Police want Axon's cameras redesigned so they don't get mistaken for Flock's

[Daniel Sims]

Ripple effect: As Flock's AI-powered surveillance cameras become increasingly unpopular across the US, many communities have pivoted to another provider, Axon. To help Axon's cameras avoid the same backlash, some law enforcement clients have floated an idea: making surveillance cameras look less like surveillance cameras.

Axon is currently exploring design changes to its Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) to avoid becoming the next target of people destroying Flock cameras. The strategy, among others under consideration, suggests surveillance companies are making real efforts to get ahead of the rising negative press from mass surveillance opponents.

Primarily known for supplying police departments across the US with body cameras, Axon also makes ALPRs that resemble Flock's. Cameras from both companies automatically log license plates from passing vehicles into searchable databases, but Flock became the face of the technology as its devices spread to thousands of communities.

As privacy advocates began destroying Flock cameras and hundreds of communities canceled their contracts with the company, some simply replaced the cameras with Axon's.

However, Axon's pole-mounted ALPRs closely resemble Flock's, so authorities are unsurprisingly concerned they could become targets, too. The topic came up in a now-deleted webinar Axon held last week, which YouTuber MegaraMedia downloaded before it was taken down and shared with 404 Media.

When an audience member asked whether Axon was considering changing the appearance of its cameras to resemble Flock's less, CEO Rick Smith said the company is looking at changing their shape after many customers requested a different look.

Axon's Lightpost program also aims to place cameras on streetlights, making them harder to reach. Another strategy could move in the opposite direction, with signs that explicitly label the cameras and explain a community's ALPR policy. Flock and Axon are also pursuing drone-based surveillance.

AI-powered surveillance cameras have come under scrutiny because they let authorities track the movements of vehicles and people. However, prior reports suggest they often misread license plates, and more than a dozen officers have been caught using them to stalk former romantic partners.

As the cameras become increasingly infamous, some departments have instructed officers to avoid mentioning their deployment whenever possible. Although hundreds of cities across the US have canceled contracts with Flock over the past several years, the company claims new contracts outpace cancellations by around 10 to one.

Permalink to story:

Police want Axon's cameras redesigned so they don't get mistaken for Flock's

 

[acrossthestars]

making surveillance cameras look less like surveillance cameras.

This is such an asinine take. The problem with these cameras, according to law enforcement, isn't their implementation. It's their identification.

I understand that law enforcement benefits from a comprehensive overview of the comings and goings of its citizens, but there is also that undercurrent of "distrust" that runs the entire length of this conversation. They wouldn't need to disguise their surveillance tools, if people weren't so against law enforcement using them.

It would be a better expenditure of resources to rebuild the trust between the public and police officers, rather than using technology to keep them "controlled and at a distance".

 

[pnntmp]

They wouldn't need to disguise their surveillance tools, if people weren't so against law enforcement using them.

People are not against law enforcement using them, exactly the opposite - they feel safe. The article itself says "new contracts outpace cancellations by around 10 to one", and the vast majority of the 'cancellations' are merely expired contracts.

This whole Flock thing is a nothingburger.
Everything about cancellations, outrage, backlash blah blah blah is entirely made up.The acts of a handful of loony activists are presented as some sort of a nationwide revolt. It's an attempt to make it happen by gaslighting the public it's already happening everywhere .. meanwhile people keep installing the cameras to keep their communities safe.

 

[acrossthestars]

People are not against law enforcement using them, exactly the opposite - they feel safe.

If people were universally in favor of being monitored by police, then "talk to police, during an investigation" would be sound advice. It's not, though, and everyone knows it. The fact of the matter is, the United States is currently a low-trust society. People don't like law enforcement, because they believe they are being monitored―not being regular citizens, going about their lives, but as potential criminals, waiting to be "caught lacking"―and that power imbalance puts people on edge.

They don't know who they can and cannot trust, so when law enforcement's response to "people hate these cameras, because they look like those other cameras that are already hated" is "we need to conceal them better", rather than "we need to be an element of society that the public can trust, so that the cameras are not needed", you can see how that might rub people the wrong way.

The article itself says "new contracts outpace cancellations by around 10 to one", and the vast majority of the 'cancellations' are merely expired contracts.

The article references a statement made by Flock―the company that makes the cameras people go out of their way to destroy. Of course they're going to sugarcoat that claim with 10 different kinds of sweetener, by saying "yes, our contracts are being cancelled pretty fast, but...they are being renewed even faster."

You think Flock would willingly put out a statement, basically confirming the protests are working? I sure don't.

 

[pnntmp]

If people were universally in favor of being monitored by police, then "talk to police, during an investigation" would be sound advice. It's not, though, and everyone knows it. The fact of the matter is, the United States is currently a low-trust society. People don't like law enforcement, because they believe they are being monitored―not being regular citizens, going about their lives, but as potential criminals, waiting to be "caught lacking"―and that power imbalance puts people on edge.

