Flock's fastest-growing business is 60 mph police drones that can read license plates from the sky

midian182

Posts: 11,963   +183
Staff member
A hot potato: There have been plenty of headlines about Flock's license plate-scanning technology lately, but that's not its only controversial business. The company says its Drone as First Responder, or DFR, tech – which can also read license plates from the air – is its fastest-growing segment.

Flock is best known for the roadside cameras now operating in more than 6,000 US communities. But the company is increasingly betting on drones that can be dispatched to emergency scenes before police officers arrive.

A Flock spokesperson said the firm has secured more than 200 DFR customers, including police departments and private companies. It's also ramping up production of its US-designed drones, which will be built in Georgia.

In an interview with the All-In podcast, CEO Garrett Langley explained that the drones sit in climate-controlled rooftop docks, usually on police precincts or fire departments. "When a 911 call happens, instead of sending an officer first, you can send a drone," he said.

The aircraft can fly at 400 feet and reach 60 mph, while a 40x optical zoom allows operators to inspect the scene from a distance. Flock says its DFR system arrives in an average of 86 seconds and can resolve 20% of calls without an officer being sent.

Langley described a case in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in which a woman at a gas station called 911 after seeing a man pacing with what she believed was a gun. The drone arrived in under a minute and revealed that the object was a lighter. "Normally what would happen... is like one cop would have heard that, flip on the blue lights, race down there... and someone's about to die. Instead, they launch the drone," Langley said.

Flock presents the incident as an example of how DFR can de-escalate dangerous encounters and prevent unnecessary police deployments. It was previously reported that Dearborn, Michigan, has adopted a similar Skydio system that can reach incidents in around 2.5 minutes.

Like its numberplate-reading tech, the rapid spread of DFR programs is raising concerns. As of February, more than 1,000 public safety agencies had received FAA waivers needed to automate drone operations.

The EFF warns that the aircraft can observe people through windows, in backyards, and on roofs without their knowledge. Flock also added license plate-reading capabilities to its drones last year, effectively creating flying versions of its controversial roadside cameras. The Flock Alpha drone can read license plates from up to 2,000 feet away.

Flock says DFR only activates for calls for service and that every flight is logged, auditable, and displayed through a public-facing transparency dashboard.

Langley said most customers publish audit logs and flight patterns, albeit with a delay for active investigations. But he acknowledged that oversight remains limited. "There's very little state regulation. There's zero federal regulation outside of air safety," he said.

Flock's core cameras have produced large numbers of false alerts, while officers have allegedly used its systems to stalk partners and ex-girlfriends. Moving the same surveillance capabilities into the sky will likely amplify calls for more protections and make people even angrier.

Permalink to story:

 
"There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public."
the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

Furthermore: There is no constitutional right to drive.

If you're worried about your privacy, I suggest you buy a Metrocard and a niqab.

You have every right NOT to drive.

I don't like traffic anyway.
 
"There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public."
the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

Furthermore: There is no constitutional right to drive.

If you're worried about your privacy, I suggest you buy a Metrocard and a niqab.

You have every right NOT to drive.

I don't like traffic anyway.
Yet, if you follow someone in public with a camera recording them, you will be arrested for stalking.

And it goes beyond recording in the moment. Nobody consented for their license plate Info, travel data, ece to be collated by a private company and sold to the highest bidder. That goes beyond privacy in public.
 
Last edited:
Yet, if you follow someone in public with a camera recording them, you will be arrested for stalking.

And it goes beyond recording in the moment. Nobody consented for their license plate Info, travel data, ece to be collated by a private company and sold to the highest bidder. That goes beyond privacy in public.


If you Follow someone in public you will be arrested for stalking.

If you record someone in public, there's nothing they can do about it but leave.

As for consenting to license plate info: YES YOU DID. There is no right to drive. It's a privilege.
 
I am 100% behind using these in a First Responder situation while police are in route. They can usually get there faster and provide critical information to possibly save lives.

I am 1000% against using these for general observation of the general public.

We do this right now.

