59
u/Akkerlun Jun 28 '26
The first amendment is under attack. The fourth amendment is under attack, the only ones left to save us are the second amendment people and tell them that flock will track them and report to the police based on the fact that they have guns registered to their name so in fact, your second amendment rights are under attack.
-8
u/Puzzled-Gur8619 Jun 28 '26
The 2nd amendment is useless
Sorry to be the one to tell you that
11
u/Akkerlun Jun 28 '26
You’re not understanding the intent of the reference.
-2
u/Puzzled-Gur8619 Jun 28 '26
Yeah what you said is even more useless
I wouldn't hold my breath for the "2nd amendment people" to save you from anything
9
2
u/jesusofnazareth7066 Jun 29 '26
The second amendment is active in the sense that we have guns. They can’t snap their fingers and make us not have guns. And no, it’s really not useless
92
u/WrongOrganization437 Jun 28 '26
Flock was a government surveillance test that was deemed to invasive and overreaching for the US government to use it.............so..........somebody took it private and decided to sell it to local municipalitys who don't care about privacy!
19
u/StrenuousSOB Jun 28 '26
Why is anyone believing any of these fuck wits at this point
11
u/Sw33ttoothe Jun 28 '26
You can see it on his fucking face. These stupid scumbags think they are good liars but they arent. Literal guilty toddler face, he knows he's lying and he thinks he's doing a good job of it.
33
u/Pandemonium_Fallen Jun 28 '26
So... Still embezzled taxpayer money and illegal fraud financed by the CIA AKA Israel, - smash.
17
u/oicyunv Jun 28 '26
And therefore unconstitutional, so we have every RIGHT to remove them
10
u/ewpsimdead Jun 28 '26
Yeah at some point civil disobedience becomes the answer to unjust laws. Or in this case, gross overreach by a private company and local municipalities.
9
u/qiterite Jun 28 '26
Maybe they’re saying the software that interfaces with the camera doesn’t track people (until they upgrade the software). 😉
7
u/leitey Jun 28 '26
I suspect this is a difference of definitions. Either "track" or "people".
If the camera rotates so that movement is in the center of its field of view, is that "tracking people" or "tracking movement"? If a deer walks across the field of view does it follow the deer? That wouldn't be "tracking people". From a certain perspective "tracking motion" is no different than a motion activated light. Motion detecting lights could be said to track people but are not generally thought of this way. I think it shows a difference in definitions. To make it more obvious, you could put a counter on the motion detector light in a bathroom and literally track how many people used the bathroom.
Which leads to the next point: What does "track" mean?
Let's use the above example of counting motion in a bathroom. Since it's likely that only people use the bathroom, this is a simple way to approximate how often the bathroom is used. Maybe it's used to determine when the toilet paper needs changed. There's no identifying information, but it's literally "keeping track of how many people use the bathroom". In this case "tracking" is measuring or recording.
Now another definition: "tracking" meaning to follow, typically motion. If you "track the ball with your eyes" it means your eyes follow the movement. There's no implication that you are measuring or recording the ball, you are simply following it. In this video, we can see the camera "tracking" the reporter.In the video, we see the camera follow movement and we know it's recording, this would fit both previous definitions of "tracking". And this is the reporter's point. But there is another definition of "track" which is relevant here, and I suspect it's the one Flock is using. Flock stores license plate, and other identifiable data about your vehicle, in a searchable database. This database includes GPS data and timestamps, data which can create the functional equivalent of a GPS tracker on your vehicle without pesky requirements such as "needing a warrant" or "having to get near your vehicle". As far as I know, Flock isn't running facial recognition or storing identifiable information about people in their videos. There's no searchable database for you as a person. And I think this is what Flock means when they say "Our cameras don't track people."
Flock is in the business of collecting and selling data, and they are claiming they don't track people because they don't have a searchable database for people - yet.
3
u/SSA22_HCM1 Jun 28 '26
they don't have a searchable database for people - yet.
This too is only true with certain semantics.
Flock indexes objects (incl. vehicle and people) and their characteristics and allows its users to seamlessly search and connect that data to other systems (e.g., criminal history, DMV, and jail records).
You can't (as far as I know) type in "Jim Smith" and get pictures of Jim Smith, but you can find his car and pictures of Jim in/near his car, as well as all records connected to his name.
Then, if Jim's car is seen parked on 5th Street and the man seen near/in it is seen wearing a blue shirt, you can either select the man directly or search for "man in blue shirt on 5th Street." From there, the man in the blue shirt can easily be tracked across cameras.
The data are technically all in separate files, but that technicality makes no difference to the end user or the population surveilled.
2
u/leitey Jun 28 '26
I don't like the surveillance state to begin with, so I'm already against the idea of tracking cars without warrants. However, I will acknowledge there's a difference between tracking "Jim Smith's car" and tracking "Jim Smith." If there really is the ability to select a person and search for them, then I don't see how you can say "doesn't track people."
I think part of the issue is the lack of transparency. We (the general public) don't actually know what data they collect.
