Flock Wants the Most Detailed Map of Its Surveillance Cameras Taken Offline
A detailed public map of Flock Safety’s license-plate reader cameras is facing a trademark takedown effort, prompting debate over whether a company that profits from public surveillance can reasonably object to being surveilled itself. Commenters argue over legal liability, the ethics of mapping and potentially destroying cameras, and the proper balance between citizen privacy and transparency for governments and their vendors. Others highlight the role of third‑party enforcement firms, the risk of overbroad corporate censorship via hosts, and broader concerns about how pervasive, lightly regulated ALPR networks shift power toward the state and its contractors.
Transparency, Public Space, and Reciprocity
- Many argue that if Flock sells surveillance to public agencies, camera locations should be maximally transparent and publicly mappable.
- Commenters highlight the irony that Flock aggregates public data about others but resists public aggregation of its own infrastructure.
- A recurring theme: “privacy for the public, transparency for the government,” with some pushing that officials choosing power must accept greater scrutiny.
- Others warn that radical transparency of politicians and officials could increase physical risk, citing real-world attacks, so some balance is needed.
Legal and Liability Questions
- Several ask whether the map creator could be liable if vandals used the map to destroy cameras.
- Most think liability is unlikely absent proof of intent or collusion, comparing it to holding map providers or tool makers liable for crimes committed using their products.
- One note: “cameras don’t have a right to privacy,” so documenting them in public is seen as legally and morally distinct from tracking people.
Trademark Complaint and Takedown Dynamics
- The takedown pressure appears to come via a third-party firm (Doppel) alleging trademark misuse of “FLOCK SAFETY.”
- Some see the article headline as clickbait, arguing the only hard fact is a routine trademark notice; intent by Flock itself is not clearly evidenced.
- Others view outsourcing enforcement as a strategic way to suppress criticism while preserving plausible deniability.
- Doppel is described as using aggressive tactics (trademark + phishing claims) that hosts may overreact to.
Activism, Tools, and Countermeasures
- Users discuss archiving or torrenting the dataset to resist removal.
- Ideas include navigation tools or driving games to avoid cameras, or checking how many cameras see a daily route.
- OpenStreetMap queries can already surface many Flock-tagged surveillance nodes.
- Some promote FOIA/records requests and submitting results to projects like EFF’s Atlas of Surveillance.
Broader Surveillance and Political Context
- Flock is framed as part of a wider surveillance ecosystem (Axon, Motorola, custom city systems).
- Commenters debate state power, local vs national officials, and whether constant surveillance of public servants is justified or hypocritical.
- Internationally, the UK’s pervasive ANPR is cited as a cautionary or normalization example, depending on the commenter.