Cynic said:

---

Sounds like lots of data that will be sold for a nice price

---

It's already being bought.

A ton of free apps log your location data on your phone and share that data with the publishers. This data is then sold, tying your phone number and daily travel to your email address, and eventually your home address.

This will just let the government sell the data, or, more likely, give it away as a political favor to certain people.

Cargo Shorts FTW said:

---

The data is public record and subject to foia requests. Get the license plate numbers for the city council members, foia their information, and post their travels online for all to enjoy.

You can extend this to other influential officials as you wish.

---

Zero percent chance that you would be able to get that data. Rules for thee and not for me, example 2,342,353

After the last few years of driving the BCS roadways, I am seriously considering that bringing back red light cameras is a good thing. On the condition that the city own the cameras and that the timing of the lights are not changed.

Flock cameras do not bother me.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

Her car is private property, not public.

You're not even in the same ballpark.

---

The point

Your head

---

You made a dumb argument. Don't be surprised when it falls flat.

---

It only falls flat for you because you don't seem capable of understanding it.

Here's a hint since you seen to need one so bad: It's not about what property the device is on, it's about what it does. If you're not comfortable with a GPS tracker on your car, then a system of cameras that gathers data 24/7 and can track your every move should make you just as uncomfortable.

---

Fully capable. You're still making a dumb argument and then resorting to personal attacks when others don't roll with it. My car is private. My movements in public are not. These are not the same things. You keep trying to equate them.

I am actually torn about this.

1) It WILL be abused. There is zero doubt about this. Look how the FISA court turned out. All you have to do is lie, and you can get away with pretty much anything.

2) As a victim of illegals stealing my vehicle to be used in an ATM robbery, I kinda like the idea of identifying stolen cars quickly. A large chunk of vehicles stolen in Texas were being used to transport illegals. If this system helps us get rid of more illegal aliens, that would be something strongly in the Pro column.

3) I actually think that any government that collects data like this should be forced to make the data public in a publicly available database. If the government officials don't feel comfortable with the public having access to the data, then the government shouldn't be collecting this.

4) I think that competing private companies should be able to install similar cameras up right next to the government owned ones, and sell the data for private gain. If government officials aren't comfortable with a private company collecting data that they are collecting, the government probably shouldn't be collecting it.

I know they're not the same thing. They're different means to the same end. You can't seem to get past the means part to the end part, which is the response to the post originally replied to:

Quote:

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Maybe a Chinese style surveillance state doesn't bother you, but it sure bothers a lot of other people.

THIS IS THE NEXT STEP TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER

BusterAg said:

---

I am actually torn about this.

1) It WILL be abused. There is zero doubt about this. Look how the FISA court turned out. All you have to do is lie, and you can get away with pretty much anything.

2) As a victim of illegals stealing my vehicle to be used in an ATM robbery, I kinda like the idea of identifying stolen cars quickly. A large chunk of vehicles stolen in Texas were being used to transport illegals. If this system helps us get rid of more illegal aliens, that would be something strongly in the Pro column.

3) I actually think that any government that collects data like this should be forced to make the data public in a publicly available database. If the government officials don't feel comfortable with the public having access to the data, then the government shouldn't be collecting this.

4) I think that competing private companies should be able to install similar cameras up right next to the government owned ones, and sell the data for private gain. If government officials aren't comfortable with a private company collecting data that they are collecting, the government probably shouldn't be collecting it.

---

This push is a push for more extension of government provided by people with zero accountability. I don't care who is in office or what side of the isle has majority, I want small government. No government should be collecting this level of data on ANYONE.

The reason I post these is because they have lulled us to sleep by slowly taking our freedoms for decades. If we don't recognize this, and get on the same page, then they will win.

It is not Right vs Left, it is The American people vs the American Elites. Don't forget Ronald Reagans quote, "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"".

