Flock Credibility Lost as It Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police, & Public
Mounting allegations that license-plate reader company Flock Safety misled city councils, police departments, and the public have reignited concerns about privatized mass surveillance in U.S. communities. Commenters weigh the public-safety benefits of automated cameras against risks to civil liberties, abuse by law enforcement or authoritarian governments, data leaks, and the erosion of social trust. Many argue that even if such systems reduce crime, the loss of privacy, lack of oversight, and profit-driven deployment by unaccountable vendors make them a dangerous foundation for public safety.
Flock’s credibility and conduct
- Many see Flock as never credible; others note it convinced enough officials to win widespread deployments.
- Commenters highlight alleged repeated lies to city councils, police, public, and about working with civil-liberties groups.
- Examples cited: denying data access to federal agencies while allegedly enabling it; blaming agencies for misuse.
- Oshkosh canceling its contract after one day is viewed as both encouraging accountability and evidence of Flock’s poor judgment, especially in publicly attacking the city afterward.
- Some see this as part of a broader pattern of “authoritarian-enabling” tech companies prioritizing cash over ethics.
Surveillance, crime, and public safety
- Many fear a growing surveillance state and argue mass ALPR/camera systems are fundamentally incompatible with privacy and high‑trust societies.
- Others argue these tools are among the most effective ways to deter and solve crime, citing personal experiences with high crime and police inaction in US cities.
- Debate over tradeoffs: some would accept extensive surveillance for safety; others say even reduced crime isn’t worth pervasive monitoring or potential political abuse.
- Concerns that surveillance will mostly enforce petty infractions and control ordinary people rather than stop serious crime.
Trust, democracy, and power
- Strong thread on how cameras and constant monitoring erode social trust and enable authoritarianism; counter‑view claims surveillance can underpin safety and thus trust.
- Disagreement over whether citizens are “powerless”: some argue lobbying and legislation (e.g., ALPR restrictions) are possible; others feel public opinion barely affects lawmaking.
- Worry that narratives of powerlessness become self‑fulfilling and serve would‑be abusers.
Infrastructure, safety, and standards
- Multiple comments note Flock and similar vendors allegedly ignore highway and structural standards for poles and roadside installations.
- Concerns include improper monopole design, wind loading, crash safety, and attaching gear to light poles not engineered for extra loads.
- Advice: reporting noncompliant installs with specific standard citations (e.g., TIA‑222 variants, AASHTO) can compel municipal action.
Comparisons and broader context
- Comparisons to countries like Singapore, Japan, South Korea, China, the UK, Switzerland, etc., to argue both sides:
- Some see them as examples of “safe” societies built on strong enforcement and surveillance.
- Others emphasize suppression of dissent, structural inequality, or different cultural histories, questioning their relevance as models.
- Persistent tension between the desire for low crime and fear of a permanent, unaccountable surveillance infrastructure, especially when run by private profit-seeking firms like Flock.