Do you support Flock or similar surveillance tech?

[triplemultiplex]

Mass surveillance creates a de-facto bypass of the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable search.  And arguably, the intimidation mass surveillance provides is also infringing on our 1st Amendment right to peaceably gather and protest the government. 

The amount of times already people with access to this mass surveillance data have been caught abusing this information to say, stalk an ex, is insane enough. Getting information about who is accessing that data and when is like pulling teeth but when it is obtained, one finds extremely concerning patterns.  Like those that suggest someone with access is gooning to feeds from parks and schools and the like.

Let me tell you, I fear mass surveillance far, far more than I fear whatever crime these spy cameras allegedly help solve or prevent. Because it treats us ALL as potential criminals; saving this information "just in case" we go off and do something the government doesn't like.  Presumption of innocence is out the window and someone in charge can decide to investigate you just because they don't like what you have to say.  No warrants, no oversight, no accountability; all for done for a profit.

There isn't any pretense about protecting a particularly special location, too, like a sports venue or a school. It's just tracking everyone everywhere all the time and storing in a database.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[thspfc]

I support cameras on major highways to reliably punish speeding. Other than that no.

[1995hoo]

...

There isn't any pretense about protecting a particularly special location, too, like a sports venue or a school. It's just tracking everyone everywhere all the time and storing in a database.

...

One of the ones I passed this morning fits that description quite well. It's on the black pole by the end of the guardrail between the lightpost and the speed limit sign:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/euR1wqzYGzxMd4qD9

[vdeane]

That said, people that get on the internet and complain about data centers, AKA the thing that makes the internet work, are really a whole other level of out of touch with science.  Of course the same people that reflexively oppose any pipeline, road, airport, mine, timber harvest, factory, anything that makes life better for other people are the usual suspects, but to use the internet to advocate for the internet not working is really a special level.

The data centers people are complaining about aren't data centers hosting websites and the like - they're data centers to support the development and use of AI, a technology that people do not support and wish tech companies and the government would stop shoving down our throats.  They also use a significant amount of electricity and water.

It's been a longtime basic principle of American constitutional law that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for anything you do in a public place.

Of course, there's a big difference between someone happening to see you at a specific point in space and time, and someone following you around all the time, recording what you do, and comparing it to what you've done in the past to draw conclusions from that data.  All this surveillance is like the latter (the federal government has even announced that it will use AI to analyze the data to find "criminals" and "terrorists" - the current definition of which includes everyone who vocally does not support the current people in power and their agenda).  The courts, meanwhile, seem to be unwilling or unable to make this distinction, which is terrifying.

Mass surveillance creates a de-facto bypass of the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable search.  And arguably, the intimidation mass surveillance provides is also infringing on our 1st Amendment right to peaceably gather and protest the government. 

And the constant surveillance stresses people out and causes them to act differently, which is unhealthy even for nerotypicals for whom masking comes naturally* (and doubly so for autistic people for whom it very much does not).  People need places where they can let their hair down and be themselves, but with constant surveillance, smart home devices, and even many driver "assistance" features in cars, all the spaces where one can do so are being taken away.

*There's a reason why "be yourself" is considered good dating advice even if austic people view it as a tautology at best and extremely unhelpful.  To an autistic person, having to alter their behavior to conform to societal expectations is a high cognitive burden and quite stressful.  Neurotypicals, on the other hand, do this to some extent all the time (do you act different at work or around authority figures?  If so, that's masking, it just doesn't feel like it because it's so normalized), to the point where they have to be reminded not to do it as much when they're trying to get to know someone.

[SP Cook]

The data centers people are complaining about aren't data centers hosting websites and the like -

15 seconds on the internet (thank you, data centers) says that isn't true.  It is just the reflexive NIMBY and BANANA extremists. 

But since you seem to know which planned data centers will host websites, and which do other things.

LINK PLEASE.

[elsmere241]

My city (Wilmington, Delaware) had four, but the last one was decommissioned July 27th.  It turns out that they'd been installed in 2023.  I didn't know about them at all until a city councilor issued a statement about them a few days ago.

https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2026/08/06/wilmington-discontinues-use-of-flock-cameras/91187957007/


https://6abc.com/post/wilmington-delaware-decommissioning-flock-automated-license-plate-readers-amid-growing-debate-mass-surveillance-system/19640922/

[TheHighwayMan3561]

You're innocent until the police decide you aren't. That isn't new, but Flock helps.

[1995hoo]

It's been a longtime basic principle of American constitutional law that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for anything you do in a public place.

Of course, there's a big difference between someone happening to see you at a specific point in space and time, and someone following you around all the time, recording what you do, and comparing it to what you've done in the past to draw conclusions from that data.  All this surveillance is like the latter (the federal government has even announced that it will use AI to analyze the data to find "criminals" and "terrorists" - the current definition of which includes everyone who vocally does not support the current people in power and their agenda).  The courts, meanwhile, seem to be unwilling or unable to make this distinction, which is terrifying.

