26 comments

  • driverdan 2 minutes ago
  • tptacek 35 minutes ago

    Part of the backstory here I think is that ALPR cameras are a commodity technology. They're not defensible by themselves medium term; the market will go to whoever ships the cheapest most reliable cameras with the best pre-sales team, which is a tough space to compete in. For Flock to defend a growth-stage startup valuation, it needs to come up with value-adds.

    For a while it looked like that was going to take the form of single-pane-of-glass fusion products (think: Grafana for public safety orgs), but post-AI that seems pretty hard to defend too; Axon doesn't need deep roots in SFBA tech culture to compete on that anymore.

    So I guess expect a lot of wacky ideas.

  • nullorempty 38 minutes ago

    Hm, two questions:

    - Who is paying for surveillance? - To whose benefit is it used?

    • bigbuppo 30 minutes ago

      Police departments until the constitutional aspects are settled, then they'll be cut down en masse.

      • Eddy_Viscosity2 22 minutes ago

        If the constitutional aspects are settled in favor of people, but current SCOTUS suggests this be unlikely. But.. even it were, then police departments would just buy the data second hand instead via direct contracts.

        • bigbuppo 14 minutes ago

          Flock has already made their billions. They'll pivot to something else, probably budget gunshot tracking cameras that also accidentally eavesdrops on all conversations near by and sends it to the cloud for analysis.

        • joering2 4 minutes ago

          > but current SCOTUS suggests this be unlikely

          Are you referring to "temporary inconvenience" or some other decision I'm not aware of?

          The phrase "temporary inconvenience" refers to a statement by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his September 2025 concurrence in [Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo]. Defending an order allowing immigration enforcement stops based partly on apparent ethnicity or workplace, Kavanaugh wrote that questioning of legal residents or U.S. citizens would be "typically brief" and a minor inconvenience.

      • downrightmike 14 minutes ago

        well, tax payers. Cops wanted millions extra to hire more cops, and they blow it on start ups instead.

        • bigbuppo 13 minutes ago

          You're not wrong. But they' also got the extra officers, too.

    • ihsw 24 minutes ago

      [dead]

  • anymouse123456 an hour ago

    Pretty sure this is the same person who made "your flowing data" many years ago. Assuming it is, that was a really cool project!

    You could follow their twitter account and DM semi-structured messages at it. He would generate personalized charts and tables from the message you sent.

    Looks like it's the same account, but that service seems down at the moment.

    https://x.com/yfd

    Really great demonstration that created value from semi-structured data streams.

  • 0xbadcafebee an hour ago

    The CEO of Flock said his mission is to "completely eliminate and eradicate crime in America". I think I saw that movie, it was called Minority Report.

    • hypercube33 19 minutes ago

      Sumaritan from Person of Interest is more like what they are aiming for I think.

    • downrightmike 12 minutes ago

      With the final movie in the series being Saving Private Ryan.

    • flockingbird 26 minutes ago

      To eliminate only very specific types of crime, to be clear.

      • rc5150 16 minutes ago

        poor people crime, and of course the crime of being poor in and of itself.

        • JohnFen 4 minutes ago

          And the crime of just living a normal life without the constant surveillance threat and constant threat of inappropriate police attention.

          In my view, these systems are themselves a very large threat to the public.

  • LadyCailin an hour ago

    I’m not convinced that there’s any solution to this besides direct government regulation and an enshrinement of privacy rights into the law. Cities stop paying for flock access? Other cities still will. Regulations preventing public property from being used for cameras? Private companies will allow it. Vigilantes destroying cameras? Start using mobile drones or something. It’s a losing battle, and everything done so far to fight it is just causes an escalation. Constitutional right to privacy (from government and private companies) is probably the only durable solution.

  • jsrozner 38 minutes ago

    Highly anti social people (flock executives, mark zuckerberg, other surveillance capitalists, etc.) should simply be expelled from society to a separate island to fight each other for scarce resources.

  • tamimio an hour ago

    Fitting the typical stereotype of a villain company, the greed with no ethics isn’t surprising, what’s surprising that it’s backed by “hacker” news.. shouldn’t HN be backing the counter efforts against such company not the other way around?

    • WalterGR 29 minutes ago

      Flock is a Y Combinator alumnus. It’s not backed by Hacker News, scare quotes or no.

    • flockingbird 5 minutes ago

      Why is it surprising?

      YC is a billionaire led organization whose founder has written openly about the virtue of discriminating against women and parents, and more recently has written bad faith responses to criticisms of billionaires.

      This site is a Safe Space to promote those investments, regardless of societal impact.

      edit: to be fair, pg walked back some of his pro-bigotry-against-parents shit once he became a parent. But that's the kind of sociopathic cunt who runs this place...

  • steviewonderbre an hour ago

    [dead]

  • fearmerchant an hour ago

    For an Amber Alert that could be really helpful.

    • edot 35 minutes ago

      Kidnapping like how you’re thinking of it (stranger grabbing your kid from the park) is a myth. Non-family abductions are 1% of cases.

      Straight from the horse’s mouth: https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/nonfamily

    • 36 minutes ago
      [deleted]