Any municipal location that Flock can install a camera represents the privatization of public tax-payer funded property by theft. Flock installs cameras without permission, gathers free data, then sells it back to municipalities for the tax dollars of the surveilled.
Flock owns the actual camera hardware and uses a completely internal field support service, meaning it costs them lost time and lost money every time a service call is put out to repair instead of install. They also charge police departments for vandalized cameras as part of their contract. So, there’s literally no reason for them to send out a unit to remove cameras unless forced to by law.
Flock is not a public safety company, because their products and practices are not meant to promote public safety. They promote private monetization of indiscriminate dragnet surveillance where mistakes and harassment are just the cost of doing business.
Cops get lied to about Flock’s capabilities and then people suffer when law enforcement acts on bad intelligence. Then, the government must dislodge itself from liability for Flock’s mistakes, E-waste hardware, and invasive tactics. It’s no wonder most municipalities want nothing to do with them.
What gets sold to cops isn’t passive flagging, cops don’t like passive flagging.
If a dangerous element is passing thru their jurisdiction, their preference is to look elsewhere.
What they want, and what they buy, is the ability to type in a plate and find out everywhere they’ve been and where they are.
It’s just if they said that’s why they’re buying it, the outcry would be even worse. The only reason idiots support it, is they think it can stop a crime before it happens.
There are multiple documented instances of flock installing cameras without first notifying local governments. One example:
Previously, in 2021, Flock ran afoul of local government in Lake County, Florida after it installed 100 cameras without notifying officials.
(Sorry for the paywalled article. If you view it in reader mode the rest is visible.)
Their strategy (which has led to great success I might add) is to install cameras where they can, and then approach local PD with a showcase of the data. To their credit they do remove installations when required, but now that it’s being required more frequently they appear to be increasingly reticent to do so.
Hey remember when Aqua Teen Hunger Force did guerilla advertising by putting a little 8-bit looking dudes all over town, and everybody freaked out and cops were claiming it could be a bomb threat or something?
While the article you linked describes Flock installing cameras without permission from the county, that doesn’t mean they failed to get permission at all. Note that the very first paragraph says the Treasure Island Police Department was their customer, and the bit you quoted implies that the Lake County Sheriff’s Office had previously deployed cameras.
In other words, it looks like Flock did have permission from city agencies, just as I thought. So your claim that Flock installed them without permission appears to be incorrect, at least in those cases. That complicates the issue, and makes arguing for their removal and ban more difficult for the many citizens who want them gone.
(And to be clear, I do want mass surveillance gone.)
Thanks for your clarification, as I should have been more clear. Law enforcement is a “government agency”, and Flock technically obtains permissions from them. There’s not much sense in installing cameras before securing some kind of contract.
Flock tends to get contracts from law enforcement agencies, but then runs afoul of other regulatory agencies who are not notified before the equipment is installed. City councils, transportation authorities, public safety departments, constituents, and even State lawmakers are often not included in negotiations or even notified. This is the problem with Flock’s business practices that results in removal disputes.
Once the cameras are in, they become difficult to dislodge and it takes regulatory force (and more money) to remove their privately owned equipment. Flock is not incentivized to remove their cameras or seek the proper approvals, and they know their product is popular with police and unpopular with the populace. So, that’s who they target for sales and permissions. Once the equipment is installed, they fight any regulatory removal process. As they garner more negative attention, their excuses and ploys become more odious. For example:
In North Carolina in November 2023, a judge enjoined Flock staff from installing new cameras after a division of the state’s Department of Public Safety sought an injunction against it arguing the company had been operating without the required license. Flock disputed the complaint, claiming it did not need any sort of clearance from the North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing Board because it “is not in the alarm system business”; the statute applies to any device used to detect illegal activity. Thomas said Flock has since been permitted to have a third party install its devices.
A company like Flock should be fully expected to know that this excuse is absurd and that this law applied to them, But Flock chose to litigate it anyways, and did so because they expected to be allowed to continue, which they were.
I reiterate my point that Flock is not in the public safety business because they don’t willingly work with public safety organizations. Flock is in the business of monetizing dragnet surveillance for law enforcement because that’s all they do.
with the tens of thousands of installs and the driving factor of their expansion, the odds of every single one of them being put up with the permission or invitation of the entity controlling the property or right-of-way is pretty darn close to -zero-.