These cameras are not here to help. Don't get suckered into the temporary benefit and miss the long term repercussions.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

I know they're not the same thing. They're different means to the same end. You can't seem to get past the means part to the end part, which is the response to the post originally replied to:

Quote:

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Maybe a Chinese style surveillance state doesn't bother you, but it sure bothers a lot of other people.

---

Ok, now you're getting more clear and I understand your point of view. They are not the same thing but could ultimately end up at the same place. Agree that's a possibility.

That's where we hold our elected officials accountable if they abuse the trust we place in them. But it's hard to make the case that anyone shouldn't be able to video what is visible in public just because somebody could abuse it. That standard would put a lot things at risk that we do every day in the normal course of our lives.

On a related topic, one thing that drives me nuts is the over application of privacy laws where my wife can't handle a household affair for us with a vendor because the account is in my name and not hers. Or vice versa. Good intentions gone wrong.

We also need to stop satellites taking pictures. The evil deep state will use them to track you when you have a video of a deep state assassination hidden in a video game.

BusterAg said:

---

1) It WILL be abused. There is zero doubt about this. Look how the FISA court turned out. All you have to do is lie, and you can get away with pretty much anything.

---

Already is. Multiple cops, including chiefs, have been caught stalking wives, girlfriends, and exes using it. The alarming thing is that they were caught after months of abuse and department audits or investigations into other issues. The fact that particular users ran specific plates hundreds of times in a short timespan didn't raise any red flags at Flock or prompt any kind of notification.

https://www.aclu-wi.org/news/what-the-flock-police-surveillance-is-ripe-for-abuse/


And those are the ones caught. The reporter below had a 4 month audit of Flock use across Wisconsin's police departments pulled. After some basic aggregation, the results are interesting. One of the top most used terms for lookups was "investigation" with no other context. "." (yes, a period) made the top 20. There are many other instances of vague terms being used. We have no idea why those lookups were actually made or their legitimacy.

https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2025/08/06/analysis-of-flock-use-by-wisconsin-cops-reveals-trends-raises-questions/


Then there is the problem of Flock itself. We've seen Facebook and other social media companies have internal issues with securing user data from their internal developers. Private groups, chats, and personal information have all been abused by internal employees and contractors. We have no idea what kind of internal controls Flock places on their employees. We don't know anything about how they secure all this data, though they've already had breaches. We also have no idea how all of the data they're collecting might be used in the future.

BusterAg said:

---

Cargo Shorts FTW said:

---

The data is public record and subject to foia requests. Get the license plate numbers for the city council members, foia their information, and post their travels online for all to enjoy.

You can extend this to other influential officials as you wish.

---

Zero percent chance that you would be able to get that data. Rules for thee and not for me, example 2,342,353

---

No doubt they would try to avoid the release, but precedent has been set by the courts.


The Landmark Ruling: Rodriguez v. Stanwood & Sedro-Woolley
In November 2025, a Skagit County Superior Court judge ruled that images and metadata captured by Flock Safety cameras are public records and are not exempt from disclosure.

samurai_science said:

---

Cargo Shorts FTW said:

---

The data is public record and subject to foia requests. Get the license plate numbers for the city council members, foia their information, and post their travels online for all to enjoy.

You can extend this to other influential officials as you wish.

---

Its a lot easier to find out the information you are talking about than going to the trouble of dealing with a foia. Not sure what your point is?

---

That's awesome. Where can we get the location/movement data for individual license plates? I'm not just looking for the owner or the address, but where and when they've been traveling.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

1) It WILL be abused. There is zero doubt about this. Look how the FISA court turned out. All you have to do is lie, and you can get away with pretty much anything.

