An engineer built a Flock-like camera to detect police cars, says officers visited him afterward

[Skye Jacobs]

The takeaway: A Canadian software engineer who built a camera to identify police cars says two officers came to his home to ask why he was tracking them. They were concerned that repeated observations could expose their routines – the same information that makes searchable vehicle records useful to police and troubling to people being watched.

Anthony Sistilli described Peel Regional Police's visit last month in a YouTube video that he recently posted. His project uses automatic license plate recognition, or ALPR – the technology police use to record passing vehicles and search for them later. But Sistilli designed his camera to pick out police vehicles rather than collect plates from all traffic.

Sistilli built the prototype with a $180 camera and used AI coding tools to develop its software. The first version struggled to process 4K footage while identifying vehicles and reading their license plates. He lowered the resolution and split the work into two stages: first detect a police car, then try to read its plate.

That change reduced the amount of footage the plate-recognition software had to examine. It also made vehicle classification a prerequisite for capturing license plate data. The system would attempt a read only after deciding that a vehicle was a police car.

The results were modest. An hour-long test produced two images of police vehicles, but their plates were difficult to read. The demonstration showed a working concept, not a dependable tracking system. However, it did attract the attention of local police after Sistilli posted videos of the project.

Sistilli said the officers were polite but worried that someone could use the information to target them. He told them those were the same concerns civilians had about license-plate surveillance. According to his account, the officers said stronger disclosure requirements could reveal details of active investigations.

The prototype's limitations show how much work it takes to identify a vehicle from roadside footage. Commercial systems go a step further by storing those observations and making them searchable across a network.

Flock Safety's system combines cameras with server-side processing and a shared database. But the system is more than a collection of individual plate readers. Police can search observations gathered elsewhere in the network, extending their reach beyond the cameras in their own jurisdictions.

Permalink to story:

An engineer built a Flock-like camera to detect police cars, says officers visited him afterward

 

[James321]

"He told them those were the same concerns civilians had about license-plate surveillance."

Hmm funny when its the other way around.

How would these Billionaires and politicians like it when their every move and action gets recorded.

 

[tschmidt69]

Great article, funny how when the table is turned the other direction they no longer like it.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Of course what’s omitted from the article is that police can only search metadata from beyond their jurisdiction IF that other jurisdiction decided to share data with them specifically: https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/who-really-has-access-to-your-flock-data

Even better is that a large number of agencies have publicly listed who else can search data collected by their cameras. This is enabled by Flock’s “Transparency Portals”. Just google the city’s transparency portal and you’ll find it; there are over 1,500 of these sites. Sadly, the words “transparency portal” have never made it into one of over a dozen TechSpot articles about Flock.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Of course what’s omitted from the article is that police can only search metadata from beyond their jurisdiction IF that other jurisdiction decided to share data with them specifically: https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/who-really-has-access-to-your-flock-data

Even better is that a large number of agencies have publicly listed who else can search data collected by their cameras. This is enabled by Flock’s “Transparency Portal”. Just google the city’s transparency portal and you’ll find it; there are over 1,500 of these sites. Sadly, the words “transparency portal” have never made it into one of over a dozen TechSpot articles about Flock.

Well perhaps Flock should have spent more time explaining transparency and less time labeling critics as "terrorists" ya know?

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

Well for one thing, his face is probably now in police database since Youtube and other social media sites are a treasure trove for facial recognition systems.

 

[Taroo]

"He told them those were the same concerns civilians had about license-plate surveillance."

Hmm funny when its the other way around.

How would these Billionaires and politicians like it when their every move and action gets recorded.

Yes but then it's those billionaires we should track and spy, not some random cops.
Lots of cops are good people just doing their work, you know ?
...mmh.. well, I guess, maybe not "lots" in the US, but you get my point !

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Yes but then it's those billionaires we should track and spy, not some random cops.
Lots of cops are good people just doing their work, you know ?
...mmh.. well, I guess, maybe not "lots" in the US, but you get my point !

No, I don't. Please explain why we should not watch those who have the authority to arrest us or use violence.

 

[noel24]

How would these Billionaires and politicians like it when their every move and action gets recorded.

It does. It's called Flight Tracker. And They definately did not like It, especially when caught visiting certain Island in the Carreabean.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Someone needs to make this a commercial product.

The story would really change as police tracking cams went up all over the country.

 

[lonetac]

Yes but then it's those billionaires we should track and spy, not some random cops.
Lots of cops are good people just doing their work, you know ?
...mmh.. well, I guess, maybe not "lots" in the US, but you get my point !

So are the people flock cameras are tracking. Do you see the hypocrisy yet?

I mean the irony of police getting upset here is not lost on me.

 

[Art C]

I am pro-Flock. Flock cameras provide evidence that crimes are being committed by the kind of people who commit crimes. And the cameras don't care that it's politically incorrect to do so.

 

[Liranan]

I am pro-Flock. Flock cameras provide evidence that crimes are being committed by the kind of people who commit crimes. And the cameras don't care that it's politically incorrect to do so.

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" - Beria

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Some people demand Stalinism and gulags.

 

[Liranan]

Double post.

 

[lonetac]

I am pro-Flock. Flock cameras provide evidence that crimes are being committed by the kind of people who commit crimes. And the cameras don't care that it's politically incorrect to do so.

its against our constitutional rights. The 4th amendment is clear.

the only reason police are getting away with this is a loophole by having a 3rd party contractor do it. If the police tried to setup these cameras, it would be deemed highly illegal.

There is no reason to support smashing your constitutional rights. it doesnt stop here, this will impact you eventually.

 

[Kirby1]

Big brother is always watching.

 

[maxxcool7421]

Of course what’s omitted from the article is that police can only search metadata from beyond their jurisdiction IF that other jurisdiction decided to share data with them specifically: https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/who-really-has-access-to-your-flock-data

Even better is that a large number of agencies have publicly listed who else can search data collected by their cameras. This is enabled by Flock’s “Transparency Portals”. Just google the city’s transparency portal and you’ll find it; there are over 1,500 of these sites. Sadly, the words “transparency portal” have never made it into one of over a dozen TechSpot articles about Flock.

Oh so it is way worse for privacy than people already thought, thank you for brining that up.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

its against our constitutional rights. The 4th amendment is clear.

the only reason police are getting away with this is a loophole by having a 3rd party contractor do it. If the police tried to setup these cameras, it would be deemed highly illegal.

There is no reason to support smashing your constitutional rights. it doesnt stop here, this will impact you eventually.

Police do set up their own ALPR's lol. Please provide an example of police owned ALPR's that were deemed unconstitutional instead of just claiming that. These have been ruled constitutional over and over (short of going to the supreme court) except for a single case in Oklahoma, and there's no magical "loophole" because a third party contractor being involved. They're legal because each camera is a fixed location (not following a car), the scope is narrow (externally visible characteristics and license plate numbers), and it falls well within what drivers can expect for privacy on public roadways.

As a matter of fact, state databases intended for use by police departments allow police departments even in other states to look up information there. How do you think police officers see if an individual has a valid driver's license from another state, or warrants in another state?

Furthermore, the NYPD personally owns and operates their own "mini-Flock" software that lets them do much more with tens of thousands of cameras. It is called the "Domain Awareness System". This is NOT deemed highly illegal unlike you say: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/dow...m-NYPD-Impact-and-Use-Policy-2.4.26-FINAL.pdf