Looks like they’re actually listening to their community, so maybe not.

I feel like I’ve seen this exact reply in multiple Flock threads.

You should start with the lede:

"I built a tool to help you understand how/if your community has agreed to deploy Flock cameras. You can try it out here: [ ].

The hardest part of this was..."

Looks neat, any chance you'd be willing to share how much this costs to run?

Winona, MN has a population of 20k. I've never been there, but if it's like any of the small towns I lived in, most people trust the local police. If anything, the usual small-town complaint is that the police are not doing enough about <x>, where <x> are the homeless dudes in front of the library, or package theft, or whatever.

In small towns, people distrust the federal government and big tech a lot more.

>They seem oblivious to the fact that real problem is not distrust of flock

I really distrust flock in and of itself.

Police are bounded by evidentiary laws and warrant requirements, all of which legitimately do stand up in court. Flock is not.

So no, actually Flock itself is the problem. If Flock were willing to sign some consent decree that its data can only be accessed by police with a valid judicial warrant, for example, they probably could've headed off this entire mess.

But instead they called people "terroristic" for pushing back. Completely braindead move from the CEO.

But also, I dont understand all this hand-wringing. EFF has a clear easy solution [1]: Put all the data behind a Warrant. Problem solved. No trust required.

Wanna look up where a murderer drove? Go get a warrant

Wanna look up where a robbery suspect drove to? Go get a Warrant.

Divorce case hinging on one party's whereabouts on a certain date? Warrant.

Speeding tickets are automatically filed anyways.

[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/08/too-little-too-late-fl...

Oh no, we distrust both.

These can be separate and both true.

They’re oblivious to this fact because it’s not true. Most people by a substantial margin trust their local police.

They are great for tracking criminals who cross state lines for medical care.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas...

Part of the problem is the people reacting to the data. Cops coming at an innocent someone, guns drawn, because of database and human error. If that person weren't so calm and level headed in the moment, when they were attacked by confused and mistaken aggressors, would they still be alive?

https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-flock-cameras-wrongly-trac...

> There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when using public streets.

Strong disagree. Life in public areas is often still part of private life. And we should treat it with the respect and privacy that it deserves. You going to the doctor? That's part of your private life. You meeting with an old friend to catch up? Also private, even though you do it in a public cafe.

You managed to say everything but the difficult bit. People don't generally have a problem with cameras, all our computers and phones have one. The problem is who can use them and when.

Personally I have nothing against municipally operated red light/speed camera system because those are triggered by a sensor rather than continuous so privacy is less of an issue.

I agree. I was able to talk to my local SF supervisor the other day and congratulate him on his work with speed cameras and red-light cameras. He shares the same position as you: there is no constitutional right to drive one's car on public streets without enforcement of the rules.

We recently got permission to expand red-light cameras and I'm hoping that this kind of neutral machine-based enforcement of laws helps move us to a more law-abiding society. Civil liberties require civilization. Abdicating public space to the anti-social only allows for a de-facto rule by the uncivilized.

Personally I agree with the desire for more traffic enforcement, even if it means I personally would suffer because frankly I like driving fast. But as a cyclist who also likes riding fast, and a parent to likes giving freedom to children, safer roads would be great.

The problem is that these systems, always and without fail, come with government and police overreach and then the "guilty unless proven innocent" paradigm creeps in, which we have already seen happen with flock. You have police using the technology to spy on their lovers and friends of their wives and husbands, and you have political campaigns finding ways to spy on their opponents, and activists getting special attention from prosecutors, etc. Which always happs, but with totalitarianism is an absolute train wreck for an open, fair, and power-balanced government.

I would totally agree with you if I trusted the government