I don't necessarily disagree with the overall theme of your comment in principle. My point was simply to note something that's been a bedrock principle of constitutional law for a long time. I recall a case from first-year con law class that had something to do with some guy claiming a Fourth Amendment violation when a police helicopter spotted marijuana plants growing in his backyard (or something like that—something illegal that was visible from above but not at ground level due to the yard being fenced). He lost because he was growing the plants in plain view.

The point you make is an interesting one, though, in light of the more recent case law about cellular phone location data and whether cops have a right to access it. From a logical standpoint, there's something to the idea that while your license plate is in plain view when you're out on the road, such that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your movements, there is also no expectation that your license plate will be constantly monitored.

I'm sure there will be litigation about it at some point. My instinct is that the camera operators are likely to prevail, but whether they should prevail is a separate question.

[CoreySamson]

Support ubiquitous surveillance?  No.  Accept it?  Yes.  I figure cameras are following everything I do and don't worry much about what somebody is doing with the information collected.

This is largely my take. I've figured that my life is an open book anyways, so what's another camera occasionally tracking my location when I pass by? But that's assuming there are no bad actors at play that don't want to do little else other than sell me things.

I, however, do not like the implications of Flock cameras if there are bad actors in play that are actively trying to harm people. What if a government uses the cameras to harass and persecute a religious group, their political opponents, or a minority group? What if a government is trying to hunt me down with those cameras because of me homeschooling my (future) kids or something else they do not like? Given the rise of extremism in America from certain quarters, that's certainly a possibility if they were to get in charge of the cameras.

If there was accountability in how Flock cameras were treating their data, I could see a case for them, but since there isn't much of any accountability at all, I say no bueno.

[NE2]

They've already used them to go after people getting abortions.

[Scott5114]

That said, people that get on the internet and complain about data centers, AKA the thing that makes the internet work, are really a whole other level of out of touch with science.

AI bootlickers always love to throw this "And yet you're on the internet! I'm very smart" gotcha out like HTTP data centers and AI data centers are exactly the same thing. They are not. When I was a teenager, I ran a (shitty) HTTP server in my bedroom. They are not a huge power draw running complex equipment, and the world has been able to accommodate them for decades. What people have a problem with are the AI data centers with the same power draw as a midsized city, running machines that have no other purpose.

LINK PLEASE.

If you insist.



(I suppose silicon chips are a form of pottery so he'd be an appropriate video game character to resolve this.)

[kalvado]

That said, people that get on the internet and complain about data centers, AKA the thing that makes the internet work, are really a whole other level of out of touch with science.

AI bootlickers always love to throw this "And yet you're on the internet! I'm very smart" gotcha out like HTTP data centers and AI data centers are exactly the same thing. They are not. When I was a teenager, I ran a (shitty) HTTP server in my bedroom. They are not a huge power draw running complex equipment, and the world has been able to accommodate them for decades. What people have a problem with are the AI data centers with the same power draw as a midsized city, running machines that have no other purpose.

Purely numerically, data center power consumption doubled since 2022 (or increased 3x since before COVID. My online presence certainly didn't increase that much

[The_Ginger]

The data centers people are complaining about aren't data centers hosting websites and the like -

15 seconds on the internet (thank you, data centers) says that isn't true.  It is just the reflexive NIMBY and BANANA extremists. 

But since you seem to know which planned data centers will host websites, and which do other things.

LINK PLEASE.

I have no idea what Internet you are using.

https://www.rcrwireless.com/20250327/fundamentals/ai-data-center-difference
https://cloudswit.ch/blogs/ai-data-centers-and-traditional-data-centers/
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1s7wfn7/ai_data_centers_vs_regular_data_centers/

Granted, you have to sift through sponsored results and AI articles (I'm still not sure that the first two are human-written, but that's what Reddit is for ). There seems to be a clear distinction between the two.

[Plutonic Panda]

Tracking political opinions as well:

https://x.com/orwellday/status/2086589002811916311?s=46

[vdeane]

The data centers people are complaining about aren't data centers hosting websites and the like -

15 seconds on the internet (thank you, data centers) says that isn't true.  It is just the reflexive NIMBY and BANANA extremists. 

But since you seem to know which planned data centers will host websites, and which do other things.

LINK PLEASE.

I have no idea what Internet you are using.

https://www.rcrwireless.com/20250327/fundamentals/ai-data-center-difference
https://cloudswit.ch/blogs/ai-data-centers-and-traditional-data-centers/
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1s7wfn7/ai_data_centers_vs_regular_data_centers/

Granted, you have to sift through sponsored results and AI articles (I'm still not sure that the first two are human-written, but that's what Reddit is for ). There seems to be a clear distinction between the two.

Given that he said 15 seconds, I doubt he bothered to click on any links, just read whatever AI summery popped up.

They've already used them to go after people getting abortions.

And since they're accessible to all law enforcement agencies, all a place that wants to do that would have to do is wait for people they're interested in to show up on a camera in a jurisdiction that won't protect them and pounce.