They don't know who they can and cannot trust, so when law enforcement's response to "people hate these cameras, because they look like those other cameras that are already hated" is "we need to conceal them better", rather than "we need to be an element of society that the public can trust, so that the cameras are not needed", you can see how that might rub people the wrong way.

The article references a statement made by Flock―the company that makes the cameras people go out of their way to destroy. Of course they're going to sugarcoat that claim with 10 different kinds of sweetener, by saying "yes, our contracts are being cancelled pretty fast, but...they are being renewed even faster."

You think Flock would willingly put out a statement, basically confirming the protests are working? I sure don't.

People are universally in favor of being safe, not monitored. The police neither installs nor constantly monitors these things. The local communities install them, and the police checks them when needed.
"People don't like law enforcement" is BS. Criminals aside, it may be true for a fringe minority (until they meet the criminals, that is).

 

[acrossthestars]

People are universally in favor of being safe, not monitored. The police neither installs nor constantly monitors these things. The local communities install them, and the police checks them when needed.
"People don't like law enforcement" is BS. Criminals aside, it may be true for a fringe minority (until they meet the criminals, that is).

Safety is quickly becoming synonymous with surveillance, because we live in a low-trust society. People are in favor of trust, not safety. They want to trust the people in their community, but they don't.

No one wants a nanny state. But, bad actors have effectively convinced the general public that their options are "authoritarian state control" or "lawless anarchy", as if there is no middle ground. Because the middle ground requires work at the local level. It requires neighbors to not be strangers, but that is work and work is hard. So, it doesn't happen.

Better just to stay insulated, in your own little safety bubble.

 

[LordVile95]

People are universally in favor of being safe, not monitored. The police neither installs nor constantly monitors these things. The local communities install them, and the police checks them when needed.
"People don't like law enforcement" is BS. Criminals aside, it may be true for a fringe minority (until they meet the criminals, that is).

Members of the police have literally been found to be using them to stalk people

 

[pnntmp]

Safety is quickly becoming synonymous with surveillance, because we live in a low-trust society. People are in favor of trust, not safety. They want to trust the people in their community, but they don't.

No one wants a nanny state. But, bad actors have effectively convinced the general public that their options are "authoritarian state control" or "lawless anarchy", as if there is no middle ground. Because the middle ground requires work at the local level. It requires neighbors to not be strangers, but that is work and work is hard. So, it doesn't happen.

Better just to stay insulated, in your own little safety bubble.

All this is nonsense. Safety is not synonymous with surveillance, and society as a whole can't be low-trust or high-trust. People are not 'in favor of trust', you either trust someone or don't no matter what you are in favor of. People protecting their communities with various technologies don't want a nanny state, and the state has absolutely nothing to do with these decisions, they're local. Nobody believes they have to choose between authoritarian control and anarchy.

 

[pnntmp]

Members of the police have literally been found to be using them to stalk people

Yes, there are anecdotal cases of police officers stalking girlfriends or ex's. So?
This is not the police or the state monitoring you, but a guy trying to solve a personal problem in a wrong way. As catching this type of misuse is ridiculously easy and now everyone knows it, it's gone.

 

[godrilla]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin Founding Father.
I wonder if those who are pro surveillance state are they also pro ice having access to that feed?

 

[LordVile95]

Yes, there are anecdotal cases of police officers stalking girlfriends or ex's. So?
This is not the police or the state monitoring you, but a guy trying to solve a personal problem in a wrong way. As catching this type of misuse is ridiculously easy and now everyone knows it, it's gone.

It’s not anecdotal they’ve been shown to be doing it and some have been arrested for it.

When is it misuse and when is it an abuse of the system though? They’ve been using it as a warrantless dragnet which isn’t what it’s supposed to be for.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Yes, there are anecdotal cases of police officers stalking girlfriends or ex's. So?
This is not the police or the state monitoring you, but a guy trying to solve a personal problem in a wrong way. As catching this type of misuse is ridiculously easy and now everyone knows it, it's gone.

It's not gone, officers are still actively being caught abusing these systems.

You also have the growing number of report software innocent people pulled over by15 armed cops because flock flagged them as being involved in some random violent crime.

Sadly, it will likely take someone dying as a result of flock failures before states FINALLY clamp.down on their use and efficacy.

 

[amoonspot]

Yes, there are anecdotal cases of police officers stalking girlfriends or ex's. So?
This is not the police or the state monitoring you, but a guy trying to solve a personal problem in a wrong way. As catching this type of misuse is ridiculously easy and now everyone knows it, it's gone.

So you work for Flock, right? I've never seen some bend over backwards like this for free.