Hacker News Reader

Comment by superkuh | Hacker News Reader

Lets instead talk about the growing vigalante action by Flock corporation refusing to allow cities to remove cameras from their property after the contract is cancelled. Some cities have been forced to cover the cameras with trash bags.

https://www.404media.co/flock-objects-to-our-removing-their-...

https://www.wmtv15news.com/2026/06/05/dane-county-covers-flo...

View on HN

Local politicians need to coordinate to remove their Flock cameras at the same time and pass laws to prevent any new one from being put up. Flock doesn't have the resources to sue every single one of them, especially if every city commits to dragging out the process for as long as possible by creating as many legal hurdles as they can, all of which Flock would have to have a court rule on.

Kind of like how practically every Scientologist filed suit against the IRS over CoS having their tax exempt status revoked, to which the IRS eventually relented.

It's also wild to me we live in a country where people who _live_ in a region are not allowed to make decisions about something as foul as surveillance cameras. If people who live, work, and are affected by these don't want them that should be the end of the conversation.

It should be to the people who live in an area to make decisions about it. With the legal ability to tell a company like Flock to fuck off.

If I were a city government, I would just start charging Flock rent.

That's probably federally illegal for some reason

They'll be gone the next day!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com