California city canceled Flock, removed its cameras, then found the company had put some of them back

midian182

Posts: 12,017   +183
Staff member
Facepalm: Once again, Flock is making headlines it would rather avoid: the company has admitted that it reinstalled its cameras in a California city after the police force canceled its contract and took them down. Flock, for its part, is pointing to an automated system that thought the cameras going offline meant there was a fault, though it also seems to be blaming the city for removing its cameras too quickly.

Grass Valley, California, is one of the many cities that have dropped Flock license plate cameras. It comes as the company faces criticism over the extent of its devices' surveillance network, the sharing of data with other agencies, the cost, and, most controversially, their misuse by police officers.

However, Fox40 reports that less than a month after Grass Valley Police Department (GVPD) publicly ended its contract with Flock and removed all cameras from the city, the company reinstalled at least two of them without permission – a concept that often seems lost on Flock users.

"Some of the cameras which were no longer showing connection – because we took them down – have been serviced and replaced," GVPD said. "We've learned and dealt with at least two."

The department said that Flock Safety was following the maintenance provisions of its contract despite receiving a letter canceling the contract on August 11. GVPD said it continually takes down any reinstalled cameras and monitors other locations.

In a statement to Fox40, Flock said the city of Grass Valley removed the cameras itself shortly after announcing its decision to terminate the contract, before the cancelation and equipment-removal process had been completed in its systems.

Flock said it handles the removal of the cameras as part of the cancelation process, but because the city took them down before the process was complete, the system assumed there was an equipment failure. This caused it to generate replacement work orders, resulting in crews being dispatched.

It's not like Flock needs any more bad publicity, but it's probably tempting fate with the attitude of, "hey, you shouldn't have removed our privacy-invading, heavily abused camera system so quickly after canceling the contract."

The backlash has become so intense that police have asked rival Axon to redesign its cameras so people stop mistaking them for Flock's. That followed four former Savannah police employees being arrested over alleged misuse of the system, while Florida police used a fake camera to catch a vandal and charged him with three felonies for destroying it. With cities dropping Flock at a record pace, the company might want to make sure its systems can tell the difference between a broken camera and an unwanted one.

Permalink to story:

 
Google tracks you everywhere you go and has probably already linked your license plate to your account. Buuut that's none of my business..
The problem is police have access to flock data.

Google tracks you, but the cops would need to subpoena Google to get that info. With flock, cops just have the data which is why they have been able to use it to track ex girlfriends and all that. Flock enables cops to commit crimes. Google tracking does not.
 
The problem is police have access to flock data.

Google tracks you, but the cops would need to subpoena Google to get that info. With flock, cops just have the data which is why they have been able to use it to track ex girlfriends and all that. Flock enables cops to commit crimes. Google tracking does not.
Flock also allows corrupt cops to get caught for committing crimes and be removed from police work. That's why you hear these stories of cops abusing Flock--they're being sent to jail. And there are plenty of other ways cops can be corrupt without the help of technology, and these don't include easy auditing (for example reviewing bodycam footage is time consuming).
 
“ Flock said it handles the removal of the cameras as part of the cancelation process, but because the city took them down before the process was complete, the system assumed there was an equipment failure. This caused it to generate replacement work orders, resulting in crews being dispatched.”

Root cause, right here. Flock, as per contract, is the entity that removes their own cameras. It’s part of the agreement. Our department has the same agreement, and flock will be out shortly to remove the dozens of cameras that we currently have in operation.

If the local Agency got impatient and started yanking them down themselves, this is not on flock, this is on the department for not following policy because they are impatient.
 
The problem is police have access to flock data.

Google tracks you, but the cops would need to subpoena Google to get that info. With flock, cops just have the data which is why they have been able to use it to track ex girlfriends and all that. Flock enables cops to commit crimes. Google tracking does not.

Imagine instead of holding police accountable and improve processes within a Flock system that have proven to work extremely well - blame the figurative spoon for making the person fat instead.

Also, your Google example is flawed. The police will have a warrant for your info before you even know it, without any express notification, and will have what they need before you’re even aware of what happened. The end result of both of these systems in question are the exact same. You’re fighting semantics, at best.

Simple processes and procedures validating Flock usage locally would get rid of your concerns - but let’s throw out the baby with the bath water while we’re at it.
 