---

Already is. Multiple cops, including chiefs, have been caught stalking wives, girlfriends, and exes using it. The alarming thing is that they were caught after months of abuse and department audits or investigations into other issues. The fact that particular users ran specific plates hundreds of times in a short timespan didn't raise any red flags at Flock or prompt any kind of notification.

https://www.aclu-wi.org/news/what-the-flock-police-surveillance-is-ripe-for-abuse/


And those are the ones caught. The reporter below had a 4 month audit of Flock use across Wisconsin's police departments pulled. After some basic aggregation, the results are interesting. One of the top most used terms for lookups was "investigation" with no other context. "." (yes, a period) made the top 20. There are many other instances of vague terms being used. We have no idea why those lookups were actually made or their legitimacy.

https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2025/08/06/analysis-of-flock-use-by-wisconsin-cops-reveals-trends-raises-questions/


Then there is the problem of Flock itself. We've seen Facebook and other social media companies have internal issues with securing user data from their internal developers. Private groups, chats, and personal information have all been abused by internal employees and contractors. We have no idea what kind of internal controls Flock places on their employees. We don't know anything about how they secure all this data, though they've already had breaches. We also have no idea how all of the data they're collecting might be used in the future.

---

Well said. I am just posting these things so people can do their own research. Benn Jordan has amazing Youtube videos on how bad the security is for these cameras and some of these cameras have been found live streaming to the open internet.

There is a large difference between someone recording in public or installing a security camera on their property for their own use and a company installing an automated surveillance network across cities and towns and selling access to it to government agencies.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

There is a large difference between someone recording in public or installing a security camera on their property for their own use and a company installing an automated surveillance network across cities and towns and selling access to it to government agencies.

---

We just see it differently. If it's publicly acquired info, it's public info, whether procured for private use or commercial resale. What about the individual who films something happening in public and then sells it to the news media because it has commercial value? It's still public info. They fact they might have made money on it is irrelevant.

I completely agree that anyone who abuses public information to inflict harm on someone else should be held accountable and punished appropriately. That's where the focus should be, on instilling safeguards and penalties to deter abuse, along with compensation for victims. Just like how a lot of other things are regulated.

The public gets the benefit of the doubt, not the government, otherwise freedom erodes.

Advocating for flock or even being indifferent to it is giving the government the benefit of the doubt that they will not abuse it. That is backwards.

Cargo Shorts FTW said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Cargo Shorts FTW said:

---

The data is public record and subject to foia requests. Get the license plate numbers for the city council members, foia their information, and post their travels online for all to enjoy.

You can extend this to other influential officials as you wish.

---

Zero percent chance that you would be able to get that data. Rules for thee and not for me, example 2,342,353

---

No doubt they would try to avoid the release, but precedent has been set by the courts.


The Landmark Ruling: Rodriguez v. Stanwood & Sedro-Woolley
In November 2025, a Skagit County Superior Court judge ruled that images and metadata captured by Flock Safety cameras are public records and are not exempt from disclosure.

---

That's only a county judge, and it's on appeal. She can be overturned, and her ruling doesn't apply outside her county.

That said, all they have to do is find a reason to redact the records. They could cite personal privacy reasons and just black out everything. It would be hypocritical, but I don't see that stopping them. They could also cite exposing trade secrets, since Flock is private and giving out the information would locate their cameras. There are ways they can get creative.

love the outrage of all the iphone carrying, alexa in every room, ring doorbell camera crowds. If these things get abused or hacked, they'll lose their contracts and go away. They start issuing tickets or fines by way of these, yea burn 'em down. They have traffic cameras at every intersection, does that bother you? What about tollway cameras?

This isn't the hill to die on and proven it pushes the riff raff elsewhere.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

There is a large difference between someone recording in public or installing a security camera on their property for their own use and a company installing an automated surveillance network across cities and towns and selling access to it to government agencies.

---

We just see it differently. If it's publicly acquired info, it's public info, whether procured for private use or commercial resale. What about the individual who films something happening in public and then sells it to the news media because it has commercial value? It's still public info. They fact they might have made money on it is irrelevant.

I completely agree that anyone who abuses public information to inflict harm on someone else should be held accountable and punished appropriately. That's where the focus should be, on instilling safeguards and penalties to deter abuse, along with compensation for victims. Just like how a lot of other things are regulated.

---

The difference is scale, automation, and aggregation, not whether they are making money. The individual recording in public is personally recording, not setting up a camera and permanently walking away, much less setting up tens of thousands and networking them. They're also not using software to automatically review and catalogue everything that is being captured without ever personally looking at it.