Many larger cities in the US (including my own) have drone programs, to where drones are immediately dispatched to certain calls ahead of time to canvas the area and provide responding officers with a sitrep of what they’re walking into.
 
If you Follow someone in public you will be arrested for stalking.

If you record someone in public, there's nothing they can do about it but leave.

As for consenting to license plate info: YES YOU DID. There is no right to drive. It's a privilege.
No, you didn't.

The right to drive, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with private companies recording and selling your data. Stop confuaing these two arguments.
You can't have one without the other.
Yes, you can.
 
"There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public."
the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

Furthermore: There is no constitutional right to drive.

If you're worried about your privacy, I suggest you buy a Metrocard and a niqab.

You have every right NOT to drive.

I don't like traffic anyway.
The default is every individual is born with inalienable rights - NOT the individual gets whatever rights the government decides they will allow them to have (until they change the rules again).

The difference is tyranny.

But sadly propaganda has convinced many that the latter is obviously the way it is supposed to be.
 
Last edited:
"There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public."
the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

Furthermore: There is no constitutional right to drive.

If you're worried about your privacy, I suggest you buy a Metrocard and a niqab.

You have every right NOT to drive.

I don't like traffic anyway.

Uh you should probably look into the difference between driving and travelling the latter of which is enshrined into the constitution and cannot be abridged. Driving falls into the domain of travelling and is indeed a right, people have just become so clueless about the constitution that they are unaware of this, which is the plan.

As for the rest of your opinions, give this a read. You have it backwards, unfortunately:

Here's the basic premise in the founding of the Enlightenment Model of the US: Rights were given to you by your Creator, not by your government. Your government didn't give them to you so, they can't take them away. Furthermore the 9th Amendment to the Constitution makes these guarantees explicit. If any person in the government tries to take them away anyway, despite lacking any authority to do so, they are traitors to the citizens and must be treated as such.

A common misconception regarding the US government is that it is not the case that they start with total power and authority and the Constitution then subtracts from those powers. Under the Constitutional Principle of Enumerated Powers and despite common wisdom, the government actually starts with zero power. Powers are then granted (Enumerated) by the Constitution. This means that our Natural Rights such as the right to Privacy or the right to Free Speech do not need to be explicitly granted to the populace - we have them by default. (The Bill of Rights, while unnecessary, is a constant reminder of these exquisite qualities as well as an invaluable educational tool.) What it does mean is that the government cannot violate those rights unless the ability to do so is explicitly granted by the Constitution - which in those cases it is not.

That’s all there is to it. Not many things are more genius in their brevity—We hold all of the cards, they serve at our indulgence. Any power or action not explicitly granted by, We The People, the government cannot legitimately wield or execute. When they do so anyway, it is our civic duty to evict and convict them. When we fail to perform this task…

...we end up where we are.
 
If you Follow someone in public you will be arrested for stalking.

If you record someone in public, there's nothing they can do about it but leave.

As for consenting to license plate info: YES YOU DID. There is no right to drive. It's a privilege.

As I pointed out before:

"The RIGHT of a CITIZEN to TRAVEL UPON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS and TO TRANSPORT HIS PROPERTY THEREON in the ordinary course of life and business is A COMMON RIGHT which he has under his RIGHT TO ENJOY LIFE AND LIBERTY.... It includes the RIGHT in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the RIGHT to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE THEREON for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will. Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929".

RIGHTS can not be voided by presidential fiat or congressional passage of a law, or by courts unlawfully, outside the LIMITS imposed by the Constitution, making law. Under our system, even Amendments cannot void the Bill of Rights; our Rights are not granted, but are pre-existing and guaranteed. So they can not be taken away. We can only surrender them, and if we choose not to . . .

--- shovelDriver, 2013-01-14 ( http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013...warrantless-blood-tests-in-dui-cases/#respond )

IIRC, someone responded to that comment by saying that the court decision was not binding except for that case. However, that begs the question of why any court decision is respected, since the law is supposed to apply equally to all. Obviously that is not accurate, but it does point out that courts make egregious mistakes all the time. That being so, what makes any court decision the correct one?

