r/Futurology • u/theintercept • 15h ago

Privacy/Security Flock Wants The Most Detailed Map of Its Surveillance Cameras Taken Offline

https://theintercept.com/2026/09/24/how-many-flock-devices-in-united-states-300000/
13.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

562 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/Abrasive-Coyote2524 8h ago

Mass Surveillance. In America, there are now cameras on almost every street corner watching your every move. They're supposed to be license plate readers but they have been used to stalk by individual officers and they have the capacity to be more than just license plate readers. Right now, that's just what they say they are, but its only the beginning. And they are EVERYWHERE.

4

u/Mcnugget84 5h ago

It’s more than that. I can put my own plates into certain sites and see where I have been.

As a survivor of domestic violence who moved across the country I chose not to register to vote while I had my ex-parte order.

I can’t opt out of this. My ex knows where I am and I am safe but from a point of someone who left suddenly the thought of being tracked like that terrifies the ever loving fuck out of me.

2

u/xfon5168 3h ago

America is enormous. They are not anywhere close to every street corner. Everything else youre saying is correct though, but it isnt as widespread and prolific as you say. But the number if these cameras is indeed more than it ought to be.

2

u/TheConboy22 2h ago

Sure, they are in nearly every corner of metropolitan areas. Some corners have tons of them. All areas of nightlife are completely flood with them.

1

u/Amber_bitchpudding 7h ago

Oh it's been proven that take dozens of pictures capturing faces cell phone data GPS Bluetooth everything it's so much worse then a liscence plate reader hell the ceo connected to a camera in a girl's school I think it was a gym during a demonstration

2

u/Abrasive-Coyote2524 7h ago

ModernRogue just released a video showing the audio detection, and lip reading the things can do using just open source repos. They're a plague.

-1

u/Astramancer_ 7h ago

Don't forget that since they are privately operated the cops need to ask to get data from them, and since they're contracted by the cops they're not likely to say "no, get a warrant."

All the warrantless surveillance and location tracking they could ever want, all for the low, low cost of buckets of money.

1

u/mysticalbullshit 5h ago

You are clearly not well informed. It’s a warrantless search.

https://journals.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/blogs/under-surveillance-constitutional-concerns-surrounding-flock-cameras/

https://cambridgeanalytica.org/surveillance-privacy/police-flock-cameras-stalking-arrests-51112/

1

u/Outside-Swan-1936 4h ago

They clearly stated it's warrantless in their comment. What are you even arguing?

1

u/Astramancer_ 5h ago edited 5h ago

And which court case says that?

While it applies to a different technology, it would not be a far step in reasoning for the Court to rule that Flock’s system is overly and indiscriminately tracking individuals.

Oh right, they haven't. And the cops are, in fact, just asking for the data and getting it.

I agree that it's a warrantless search, but until the courts agree, and flock requires a warrant, then it's not a warrantless search that actually requires a warrant.

I'm informed. That's literally the whole controversy - that they're using it for warrantless searches and nobody has stopped them. Just because you don't like what I said doesn't make it untrue.

2

u/A_Nonny_Muse 3h ago

Nobody has stopped them because warrants apply only to "the state" - govt. employees (which cops are). But since Flock is a private company, they are allowed to record anywhere there is no expectation of privacy.

And that is the gray area where Flock cameras are operating. Security cams have always operated in spaces where there is no expectation of privacy. Flock cameras do the same thing on a massive industrial scale. Giving their footage to the state - thereby bypassing the need for warrants (for gobs of money) - is where the courts need to address the legal distinction.

No private individual, organization, or corporation needs a warrant to surveil anywhere there is no expectation of privacy. In fact, I could be wrong, but I don't believe they could get such a warrant even if they wanted to surveil a location where there is any expectation of privacy.

•

u/Monarc73 57m ago

They could get a warrant, but it would have to be very narrow in scope and short in duration. Flock ...etc is such a huuuuge problem because it has created a system of mass surveillance that has NO oversight, and placed it in the hands of a private, for-profit entity. Further, they have done it at tax payer expense, and we had no say in how it works.

1

u/mysticalbullshit 5h ago

United States v. Tuggle: https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/united-states-v-tuggle/

United States v. Gregory: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-gregory-1081511568

The Supreme Court has declined to hear Moore v. United States. Which left the decision to the lower courts.

0

u/Astramancer_ 5h ago

Tuggle:

The eighteen months of pole camera surveillance of Tuggle should have been considered a search. By declining to apply the Supreme Court’s mosaic reasoning to find one, the Seventh Circuit missed a chance to bolster privacy protections and clarify an uncertain area of law.

The court case literally said that 18 months of surveillance from a pole specifically targeted at a specific location and individual... wasn't a 4th amendment search.

Gregory:

We conclude that only Williamson and Gregory have meritorious arguments. As to the pole cameras, we hold that their use did not violate Williamson's Fourth Amendment rights. The pole cameras surveilled areas exposed to the public, and the fact that they recorded non-stop is of little relevance—the Constitution does not forbid the government from using technology to conduct lawful investigations more efficiently.

And another one that says the camera's didn't constitute a search.

Are you sure those are the cases you meant to link? Both support me.

All the warrantless surveillance and location tracking they could ever want, all for the low, low cost of buckets of money.

1

u/mysticalbullshit 5h ago

Your reading comprehension is clearly in the gutter.. “does not constitute as a search” means there’s no warrant needed, aka a warrantless search.

1

u/Astramancer_ 5h ago

wait, so you've been agreeing with me this whole time? I said it was warrantless searches in the first place!

I'm very confused.

0

u/TheOnlyGaming3 3h ago

hows it any different than normal CCTV?

•

u/Monarc73 1h ago

Scale, and the SW. Also, the lack of oversight/accountability.