YouTuber Says Cops Visited Him After He Built a Flock-Style Camera to Track Cops
A Canadian YouTuber who built a DIY Flock-style license plate camera to log police vehicles and highlight mass-surveillance concerns was visited at home by officers, prompting a wider debate over double standards in who is allowed to track whom. Commenters argue over whether it’s ever acceptable for private citizens to run large-scale surveillance, contrast that with police and commercial systems like Flock that already track the public, and cite documented abuses such as officers using these tools to stalk ex-partners. Many conclude that automated, searchable tracking of people’s movements—by either government or private actors—should be tightly constrained or banned outright, rather than normalized and expanded.
Asymmetry of Surveillance & Power
- Many see a double standard: police and vendors claim there’s “no expectation of privacy in public” to justify Flock-style systems, but object when similar tech is used on them.
- Commenters stress the power imbalance: state actors have force, resources, and practical impunity; citizen use of similar tools is not equivalent.
- Some argue that if pervasive tracking is allowed at all, it should apply to government first, or be banned entirely.
Legality, Rights, and Jurisdiction
- Debate over whether ALPR mass surveillance is compatible with US constitutional protections (4th Amendment; cases like Carpenter, Jones, Knotts, geofence warrants).
- Others note the incident is in Canada, where the Charter balances rights against “reasonable limits,” and rights are not absolute.
- Recording in public is generally seen as legal, but later use (stalking, harassment, aiding crime) may not be.
Police Visit: Intimidation vs Legit Concern
- Some see the four-officer home visit as pure intimidation against a citizen engaged in lawful activity.
- Others frame it as a “polite conversation” where no charges or warnings were issued, arguing it’s comparable to any neighbor asking about a camera.
- Police fear of being tracked home, to shifts, and to private addresses is acknowledged; skeptics reply that this is exactly the risk they impose on everyone else.
Flock / ALPR Abuses and Oversight
- Multiple cited examples of officers abusing Flock and similar systems to stalk ex-partners or romantic interests, sometimes hundreds of queries; how widespread this is is disputed.
- Some point out that a few officers have been fired or prosecuted; others argue most abuses go unpunished and “oversight” is largely nominal.
- Concerns extend beyond plates to facial recognition, Bluetooth/MAC tracking, and broad movement histories.
Arguments for Tracking Police
- View that on-duty police are public servants with reduced expectations of privacy; tracking them is likened to bodycam outsourcing or sousveillance.
- Some propose open databases specifically for cops, politicians, or Flock-using officials, as a form of accountability or “empathy-building.”
Arguments Against Public Cop-Tracking
- Objections include risk to officers, interference with operations, enabling gangs or organized crime, and violating victim privacy during sensitive incidents.
- Critics of “citizen auditors” see them as attention-seekers rather than meaningful reformers.
Policy & Technical Proposals
- Suggestions: outright bans on mass ALPR; New Hampshire–style rules (no bulk retention, fast deletion of non-hits, warrant-based access); strong warrants, logging, and audits.
- Others argue that any retained, queryable movement data is inherently dangerous and will be repurposed, so the only safe option is not to collect it.
- Some outline technical designs to keep watchlists local to devices and minimize data exfiltration, though many doubt enforceability and long‑term compliance.