Think of it this way: Courts have ruled that AI generated images do not get copyright because the person generating it did not personally create the image; the software did, regardless of the prompt and how it was refined by the user. In that same vein, there is no one personally creating the videos, images, and data sets used by Flock. No one is personally operating a camera and reviewing and documenting vehicles and license plates. Considering the distinction the courts have made between personal and automated content creation, it's easy to draw a line between protected personal recording in public and automated public surveillance.

There is also intent. The intent of Flock is not to record a particular subject or object or event like you or I recording a video or using a picture on the street. Flock's stated purpose is tracking and surveillance, and they do so without any specific purpose or reason. Go follow someone around in public with a camera and see how long it takes for a cop to come have a talk with you or arrest you for stalking.

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

TheAggieWalrus said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

They have been extremely helpful in fighting crime. I'm a fan.

---

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

The argument isn't HOW effective they are. I believe they are extremely effective. I am so thankful they are being used for good now. But everything that was put into place for one of these two reasons, 1) good motives to temporarily boost our economy 2) reactionary to a major crisis, all had good intentions but have never left. The income tax of 1913 was intended to be a temporary tax to help us recover from WW1, and a lot of the 9/11 patriot act as well as a lot of the COVID 19 acts and powers are all still in place. You give the government an inch on temporary terms and they take a mile forever. They rarely role back power. SO, when these cameras inevitably become the backbone of societies crime fighting, and a tyrannical government takes power, its only a matter of time that we see the same effectiveness that allows law enforcement to find kidnapped little girls a couple states over, used to round up people based on race. The only way to prevent that from being a reality is thinking about the future and preventing these from being installed, even if they are extremely useful now.

---

Yawn.

There are around 33 million doorbell cameras in America right now.

There's around 100,000 flock cameras.

The surveillance state is evidently fine as long it is our neighborhoods we are surveilling and not our public roadways. Do you think Ring or the flock database will be easier to hack?

Forgive me if I'm not concerned about the government gathering up people based on race.

The government can follow you around without flock cameras bc again, you're in public. Cameras at fixed points are not the Patriot Act. Why hasn't the government abused traffic and toll road cameras yet? They've been around for years.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

---

We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?

So they are hackable! Great product! Safety!

That's a nice sentiment and all, but if the government, and particularly law enforcement at every level, has perpetually shown one thing, it is an aversion to oversight and accountability.

I have posted at length over the years of many, many instances of egregious violations of people's rights, including people losing their livelihoods, homes, and lives, over the years with the officers involved hiding behind immunity and legislative and union protections to try to avoid any kind of personal or financial consequences for their own negligence, incompetence, and malfeasance. And these things aren't, "I only had a split second to decide and made the wrong decision," but things like, "I had minutes, hours, or even days to do simple due diligence that would have prevented this, but it's not my fault," and, "I smelled alcohol on his breath until he blew a 0.00, and that's when I smelled weed in his car and realized his eyes were bloodshot. Yeah, there weren't any drugs in his car and his blood test came back negative for everything, but that arrest was perfectly reasonable," and, "I knew what I did was wrong and did it already, but I'm really a good cop." Case in point, the North Carolina police lieutenant who used Flock cameras to track his wife and was demoted but not fired. He's proven that he cannot be trusted, and his behavior could arguably be criminal, but that's not enough to get him off the payroll.

Until I see cops en masse asking for fewer protections, more transparency, and actual accountability instead of evermore roadblocks to investigations and punishment for misconduct, I don't think they or the government can be trusted to oversee and safeguard something like this. It would be great if we could have nice things like this, but since those who would use it seek to avoid accountability instead of welcoming it, we can't have nice things like this.

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

---

We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?

---

Because having a badge doesn't make you or any other cop more trustworthy than a random person off the street.

BusterAg said:

---

Cargo Shorts FTW said:

---

The data is public record and subject to foia requests. Get the license plate numbers for the city council members, foia their information, and post their travels online for all to enjoy.

