Gardner police discontinue Flock cameras as license plate readers face scrutiny | Hacker News Reader

Gardner police discontinue Flock cameras as license plate readers face scrutiny

kmbc.com

135 pointscocacola166 comments

"Authorities have charged or accused at least 50 law-enforcement officers of using license-plate readers for unauthorized purposes, including to stalk women without their knowledge or consent, a Post analysis of police and court records found.

In 26 of these cases, police investigators and prosecutors said the officers used the technology to spy on their wives, their girlfriends, their exes, their exes’ new partners or women they wanted to meet."

https://archive.is/fxZWT

And 3 more just a week ago in Georgia: https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/3-georgia-deputies-arre...

If you're curious how this plays out in practice, investigation room video of an officer who confesses to using one to create an alert on a woman so he could pull her over later to get her instagram: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3UfAMzz9Lc

The ones here (not in Texas) were being queried by Texas cops looking for women getting out of state abortions.

    "Over 1,200 vendors had access to our information through the Flock system," Steinmetz said, adding he did not know the identities of all those entities.

Even if for some strange reason you're OK with the police having access to the surveillance data (despite multiple recent articles revealing abuse), I'd like to think most people would take issue with random third parties also having access to it.

Flock cameras and their ilk are not OK in a civilized, free society.

For what legitimate reason would Flock be giving 1,200 vendors access to the city’s information? I don’t see how they’re going to be able to feasibly walk back from this without taking a massive punch to their business.

And also great timing because Flock almost swept it all under the rug [1]:

1: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flock-ceo-apologizes-surveillan...

No legitimate reason, but money plus investor pressure plus lack of privacy laws goes a long way towards self-justification.

One recent claim was that insurers were using it to determine whether the damage you claimed on a vehicle was as described, and/or repaired.

By the exact same token, the same thing applies to payment cards and cashless systems in general, but everyone seems to be fine with universal suspicionless surveillance by a private compant in that case.

There is an expansion to the surveillance. The cameras now get additional phone tracking abilities: https://archive.is/Tkwc3

There are multiple cases of people being falsely imprisoned because police believed Flock over actual evidence. In each case Flock was wrong.

Yes and in each case of people being correctly imprisoned, Flock was right. That's because it's a tautology.

* Flock (YC S17)

https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety

YC has somehow managed to be affiliated with some of the most egregiously crap companies along with the okay ones.

YC funds the “idea.” Despite having deep issues with this particular business, looking at global trends, I really only see one of two possible outcomes.

1) They’ll survive through this hopefully with some kind of significant reform (on paper at the very least)

2) Flock will suffer from the PR and fail, with the idea being filed under “before its time.” Ultimately, the idea persists. Mass surveillance and LPR tech will continue to roll out under a different name or structure.

Yes, that’s the issue I have with YC here. Unless Flock started with a birdwatching app and later pivoted to mass surveillance, I can’t imagine anyone ethical deciding to profit from nation-scale warrantless mass surveillance. It’s deplorable.

VCs are cancer. YC is one of the biggest VCs. What do you expect?

Is this the reason why this story is flagged and pushed down to 2nd page?

Probably because there’s a new Flock-bashing post every day or two on here, and there’s barely any tech relevance for a global audience.

I've been thinking about this for a while. The only place I want flock cameras is at the entrances of the mall parking lot. I can't articulate why that seems acceptable, and yet I view everywhere else as an overstep.

Maybe we need to upgrade the system to be more like...

To use this service copy and paste your authorization:

634534534535453454565646567880123843489579823374234

Thank you!

Your authorization gives you permission to search for plate 5VFA213 only. Signed by Judge Ja....

The problem isn't flock either. The next system that replaces this is going to be self-charging and swapping out Drones that scan large areas 15 feet above traffic and follow people it hasn't seen on a daily basis (non-normal events). Good luck us.

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to refer to them as merely license plate readers?

Cop-issued spousal trackers. 50 cases and counting.

50 known cases.

edit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/08/19/we-foun...

> At least 69 police officials have been accused, charged with or convicted of misusing Flock’s system or other license-plate readers for unauthorized purposes, The Post has found, and in at least 15 of these cases, someone outside of the police department — including victims, activists and journalists — first identified the potential misuse.

> Records and interviews show that departments across the country do not regularly audit their officers’ Flock use, a practice recommended by the company, and some law enforcement agencies have no formal training programs or written policies describing how the technology should be used.

Exactly. One cop used it to track his almost 800 times in a few months.

While citing bogus reasons that were actual crimes.

They're not, according to "Authorities".

> Authorities believe the at-large criminals snuck up behind the cameras with spray foam canisters and sprayed the lenses before the cameras had a chance to ID them.

https://www.facebook.com/100064614555569/posts/1467922555371...

Isnt it a bit disingenuous to imply that license plate readers aren't infringing enough to be a problem?

They will just switch to Axon

Then society may just regulate the technology.

Society must regulate the people using Flock cameras.

Guns don't kill people, people do.

Automated license plate readers don't stalk jilted ex's, people do.

Pole-mounted facial recognition cameras don't spy on children in swimming pools, people do.

Does Axon offer the same sort of national, single-database that Flock does?

I'm far more inclined to trust my local department to manage their own database vs. a single database that everyone contributes to and reads from.

They connect into the flock network.

https://investor.axon.com/2020-04-02-Axon-Partners-with-Floc...

EDIT: There is a claim they terminated their partnership by last year..but who knows.

https://www.404media.co/cities-are-ditching-flock-immediatel...

My angle grinder is vendor-agnostic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com