or not to get home security cameras.

What is the efficacy in the PREVENTION of crime? Korea and Japan, for example, have CCTV everywhere. And yet crimes persist (ack that the levels and types of crime there are very different than here).

These may help in the response to crime but doesn't seem to do anything in the inhibition.

If I'm forced to give up privacy, I want the benefit to be the inhibition of crimes against me, not just the reactive response.

A camera will not prevent a crime, period.

The known presence of cameras may stifle some individuals' desire to commit a crime, but will not actively prevent one.

Again, just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

The alternative point is that it invades peoples right to privacy

You have no expectation of privacy in public.

That has been repeatedly upheld in various court cases.

I agree with Rogue. The same technology that allows me to use a spreadsheet instead of using a slide rule is allowing Law Enforcement to scan, identify, and track in public license plates, people, event's, etc.

There shouldn't be an issue with Law Enforcement using the technology; the issue is with an overreaching government using the technology. I don't have any answer other than I don't think keeping Law Enforcement from using the technology is the answer.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:
A camera will not prevent a crime, period.

The known presence of cameras may stifle some individuals' desire to commit a crime, but will not actively prevent one.

Again, just my opinion.

Agree. It was a question rhetorical.

Being seen by a human when out in a public place is one thing. Being tracked and extensively profiled based on a multitude of automated identifications made is a very different thing. In the first case I choose not to remain unseen, in the second there is much information being gathered about me.

With the knowledge of where my face was identified or my license plate scanned many times, the government can learn who I associate with, when I go for a medical appointment (I use a cash pay private doc btw), what my likely politics are, if I may be having an extramarital affair, what my cash withdrawal schedule is, etc.

It doesn't take many data points to create an extensive profile which could be used for nefarious purposes. From within the data itself the government can identify people or behavior they wish to sanction.

This is completely different than going back after the fact to see which license plate was scanned in a neighborhood where a child was abducted, and then using that to possibly rescue the child. That situation is much like the LEO sitting in his car manually writing down every license plate that drives past him. There's nothing to be gleaned from that one list of license plates until some specific legitimate question arises from outside of that data.

We don't have cameras in our city and admin won't pay to let us search flock but neighboring agencies have them and we're constantly asking them to search stuff for us. It's helped so much with stolen cars and missing people.

Stolen cars and missing people? Great uses for the technology!

But like any tool, mass data collection is easy to be misused by the nefarious once they get their hands on it.

Just out of curiosity, what “mass data” is being collected, and or sold by places like Lowe’s? Who are they selling to? How much are the evil corporations getting from the sale?

None.

But we know that you know that we know this, and you know that we know that you know this already as well.

You and I have had a piece of this discussion before.


- - - - - -

I would, though, be very curious how much money Flock is making, and from which classifications of buyers — I mean, um, "users.”
Research for a different evening, I suppose.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:
None.

That’s correct. None. But the same conspiracy theories pop up each time the topic comes up.

The average Lowe’s has somewhere between $6-7k in Flock cameras. You should probably tell my Lowe’s that cameras do not prevent crime. Cause in the last 18 months they have $200k less theft than in the previous 12 months. Has to be totally a coincidence.

I’ve met you, I like you. I don’t desire to argue with you.

But your question was almost framed as a trick question: how much of the data is collected or sold by places like Lowe’s?, knowing that it’s Flock that’s making the money.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Two of them are in the parking lots of Lowes and Publix.

Several Lowes locations in MT seem to have them, which leads one to ask, "Why does Lowes need a license plate reader unless they are using/selling the data?" Perhaps it's time to stop patronizing Lowes.

quote:

posted May 08, 2026 09:21 PM Hide Post
I’ve met you, I like you. I don’t desire to argue with you.

But your question was almost framed as a trick question: how much of the data is collected or sold by places like Lowe’s?, knowing that it’s Flock that’s making the money.

Curious how I posed the question as a trick, when it’s already been posted in this thread. The above claim that “Lowe’s must be selling the data” is not mine. Apparently when you say “you know that we know” doesn’t account for everyone in that “we”. Yes, I actually know the ins and outs of Flock. Without NCIC, the data is pretty useless for sale.

The data is pretty worthless to sell or hack. And when XYZ “buys access” to Flock they can only see cameras that are shared with them. The lie that “insurance companies” can see all cameras is just that….a lie.

My question was posed as a trick supposedly, but the slant on the Deflock website is somehow ok?

