All of Winona Police Department's Flock cameras cut down and stolen
Coordinated thieves in Winona, Minnesota cut down and stole every Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) camera used by local police, highlighting growing backlash against mass vehicle surveillance. Commenters debate whether tools like Flock genuinely help solve crimes and find missing persons or primarily enable warrantless tracking, data sharing with other agencies, and documented abuses such as stalking. The thread also raises concerns about opaque vendor contracts, data retention and ownership claims, security vulnerabilities, and the ethics of responding to public surveillance with illegal sabotage.
Role and Purpose of Flock Cameras
- Some commenters accept police claims that Flock is mainly used for hit‑and‑runs, stolen cars, and missing persons.
- Others argue the real function is mass surveillance and automated “judgment systems,” effectively outsourcing core police work to a private vendor.
Privacy, Data, and Misuse Concerns
- Strong concern that “data ownership” and “30‑day deletion” language is PR spin.
- Questions raised: what exactly is “owned” (raw images vs. derived plate data/models) and what is actually deleted vs. retained or shared.
- Cited examples of Flock data being shared with federal agencies or out‑of‑jurisdiction law enforcement, sometimes allegedly in violation of state law.
- Multiple references to police using Flock to stalk women or ex‑partners, and to abortion‑related searches, reinforcing fears of abuse.
- Worry that national networks allow agencies with weaker protections to access data from stricter jurisdictions.
Contracts, Costs, and Ownership
- Clarification that many municipalities lease the hardware; Flock retains ownership, but cities are liable for loss or damage.
- Debate over whether the “loss” hits the police budget only if cameras are replaced, or inevitably via contractual obligations.
- Some cities reportedly can’t remove cameras before contracts end and instead bag them.
Security and Technical Vulnerabilities
- Discussion of how easy it is to physically disable cameras (aluminum poles, saws, cutters, lasers).
- Reports of misconfigured cameras and feeds exposed on the open internet, and difficulty proving such issues are fully fixed.
- Mention of footage found from manufacturing facilities, suggesting weaker retention/deletion controls than advertised.
Reactions to the Theft and Activism
- Many commenters explicitly celebrate the cameras being cut down, framing it as resistance to state surveillance or “reclaiming” public property.
- Others stress that vandalism/theft is illegal, likely a felony given the dollar amount, and “not how you affect political change.”
- Some invoke civil‑disobedience analogies (e.g., Boston Tea Party) and support jury nullification for anyone prosecuted.
- A few suggest this might be simple theft, not activism, noting there are easier ways to disable cameras than stealing them.
Politics, YC, and Public Opinion
- Strong criticism of Flock’s YC backing and the perception that investors prioritize profit over civil liberties.
- Some argue Flock is widely unpopular in online tech communities but popular with police, city councils, and “Nextdoor‑type” residents worried about crime.
- Others see growing cross‑partisan skepticism of Flock/Axon as a potential turning point for surveillance policy.
Race, Policing, and Community Trade‑offs
- One view: Black communities may prefer Flock if it reduces dangerous traffic stops.
- Counter‑view: they are already over‑policed and disproportionately harmed, and Flock amplifies systemic bias.
- Heated disagreement over crime statistics, with some pointing to structural factors like poverty and others asserting under‑policing of serious crimes in Black neighborhoods.