Any municipal location that Flock can install a camera represents the privatization of public tax-payer funded property by theft. Flock installs cameras without permission, gathers free data, then sells it back to municipalities for the tax dollars of the surveilled.
Flock owns the actual camera hardware and uses a completely internal field support service, meaning it costs them lost time and lost money every time a service call is put out to repair instead of install. They also charge police departments for vandalized cameras as part of their contract. So, there’s literally no reason for them to send out a unit to remove cameras unless forced to by law.
Flock is not a public safety company, because their products and practices are not meant to promote public safety. They promote private monetization of indiscriminate dragnet surveillance where mistakes and harassment are just the cost of doing business.
Cops get lied to about Flock’s capabilities and then people suffer when law enforcement acts on bad intelligence. Then, the government must dislodge itself from liability for Flock’s mistakes, E-waste hardware, and invasive tactics. It’s no wonder most municipalities want nothing to do with them.
Not really…
What gets sold to cops isn’t passive flagging, cops don’t like passive flagging.
If a dangerous element is passing thru their jurisdiction, their preference is to look elsewhere.
What they want, and what they buy, is the ability to type in a plate and find out everywhere they’ve been and where they are.
It’s just if they said that’s why they’re buying it, the outcry would be even worse. The only reason idiots support it, is they think it can stop a crime before it happens.
Even cops aren’t that stupid.
Does documentation of this exist? I have been under the impression that cities or city agencies give them permission.
There are multiple documented instances of flock installing cameras without first notifying local governments. One example:
(Sorry for the paywalled article. If you view it in reader mode the rest is visible.)
Their strategy (which has led to great success I might add) is to install cameras where they can, and then approach local PD with a showcase of the data. To their credit they do remove installations when required, but now that it’s being required more frequently they appear to be increasingly reticent to do so.
Hey remember when Aqua Teen Hunger Force did guerilla advertising by putting a little 8-bit looking dudes all over town, and everybody freaked out and cops were claiming it could be a bomb threat or something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Mooninite_panic
Feels like there should at least be the same level of “WTF is that” when a bunch of mysterious cameras suddenly go up all over town…
While the article you linked describes Flock installing cameras without permission from the county, that doesn’t mean they failed to get permission at all. Note that the very first paragraph says the Treasure Island Police Department was their customer, and the bit you quoted implies that the Lake County Sheriff’s Office had previously deployed cameras.
In other words, it looks like Flock did have permission from city agencies, just as I thought. So your claim that Flock installed them without permission appears to be incorrect, at least in those cases. That complicates the issue, and makes arguing for their removal and ban more difficult for the many citizens who want them gone.
(And to be clear, I do want mass surveillance gone.)
Thanks for your clarification, as I should have been more clear. Law enforcement is a “government agency”, and Flock technically obtains permissions from them. There’s not much sense in installing cameras before securing some kind of contract.
Flock tends to get contracts from law enforcement agencies, but then runs afoul of other regulatory agencies who are not notified before the equipment is installed. City councils, transportation authorities, public safety departments, constituents, and even State lawmakers are often not included in negotiations or even notified. This is the problem with Flock’s business practices that results in removal disputes.
Once the cameras are in, they become difficult to dislodge and it takes regulatory force (and more money) to remove their privately owned equipment. Flock is not incentivized to remove their cameras or seek the proper approvals, and they know their product is popular with police and unpopular with the populace. So, that’s who they target for sales and permissions. Once the equipment is installed, they fight any regulatory removal process. As they garner more negative attention, their excuses and ploys become more odious. For example:
A company like Flock should be fully expected to know that this excuse is absurd and that this law applied to them, But Flock chose to litigate it anyways, and did so because they expected to be allowed to continue, which they were.
I reiterate my point that Flock is not in the public safety business because they don’t willingly work with public safety organizations. Flock is in the business of monetizing dragnet surveillance for law enforcement because that’s all they do.
with the tens of thousands of installs and the driving factor of their expansion, the odds of every single one of them being put up with the permission or invitation of the entity controlling the property or right-of-way is pretty darn close to -zero-.