Flock worker calls police on reporter filming public camera installation
A viral incident where a Flock Safety technician called 911 on a reporter filming the installation of a public surveillance camera has reignited debate over license plate readers and mass monitoring in U.S. cities. Commenters highlight the irony of a surveillance vendor invoking privacy concerns, argue over whether blame should fall on the company or the governments that contract it, and point to both crime-solving success stories and numerous documented abuses and false arrests tied to such systems. Broader themes include the ethics of working on surveillance infrastructure, the risks of normalizing dragnet tracking, and the limited but tangible impact of local political action to restrict or remove these cameras.
Irony, Privacy, and “Taste of Their Own Medicine”
- Many emphasize the irony: a worker installing mass-surveillance cameras calls police over being filmed in public.
- Some see this as legitimate unease at being followed and filmed over time, even if legal; others say documenting public surveillance infrastructure is clearly fair game for journalists.
- Debate over whether following the installer is “harassment” vs normal public recording; no consensus.
- Several note that calling 911 itself can function as a coercive act in the U.S., given risks of escalation.
Who Deserves Blame: Workers, Company, or Government?
- One camp argues the installer is “just an employee” with little power; anger should be directed at local officials who buy and direct Flock deployments.
- Others counter that taking a job installing dragnet surveillance is a moral choice; complicity extends down the chain, not just to executives or politicians.
- Some stress civic channels: attend meetings, pressure representatives, run for office rather than target individual workers.
Effectiveness vs Abuse of License Plate Readers (LPRs)
- Supporters say Flock has helped solve serious crimes and can improve safety, especially for families in high-crime areas.
- Critics respond with examples (linked in thread) of false arrests, stalking by officers, and broader ALPR abuse; argue humans and institutions can’t reliably manage such power.
- Distinction raised between local/limited cameras and interconnected, searchable, multi-jurisdictional networks enabling dragnet tracking.
- Some see LPRs as broadly beneficial despite “a handful” of bad actors; others argue an empowered surveillance state is ultimately more dangerous than random crime.
Government vs Private Surveillance Power
- Disagreement over whether government should be more or less constrained than private actors:
- One side: the state’s democratic legitimacy justifies powers (taxation, enforcement) forbidden to private entities.
- Other side: because government holds a monopoly on force, it must be more tightly constrained; banning private mass tracking is necessary to prevent easy state access.
- Use of private vendors like Flock is seen by some as a tactic to deflect political accountability; swapping vendors doesn’t solve the core problem.
Broader Surveillance Context and Strategy
- Commenters note Flock could easily be replaced by other vendors; real issue is pervasive recording plus lax policy on access, sharing, and retention.
- References to adtech, social media, Ring, in-car and delivery cameras, and always-on voice assistants as parts of a growing surveillance ecosystem.
- Some describe successful local pushback (e.g., Florida state-road bans, county removals) as evidence that small groups can influence policy, though others see this as evidence of systemic failure by officials.