You can extend this to other influential officials as you wish.

---

Zero percent chance that you would be able to get that data. Rules for thee and not for me, example 2,342,353

---

I requested the data from the city of Dallas and was told it would be an invasion of privacy to provide it. It would endanger the police officers by telling the public where they are and when. Other cities have said the same and only a few have been told by judges that they do have to respond. Still other cities have lied and said the data is not theirs to give (not what the Flock contract says).

Chew on that. They want to invade your privacy but don't want you to invade theirs.

Try not to rage too hard listening to him brag about not being able to take a breath in his town without them knowing about. They never showed her the video, she had to rely on her own dash cam to prove her innocence.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

There is a balance here to achieve. Better information for law enforcement can provide benefits for law-abiding citizens. I support that conceptually. It can also be abused by the government, and there's needs to be safeguards against that.

The sweet spot isn't at either extreme end of the spectrum... full government control of public info with no accountability, or zero government access to public data.

---

Safegaurds are never as smart as people are, because people figure out ways to bend the rules.

Either make the database public and publicly searchable, or don't collect it.

When it comes to spying on citizens, if it's too dangerous for the public to access it, it is too dangerous for the government to have it.

---

We regularly let law enforcement have access to data that the public does not. Why should this be any different?

---

Because having a badge doesn't make you or any other cop more trustworthy than a random person off the street.

---

Still does not answer the question. We cannot let the random guy on the street have access to those databases bc the public has too many criminals who would immediately use that info for nefarious reasons. I already have access to way more invasive databases than Flock. What is the concern with giving those same people access to Flock?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

You do realize that cars today can track your movements because they're run by computers. Same thing with your phone, etc. not directly by the government, but I'm still not understanding why recognizing your license plate is a problem. It's on your car. It's already out there.

Pinochet said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Cargo Shorts FTW said:

---

The data is public record and subject to foia requests. Get the license plate numbers for the city council members, foia their information, and post their travels online for all to enjoy.

You can extend this to other influential officials as you wish.

---

Zero percent chance that you would be able to get that data. Rules for thee and not for me, example 2,342,353

---

I requested the data from the city of Dallas and was told it would be an invasion of privacy to provide it. It would endanger the police officers by telling the public where they are and when. Other cities have said the same and only a few have been told by judges that they do have to respond. Still other cities have lied and said the data is not theirs to give (not what the Flock contract says).

Chew on that. They want to invade your privacy but don't want you to invade theirs.

---

Exactly how are your travels on public roadways, private?

The vehicle information for city council etc is withheld as a matter of safety. Nothing stops you from standing outside the city hall garage and recording their license plate when they enter it though.

annie88 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

You do realize that cars today can track your movements because they're run by computers. Same thing with your phone, etc. not directly by the government, but I'm still not understanding why recognizing your license plate is a problem. It's on your car. It's already out there.

---

Data collection and distribution of that data that would not occur otherwise. It is costing you money too, unless your data aka you are the product being sold

annie88 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

You do realize that cars today can track your movements because they're run by computers. Same thing with your phone, etc. not directly by the government, but I'm still not understanding why recognizing your license plate is a problem. It's on your car. It's already out there.

---

It is not. He has a strong dislike for police and it extends to any tool they use.

Bocephus said:

---

annie88 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

TX_COWDOC said:

---

Trying to decide if I have any flocks to give.
I guess this would make me angry. I'll check back later.

---

Me as well. It's just able to recognize a license plate which is public domain, out there anyway. I'm not understanding the outrage above.

---

Would you let the government put a GPS tracker on your car and record everywhere you went?

---

You do realize that cars today can track your movements because they're run by computers. Same thing with your phone, etc. not directly by the government, but I'm still not understanding why recognizing your license plate is a problem. It's on your car. It's already out there.

---

It is not. He has a strong dislike for police and it extends to any tool they use.

---

So the purpose is surveillance to be used as a tool by the police.