LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

LAPD’s decision to let its contract with license-plate surveillance firm Flock expire has reignited concerns over mass data collection, civil liberties, and the privatization of policing tools. Commenters highlight how Flock often retains ownership of cameras on public land, enabling ongoing data capture and sharing with other agencies even after local contracts end, and making removal legally and politically fraught. The exchange pits arguments for crime-solving and traffic enforcement against calls for stronger Fourth Amendment protections, local democratic control, and in some cases an outright ban on large-scale surveillance networks.

Status of Flock Cameras After LAPD Contract Ends

  • Multiple commenters note that letting a Flock contract expire often does not remove cameras.
  • In several cities, Flock allegedly refused or delayed removal; municipalities resorted to covering cameras with trash bags or other obstructions.
  • One county commissioner who personally removed cameras was charged with theft, then later had felony charges dropped in a plea deal.
  • Others report their cities removed Flock cameras with “zero drama,” arguing the more sensational “forever camera” narrative is overstated.
  • There is disagreement over contracts: some say standard terms forbid Flock from selling or reusing local data; others cite cases where cameras were reinstalled or left active after cancellation.

Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Mass Surveillance

  • Many see Flock as part of a nationwide dragnet and “surveillance state,” incompatible with meaningful privacy or a free society.
  • Concerns include: tracking protestors, abortion seekers, or “watchlisted” individuals; data sharing with federal/immigration agencies; and inevitable abuse once data exists.
  • Some argue that public-space recording norms predate mass surveillance and should be revisited; “no privacy in public” is seen as too broad in the ALPR era.

Crime, Policing, and Trade‑offs

  • Supporters emphasize Flock’s role in catching stolen cars, guns, and serious criminals, and suggest crime reduction or displacement is worth it.
  • Opponents counter that:
    • Cameras mostly help after the fact and can be repurposed for harassment and political control.
    • The U.S. already has very high incarceration; root causes (poverty, housing, drugs, mental health) are more important.
    • Police and prosecutors frequently abuse databases and face weak accountability.

Government vs. Private Control of Data

  • Some prefer city‑owned, warrant‑gated systems with strict access controls and auditing, arguing public entities are at least democratically constrained.
  • Others say the core problem is centralization and existence of the data itself, not who owns it; any large pool will be abused.
  • Flock is criticized as exploiting a 4th‑Amendment loophole: building dragnets that government may not legally run directly, then selling access back.

Law, Policy, and Proposed Fixes

  • Suggestions include:
    • Ban or tightly regulate mass ALPR networks nationally.
    • Close the “buying data you couldn’t legally collect” loophole.
    • Require warrants, short retention, and strong transparency for any camera data.
  • Some argue municipalities should use permitting, safety codes, fines, or eminent domain to force removal.
  • CCPA applicability is debated; one view is that public-road imagery may be exempt as “publicly available” data.