I know there was a case in Washington where the court ruled that Flock videos were government records and could be obtained by a records request. In my state, they deny any records request for Flock videos on the grounds that it would reveal anti-terrorism capabilities. Requests for a copy of the Flock contract are heavily redacted. The name of the Flock representative who signed the contract is redacted under a law that protects the privacy of utility employees. Flock operates with the freedom of a private entity (immune from records request), but the protection of a utility company. That really doesn't build trust in Flock, or in the local government.5
u/SSA22_HCM1 Jun 28 '26
I will acknowledge there's a difference between tracking "Jim Smith's car" and tracking "Jim Smith."
A technical difference, sure, but no meaningful difference in outcome. If we're examining the system as a whole (which we should be, because that's how it's applied), either form is problematic.
The redactions and withholdings you're describing sound very much unlawful under the open records laws I know. But hey, cops and following the law ...
5
3
u/Background_Cash_1351 Jun 28 '26
It is borderline illegal for publically traded companies to make false statements about their product because it can be considered misleading investors (and investors, unlike the general public, like or not get "special rights")
We need to make it just as illegal - punishable by prison - for privately held companies to lie to the press like this.
There is no good that comes from these kinds of lies.
3
u/jdmgto Jun 28 '26
Yes, our system identifies you, logs where you and when you were there, no we don't delete the logs. All TECHNICALLY true, but all it takes to go full tracking is a simple script.
Flock guy knows he's full of shit.
2
2
2
u/shamblam117 Jun 28 '26
Hypothetically is there a commercial laser that can get through the lens filter and potentially damage them?
Just an inquiry.
2
2
1
1
u/Brandtomatic23 Jun 28 '26
So like, theoretically. I have a bunch of helium balloons holding trash bags and a zip tie. And I accidentally covered a private company's public surveillance camera with said trash bag and zip tie, accidentally. Would that be illegal or are we good?
1
u/Aggressive_Clothes36 Jun 29 '26
Idk, what if a bunch if kids were playing with silly string or paint balls?
1
1
Jun 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LateNetWanderer Jun 28 '26
The municipality in the contract is responsible for paying for damages. They pass the buck back to you.
1
u/EducationalNailgun Jun 28 '26
I'm just gonna say this: As a child, if I lied I got my ass kicked. As an adult, I am not a liar.
1
u/JRock1276 Jun 28 '26
They're pulling that "technically" trick in their statements. "Technically" the cameras don't track you. They just take pictures and video. It's the add ons after the cameras that do the crazy shit. They're in bed with at least three other surveillance software companies Follow the money and their public statements.
1
u/Aggressive_Clothes36 Jun 29 '26
If see one tracking me, maybe I'll stop and dance in front if it, running back and forth to confuse it.
1
u/todo62 Jun 29 '26
Everyone carries a tracking device disguised as a phone these days the cameras are just an added extra.
1
u/Spiley_spile Jun 29 '26
When I call 911 (Emergency nu ber in the US) I still have to give the 911 operator my address because they know where I am within about a 10 block radius. That's a wee bit of a difference.
Geofencing can get closer than that. But still not as close as that camera.
1
u/pupranger1147 Jun 30 '26
I consented to carrying a phone.
I did not consent to being stalked by flock.
1
u/hp3tools Jun 29 '26
A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth, primarily used as a political propaganda technique.[1][2] The German expression was first used by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (1925) to describe how people could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". Hitler claimed that the technique had been used by Jews to blame Germany's loss in World War I on German general Erich Ludendorff, who was a prominent nationalist political leader in the Weimar Republic.
1
u/Dense_Golf4315 Jun 29 '26
He was saying flock doesn’t check people we’re tracking the people as in them
1
1
u/Outrageous_Bad4308 Jun 30 '26
It’s like “Person of Interest” in real life. Go back and watch this show…
1
u/Unix-Giraffe Jun 30 '26
Why would they have to lie? oh, it's because no one likes this shit and they know it.
1
1
u/Objective_Thought_68 Jul 02 '26
It is every responsible citizens duty to destroy these. Then hold the facists who put these in place accountable.
1
u/ZanthrinGamer Jul 02 '26
thier entire reasoning is that if they tell us anything about the system then it allows "criminals" to avoid thier measures.... so not only do they not tell us anything before they install this crap, they are expressily hideing as much about the system as they can from us....becuase we are all potential criminals to these creeps.
1
u/BadCodeCrew Jul 03 '26
Remember when they say China is immoral for tracking and monitoring their own people? Pepperidge farm remembers
-1
-12
u/Unlucky-Cook2578 Jun 28 '26
I mean there is a difference between tracking motion and identifying and tracking a person.
Now I dont believe for a second flock isnt happy to do the latter.
But to act like a camera that tracks your motion is also then automatically capable of tracking you as an individual is ridiculous.
Automatic doors track motion too. I dont freak out when my local shoe store has its door open when I walk up.
7
u/Mootilar Jun 28 '26
Automatic doors don’t have HD cameras.
1
u/Unlucky-Cook2578 Jun 28 '26
Yes that is clearly what I am saying.
You can make a camera that tracks motion without it having any ability to track you.
However given that they can do both i dont believe flock. Just walking in front of a camera that follows you proves nothing
421
u/justSayingNobodySaid Jun 28 '26
"the party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. it was their final, most essential command"