Flock can't seem to take no for an answer, as its cameras reappear in another city that rejected them

midian182

Posts: 12,031   +183
Staff member
A hot potato: It's fair to say that Flock is one of the most hated companies in the US right now. So, what better way to improve its public image than to ignore a city's instructions and reinstall two cameras when explicitly told not to – and it's not the first time this has happened.

The surveillance giant's latest PR disaster took place in Dayton, Minnesota, reports The Drive. The city's local government posted on Facebook that the Police Department was made aware of a maintenance work order produced by Flock on September 17, 2026.

The city notified Flock a day later, informing it that the program was on hold and no work orders were to be completed. But the company appeared to just ignore this, reinstalling its cameras and putting them into service.

Local residents spotted the cameras and informed police, who were directed to remove the devices.

In August, Dayton voted to cancel its contract with Flock, joining hundreds of US communities that have removed or stopped using the company's cameras.

Dayton City Administrator Zach Doud later said Flock took five days to acknowledge the city's contract cancellation and informed officials that removing its surveillance equipment would take 60 days.

This isn't the first time Flock has seemingly ignored a city's orders to remove its cameras. In September, Grass Valley, California, which had also canceled Flock's contract and removed its cameras, was shocked to find that two of them had been reinstalled.

Flock essentially blamed the city. It said the company handles the removal of the cameras as part of the cancellation 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.

There have been numerous negative stories about Flock and its privacy-invading cameras since reports emerged that police officers were using its technology to stalk former partners, prompting cities to drop the cameras at a rapid pace.

But while you may see fewer Flock cameras lining the streets, the company's surveillance technology might instead be flying through the air. The company said in August that its Drone as First Responder, or DFR, tech – which can also read license plates from the air – is its fastest-growing segment. The aircraft can fly at 400 feet and reach 60 mph, while a 40x optical zoom allows operators to see details from a distance.

Permalink to story:

 
Someone should install a hidden camera in the CEO's bathroom at home and stream it live,
see how he will respond. If he says he likes it, he's in need of therapy.
 
Takes up to 60 days to cancel a contract and for equipment to be removed, but even after you cancel and any equipment that is deemed "faulty" is immediately replaced.

That makes about as much sense as asking to having your email removed from a company that constantly emails you junk and you just want off their mailing list. As soon as you "subscribe" for their emails they instantly pop up into your email box, but when you want them to stop it could take weeks. Bullshit.

Flock can issue techs out to spots to replace cameras within a day, but can take upwards of 2 months to remove them.....what a load of malarkey.
 
Typical city/county employee incompetence. If Flock is reinstalling the cameras on city property, then issue citations with really hefty penalties for the relevant Flock manager. It's got to become personal.

I've seen this in our county. County enforcement doesn't want to incur legal costs so they ignore obvious violations.
 
Just knock them down from a pole, for God's sake.

Anyone doing that is a criminal and deserves to get the highest possible incarceration and a fine plus forced recovery of damaged equipment.

See article statement
“ but because the city took them down before the process was complete”

Flock should sue the city press charges against anyone who illegally vandalised the equipment.
 
Anyone doing that is a criminal and deserves to get the highest possible incarceration and a fine plus forced recovery of damaged equipment.

See article statement
“ but because the city took them down before the process was complete”

Flock should sue the city press charges against anyone who illegally vandalised the equipment.

Fed spotted.
 
Back