[Bobby5280]

Here in Oklahoma tracking devices like these Flock cameras were first sold to the public as a way to ID uninsured motorists. At first glance that seemed like a worthwhile cause. People driving without valid insurance has been a huge problem in this state. Unfortunately the people in charge took that specific opening and expanded upon it like crazy. They're not just tracking uninsured motorists anymore. They're tracking everybody. And it's clear local, state and federal organizations cannot be trusted with that surveillance data. That's blatantly obvious with all the cops getting busted on stalking charges for snooping into that data.

[Scott5114]

Here in Oklahoma tracking devices like these Flock cameras were first sold to the public as a way to ID uninsured motorists. At first glance that seemed like a worthwhile cause. People driving without valid insurance has been a huge problem in this state.

In Nevada they won't issue or renew your tag if you don't have insurance. So you can ID the uninsured motorists pretty easily because they're the ones driving around with no tags. Which leads to other problems......

[Bobby5280]

I don't know how it is in most other states, but in Oklahoma one of the big problem is people would game the car tag laws by purchasing a temporary car insurance policy that would expire in as little as 30 days. They would technically have valid insurance when they renewed their car tags, but the rest of the year they would be driving around uninsured. Supposedly these surveillance cameras would ping the vehicles in their uninsured condition.

The general public might have been willing to go along with this government surveillance ploy IF law enforcement only used the tool to catch uninsured motorists. It quickly became plainly obvious law enforcement agencies were using these types of surveillance cameras for far more purposes than catching insurance cheats.

The Flock cameras are bad enough. It's possible for law enforcement agencies to do an end run around user consent and get ring doorbell camera footage via the ring company.

We all want people who commit crimes to be caught and punished appropriately. It's obvious these surveillance tools can be weaponized to silence legal speech and quash legal political dissent.

[Plutonic Panda]

FYI, here is a map of all known flock cameras:

https://deflock.org/

[Rothman]

I don't know how it is in most other states, but in Oklahoma one of the big problem is people would game the car tag laws by purchasing a temporary car insurance policy that would expire in as little as 30 days. They would technically have valid insurance when they renewed their car tags, but the rest of the year they would be driving around uninsured. Supposedly these surveillance cameras would ping the vehicles in their uninsured condition.

The general public might have been willing to go along with this government surveillance ploy IF law enforcement only used the tool to catch uninsured motorists. It quickly became plainly obvious law enforcement agencies were using these types of surveillance cameras for far more purposes than catching insurance cheats.

The Flock cameras are bad enough. It's possible for law enforcement agencies to do an end run around user consent and get ring doorbell camera footage via the ring company.

We all want people who commit crimes to be caught and punished appropriately. It's obvious these surveillance tools can be weaponized to silence legal speech and quash legal political dissent.

Makes me wonder why OK has a bigger problem with this than other states that require insurance, as you claim.  You'd think others would get the temp insurance, too.

[kalvado]

I don't know how it is in most other states, but in Oklahoma one of the big problem is people would game the car tag laws by purchasing a temporary car insurance policy that would expire in as little as 30 days. They would technically have valid insurance when they renewed their car tags, but the rest of the year they would be driving around uninsured. Supposedly these surveillance cameras would ping the vehicles in their uninsured condition.

The general public might have been willing to go along with this government surveillance ploy IF law enforcement only used the tool to catch uninsured motorists. It quickly became plainly obvious law enforcement agencies were using these types of surveillance cameras for far more purposes than catching insurance cheats.

The Flock cameras are bad enough. It's possible for law enforcement agencies to do an end run around user consent and get ring doorbell camera footage via the ring company.

We all want people who commit crimes to be caught and punished appropriately. It's obvious these surveillance tools can be weaponized to silence legal speech and quash legal political dissent.

Makes me wonder why OK has a bigger problem with this than other states that require insurance, as you claim.  You'd think others would get the temp insurance, too.

I believe NY tracks ongoing insurance status in addition to checking at registration and renewal. So lapse of insurance means loss of registration and requirement to surrender your plates.
That's why fake plates are easier in NY.

[SP Cook]

So no link then

Science

[The_Ginger]

So no link then

Science

The data centers people are complaining about aren't data centers hosting websites and the like -

15 seconds on the internet (thank you, data centers) says that isn't true.  It is just the reflexive NIMBY and BANANA extremists. 

But since you seem to know which planned data centers will host websites, and which do other things.

LINK PLEASE.

I have no idea what Internet you are using.

https://www.rcrwireless.com/20250327/fundamentals/ai-data-center-difference
https://cloudswit.ch/blogs/ai-data-centers-and-traditional-data-centers/
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1s7wfn7/ai_data_centers_vs_regular_data_centers/

Granted, you have to sift through sponsored results and AI articles (I'm still not sure that the first two are human-written, but that's what Reddit is for ). There seems to be a clear distinction between the two.

It comes to a point where it's almost as bad as Beltway now, which is not a good statement.

[bandit957]

Nobody should trust Flock cameras after the things the government and corporations have done to us, especially in this decade.

[kphoger]

Where's the poll option for "I have never heard of Flock"?

I support cameras on major highways to reliably punish speeding. Other than that no.

Traffic enforcement is one thing that I don't support cameras doing.  I believe that a human police officer should have to make a judgment call.  Camera's can't make judgment calls.