Hacker News Reader

Comment by dude741 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Do you need flock to do this for you, though? I have cameras around my property, and they catch everyone entering and leaving my subdivision. If the police need access to the recordings, they can get a court order or ask nicely. What I don't do, is share the feeds with everyone willy-nilly so the police can cast wide dragnets and do god-knows-what-else with the data.

By the time you get a court order. The trail has gone cold at least that's what the police said at our HOA meetings. Maybe they're getting paid by big money to say these things but these were not head of police people. Low levels coming to HOA meetings.

Presumably a victim of a crime would provide the footage without a court order. A court order would be more applicable if it caught something unrelated to the actual property the camera was on.

This sort of footage is only useful after you have an arrest and need to build a case for prosecution. It's rarely useful to actually effect an arrest.

Getting the chain of footage you need - even with enthusiastic cooperation - takes days if not weeks to complete. Most folks are not great at providing this, and most consumer security cameras kinda suck. You're dealing with cops and residents who are not the most technically proficient, so a bunch of random different video files provided via e-mail, USB stick, etc. takes a lot of time.

I have direct experience with this and Chicago PD asking for my and my neighbors footage for a carjacking that happened in my alley. It took days for everyone to respond, and by that time it's pretty useless until they catch the crew responsible and just add that charge to whatever crime they actually got caught doing in real time. This can take months to years to happen. CPD is not great though, so you always need to take things with a giant grain of salt. However, the problem is legitimately difficult even if everyone is acting in good faith.

I'm not saying this in support of Flock at all. I do not support their use since it's so trivial to abuse the capability. But the capability is there and very useful if used correctly - that's why it's such a concern. Not worth the security vs. freedom tradeoff for me. Especially when you look towards the future of how an even more robust network and better technology will be used in practice.

Your big problem in Chicagoland is Illinois LEADS, which is the statewide hotlist Chicago uses. It was never intended for real-time enforcement, and it doesn't work; Flock curbs large numbers of innocent cars simply because LEADS isn't updated after "stolen" cars (which often aren't stolen, but rather borrowed by friends and family members) are recovered.

There is a difference between this situation, a targeted install in a problem situation, and hundreds of thousands of these cameras at every intersection in the country

Also, Flock cameras are not just on roads. Many institutions use them for surveillance inside buildings. There is a community center in Atlanta that has them and there is evidence that random people with access to all Atlanta area cameras, including Flock employees and police officers in other jurisdictions, were watching juveniles at the pool. More than one deputy at a suburban Atlanta sheriff's department has been fired for abusing Flock cameras to track romantic interests

Like everything else in this country we've taken something that has a useful purpose when used in a limited, controlled fashion and pushed it to the maximum extreme. We can't do anything based on nuance anymore

I agree with you; I don't want a surveillance state either but I understand why people install them in their neighborhoods

Everywhere people live is someone's neighborhood. So if everyone installs it in their neighborhood the cameras are everywhere.

This is such a bizarre story, each detail more absurd and ridiculous than the last, that I can't believe HN is falling for it.

Honestly there are a number of incredibly weird comments like this throughout the discussion. Is Flock astroturfing every discussion about the company?

You don't have to believe it. It happens to be true, but whatever. I'm not affiliated with flock, but not every issue is black or white.

I don't believe it. I mean, you might, but the story is fantastical nonsense.

Ignoring that the police "confirmed" suspects that they didn't catch, or that you claim the police would need a "court order" to look at cameras the HOA would own (and which require absolutely zero involvement of flock, with the enormous downsides that dystopian, busted company brings), or that you cited "manually going through footage" like it's 1997 and not 2026 where every security system flags every event -- car, person, line crossing -- with instant-accessible timestamps, the biggest problem with your comment is that gangs do not care about security cameras.

The preventative effect of cameras on such activity hovers around 0%. This ridiculous tale that a flock camera was a magic no crime shield is simply nonsensical.

Again, you might actually believe this. You might have misheard some things and come away with this impression. But it's ridiculous.

I'm a big fan of privately controlled, limited access-guarded and audited cameras, understanding that they're useful post facto to figure out what happened, and sometimes to catch criminals (but catching illegal immigrant SCARY GANG NAME criminals, usually in stolen cars and with masks...lol...utterly useless), but your post is 100% selling the tiger repellent rock, and it's simply incredible if anyone actually falls for that.

Flock's effect on crime has mostly been to increase it, by allowing sexual predator cops to stalk random women.

>This ridiculous tale that a flock camera was a magic no crime shield is simply nonsensical.

I was confused as well. I thought the next beat on the story after the camera was installed was going to be "and the next time the guys struck they were found within the day" or something, not "and the camera repelled the robbers somehow".

There is a lot of middle ground between ">100k cameras tracking the movement of every vehicle in the country and retaining those data indefinitely" and "cameras in a private neighborhood in response to a specific crime wave".

Why couldn't the police, who you pay taxes to, do their jobs? Apparently a sophisticated robbery ring was operating with a well understood MO in a predictable location and the police couldn't figure out how to use those facts to effect an arrest?

Instead of "protecting" one neighborhood by installing privately owned surveillance devices, seems like the police could have just sat there, waited for a BMW full of Tren de Araugua gangsters to show up and arrest them.

In what world is this the reasonable course of action that was arrived at with the police.

Nothing about OP's story sounds plausible or reasonable. The criminal gangs are magically afraid of flock cameras but not any other kind of surveillance? They had footage of the crooks but it took too long to evaluate it, and yet the cops knew exactly which gang was doing it?

Glad I'm not the only one who thought this story sounded completely fabricated. It reads like a Flock ad.

the account is 3 karma, 5 months old, 1 other comment besides these flock comments

Most likely Flock astroturfing.

The world of practical realties that the police can't be everywhere at once?

Funny how Tren de Araugua is behind everything nowadays, they're like the commies in the 1950s.

Something of consideration: Flock cameras were installed after discussions across the HOA and local police department, after a multiple crimes happened in an area. So long as a discussion about the lifetime of the cameras is raised eventually, this sounds like a measured and reasonable use of surveillance.

There is still something to be said about the lack of alignment between Flock the company and the HOA as to how that data is used, but the compromise was explicit, and there was at least some coordination within the community. At the heart of the issue with automatic surveillance is the lack of accountability over those who retain the data and the lack of consent of those surveilled, and measures were taken to address one of those two within your community.

trade security for civil liberties and you wil lose both.

Catchy phrase, but having lived in places outside the US, it isn't really true.

Ironically in California you’ve already lost a number of your civil liberties, while having 0 security as a commoner, with or without Flock.

Yes, it's a nice catch phrase. Would you say that after a Tren de Aeagua gang member stole all your crap? At least I'm free you say. I don't think we've been free in the US for a long time. My tax bill says I'm in bondage.

Your tax bill says that you’re in bondage? That’s quite the tax system you have there. Or maybe you’re exaggerating?

Did the HOA Flock cams provide evidence for arrests? How did they help?

Or was this a case where a fake camera to scare people off may have been equivalent, Wile E Coyote style?

This doesnt make sense.

Your neoghborhood cameras did not stop the thieves but the Flock cameras did? Is Tren De Iguana that up to speed on camera company specifics?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com