I am all for the Flock cameras. An elderly family friend had his car stolen in Austin, Tx and it was recovered in my city due to a Flock camera. The responding officers did not catch the guy as he ran, but I got him arrested. No way would he have been arrested otherwise between two different agencies here.

I obtained the video from the gas station where the guy pulled into to fill up after triggering a Flock camera. While the thief was inside, the police pulled up with lights on and pulled in front of the car. The guy walked out of the store and ran, but video showed very distinct tattoos on him.

The local police took nothing out of the vehicle despite it being filled with TONS of stolen property and drugs. There was a lot of women’s purses stolen with all of their driver license’s and stuff in them, but of course cash and credit cards gone. I researched every person and gave them their property back unlike my local PD.

I found a receipt from a store in the car. I got with the store and obtained the surveillance video of the purchase and him pulling up in the stolen car. He used the self-checkout so it got excellent video of his face and tattoos. I worked with the Austin PD who was the venue where the car was stolen, we identified who he was, he was arrested, and prosecuted.

In the end, the Flock camera simply would have gotten our friend’s car back, but I took it further and ensured he went to jail. So I am all for Flock cameras.

I have no big issues with the Flock cameras as I know my vehicles and phone are more than glad to let the cloud know where I am at any given moment and our local PD seems to have a pretty good set of guidelines for uses locally. I do have a little heartburn regarding all the other PD's they seem to be sharing with, wondering what rules and restrictions they may have on the shared data. I have a call into local PD to try and find out.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:
Stolen cars and missing people? Great uses for the technology!
But like any tool, mass data collection is easy to be misused by the nefarious once they get their hands on it.

THIS!
Humans will do what humans do…it’s not just a “crime prevention” tool.

“The proliferation of police surveillance has led to repeated abuse. One shockingly common form: police officers using ALPR camera networks to keep tabs on their romantic interests, including current partners, exes, and even strangers who unwittingly caught their eye in public.

An Institute for Justice review of media reports has identified at least 15 cases nationwide of officers allegedly abusing ALPR data this way, with the bulk of those incidents happening since 2024. Nearly all of these officers were criminally charged and lost their jobs, either by resigning or getting fired.”
Also: The 15 cases listed below are almost certainly an undercount. Not all police misconduct gets detected, and some cases likely get resolved quietly. Officers frequently cite vague or inaccurate reasons for their searches in ALPR systems, sometimes to evade detection of misconduct.”

“The list also excludes ALPR abuse that doesn’t conclusively involve romantic partners, like the Georgia police chief arrested for using Flock data to stalk and harass multiple unidentified people, or the Joplin, Missouri, officer who left his department after committing unspecified policy violations involving Flock cameras.”

Linkage

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

Humans will do what humans do…it’s not just a “crime prevention” tool.

To me it is akin to a gun registry. Law abiding people have nothing to fear from law enforcement tracing crime guns to uncover straw purchasers, for example. But we know that humans in government will use the data for all kinds of other purposes not in the interest of our liberties.

A foundational principle of this country is individual liberty, to include privacy from government, even at the expense of sometimes not catching some miscreants.

It's open season on privacy and anyone who thinks this data is not being used for other reasons is about as naive as it gets, Period.
If I trusted our governments to do the right thing and only use the information for valid reasons like catching criminals, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

One of the small towns in our area installed some of these cameras to identify cars that didn't have insurance. This sounds like a good thing until you understand what the next steps will be. It's a cash cow. If money can be made using the technology, they will do it unless people raise enough hell.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

To me it is akin to a gun registry. Law abiding people have nothing to fear from law enforcement tracing crime guns to uncover straw purchasers, for example. But we know that humans in government will use the data for all kinds of other purposes not in the interest of our liberties.

A foundational principle of this country is individual liberty, to include privacy from government, even at the expense of sometimes not catching some miscreants.

Pretty much aligns with what is happening. I'm kind of amazed at the number of people in a gun forum, which are generally against any form of government oversight, monitoring, record keeping, database on guns that are ok with governments digitally monitoring your movements under the auspices of "safety".

Wait until IL, NY or CA take the data from plates, and match it up to their concealed permit holders information so they can track where you drive with a gun. You know, because, safety.....

Yes there are some valid points about catching bad guys, but to do so, everyone gets looked at, grew up where that only happened in communist/socialist countries. Papers Please.

As to comparing it to your phone or car sharing data, this isn't the same. We all have decided to buy a car or phone that connects to the cloud to share our data. YOU make that choice, the government isn't doing it on your phone without your permission.

It isn't the same thing.