If we choose original intent, all we have to do is look at the history books. Licenses, gun laws, and almost every other administrative fiat was considered unconstitutional by the Founders. What changed? The so-called 16th Amendment (which even the Court acknowledged a few months afterward, had not met constitutional requirements for passage (but it's too late now), and everything that followed . . .
 
"There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public."
the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

If you're worried about your privacy, I suggest you buy a Metrocard and a niqab.

Creepers successfully made this argument when caught taking upskirt photos on subways or videos of kids at the public beach. Then governments passed laws prohibiting certain non-consensual photos and videos, which they will be forced to do as well for these drones after the first degenerate Flock operator gets caught recording children at a public water park.
 
As I pointed out before:

"The RIGHT of a CITIZEN to TRAVEL UPON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS and TO TRANSPORT HIS PROPERTY THEREON in the ordinary course of life and business is A COMMON RIGHT which he has under his RIGHT TO ENJOY LIFE AND LIBERTY.... It includes the RIGHT in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the RIGHT to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE THEREON for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will. Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929".

RIGHTS can not be voided by presidential fiat or congressional passage of a law, or by courts unlawfully, outside the LIMITS imposed by the Constitution, making law. Under our system, even Amendments cannot void the Bill of Rights; our Rights are not granted, but are pre-existing and guaranteed. So they can not be taken away. We can only surrender them, and if we choose not to . . .

--- shovelDriver, 2013-01-14 ( http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013...warrantless-blood-tests-in-dui-cases/#respond )

IIRC, someone responded to that comment by saying that the court decision was not binding except for that case. However, that begs the question of why any court decision is respected, since the law is supposed to apply equally to all. Obviously that is not accurate, but it does point out that courts make egregious mistakes all the time. That being so, what makes any court decision the correct one?

If we choose original intent, all we have to do is look at the history books. Licenses, gun laws, and almost every other administrative fiat was considered unconstitutional by the Founders. What changed? The so-called 16th Amendment (which even the Court acknowledged a few months afterward, had not met constitutional requirements for passage (but it's too late now), and everything that followed . . .

There is no right to drive. It's a privilege.

Those same "police" who were designed to be slave catchers are now your problem to deal with.
 
Good. Only those doing illegal **** will care if their plate gets scanned, because if you're not doing anything illegal, your plate will be ignored when scanned. I love this tech, it'll help stop and track/capture criminals.
 
So far over 100 cops have been caught abusing Flock cameras. Those are the ones that were CAUGHT. Menacing, stalking - crimes that would get us arrested. Some cops were arrested and charged. Most were suspended, some were fired. If 100 were caught, you know many, many more were not. These are NOT simple ALPR's. They create a digital thumbprint of your vehicle - make, model, color, decals, damage and plate. Police are using this information as a base for search warrants. "Person X was near a crime scene and we believe they were the perp." Numerous people have been arrested and jailed over false Flock ID's and bad warrants. Cops are IGNORING real evidence and detective work because Flock says "Hey, it's this guy!" and they're wrong. Wisconsin is using it to track people who buy weed at Illinois dispensaries, then pull them over when they cross the border. Look it up. One woman had her car impounded and spent a week in jail because police did not even bother with witness statements and evidence. Witnesses said it was an orange vehicle that caused a hit and run killing three people. Orange paint was on the cars that were hit. They arrested a woman in a blue car because "Flock identified this vehicle."
 
Good. Only those doing illegal **** will care if their plate gets scanned, because if you're not doing anything illegal, your plate will be ignored when scanned. I love this tech, it'll help stop and track/capture criminals.
Tell that to the women who spent a week in jail because Flock gave a false ID. Or the family pulled over, cuffed and held at gunpoint because Flock misread a plate. Literally hundreds of instances like this, and ZERO proof Flock has done ANYTHING to reduce or solve crimes.
 
The US are becoming a totalitarian country.


I would say the US is becoming technofascist.

Marriage of the corporations to the state is the definition of fascism. Trump picking winners and losers among tech companies fits the definition well.
 
Back