The problem is police have access to flock data.

Google tracks you, but the cops would need to subpoena Google to get that info. With flock, cops just have the data which is why they have been able to use it to track ex girlfriends and all that. Flock enables cops to commit crimes. Google tracking does not.
That's great! Cops do good work and I want them finding the bad guys
 
“ Flock said it handles the removal of the cameras as part of the cancelation process, but because the city took them down before the process was complete, the system assumed there was an equipment failure. This caused it to generate replacement work orders, resulting in crews being dispatched.”

Root cause, right here. Flock, as per contract, is the entity that removes their own cameras. It’s part of the agreement. Our department has the same agreement, and flock will be out shortly to remove the dozens of cameras that we currently have in operation.

If the local Agency got impatient and started yanking them down themselves, this is not on flock, this is on the department for not following policy because they are impatient.

The problem with this is that Flock has 0 incentive to EVER take the cameras down themselves, that costs money and it weakens their network
 
In the US? Europe, specifically Great Britain has had 50x this level of surveillance on their everyday citizens, in broad daylight, for decades. Have we suddenly forgotten the thousands of cameras that are downtown London alone?

And how are your crime rates?

:)
 
In the US? Europe, specifically Great Britain has had 50x this level of surveillance on their everyday citizens, in broad daylight, for decades. Have we suddenly forgotten the thousands of cameras that are downtown London alone?

Flock cameras and London's CCTV network are very different creatures. One is mature government infrastructure. The other is a for-profit vendor-driven push towards full real time national surveillance.

The sheer scope of Flock's nation-wide deployment and the drive behind it are a dystopian wet dream by comparison.
 
Flock cameras and London's CCTV network are very different creatures. One is mature government infrastructure. The other is a for-profit vendor-driven push towards full real time national surveillance.

The sheer scope of Flock's nation-wide deployment and the drive behind it are a dystopian wet dream by comparison.
Did you really just make that statement?

You can honestly say, “Mature Government Infrastructure” as an excuse for massive, deep government surveillance - and in the same breath attempt to talk up the Flock cameras, which have orders of magnitude less features than GB’s real-time face-reading cameras nationwide?

You honestly are okay with GB’s deep implementation of mass surveillance, but you have a legitimate problem with image-recognition-only technology solely developed to catch CURRENT criminals?

Holy crap, the amount of cope you have could fund a whole new round of those surveillance cameras in London to further diminish the very privacy you claim Flock cameras violate.

Humanity is doomed.
 
This is a ridiculous attempt to inflate a simple mistake out of proportion and make 'news' out of it.
Flock has no interest whatsoever to install cameras in places they have no contract with, that's a net loss for them.
 
Flock makes it unconstitutionally easy for police and other approved system users to snoop without a warrant. Big data is powerful, and also dangerous. I have spoken.
 
The problem is police have access to flock data.

Google tracks you, but the cops would need to subpoena Google to get that info. With flock, cops just have the data which is why they have been able to use it to track ex girlfriends and all that. Flock enables cops to commit crimes. Google tracking does not.

To add to this some tech companies like apple have straight up rejected subpoenas for law enforcement to grab data. They've even made it more difficult to gain access to phones data. Google wants to advertise things to you that you will buy based on preferences. Annoying but not something like stalking an ex or profiling. The US likes law and order but only to the point that we dont drop into chaos and people are mostly safe from other people. Freedom to be stupid when unseen and hurt yourself by being dumb is what this impacts along with genuine issues that still remain like hate groups. No matter how good our background checks and psych evals are they still sneak into the most well intentions law enforcement agencies and they dont need more tools to violate rights without oversight. If flock is to exist it needs to have a way more transparent entity maintaining them and data needs to be monitored with neutral non law enforcement overwatch and multiple checks and balances to be allowed. As in separate agencies monitor usage and agency that maintains cameras, section that monitors flock information within the department has to sign in to a computer with thumbprint or other means that identify them and are under servellience the entire time accessing this information. Before ultimately giving only relevant information to dispatch or detectives or whatever. No crossover there needs to be multiple walls of protection all audited frequently to protect the information. Its expensive but doable rather then the send it mindset its being met with along with LEO drones. The people want more privacy not less.
 
Back