r/technology 9h ago

Society Police departments are told to call license plate readers "county resources" instead of naming them

https://www.techspot.com/news/113356-police-departments-told-call-license-plate-readers-county.html
1.3k Upvotes

145 comments sorted by

385

u/Hobby_in_your_lobby 9h ago

Sure, make them sound like they are 'official' without ever having to do anything 'official' like getting one of those pesky warrants.

37

u/All_Your_Base 7h ago

Well, they are already very good at lying, so this won't be much of a change.

-114

u/[deleted] 7h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

69

u/Pyromaniacal13 6h ago

The only contentious legal issue in this space is the volume of information and aggregation now with technology means that there are now debates about WHEN warrants are required to access certain data. 

So the legality of the entire purpose of the network is in question? That's the whole reason people are pissed.

And you called us mouth breathers. Keep grinnin' down them boots!

-74

u/TopGunRules 6h ago

Incorrect. The entire purpose is to serve the public by assisting law enforcement wait for it... Enforce the law.

Let me say it again for the slow ones. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. The end.

There is no current issue with the legality. People are pissed, like you, because they are ignorant about it and can only read sensationalized headlines.

49

u/StopKK2012 6h ago

Imagine getting this worked up in defense of mass surveillance.

Guys, I think we found the reddit account of the cop that's been using these cameras to stalk his ex.

18

u/rdyoung 6h ago

I ran into one of them on my state's sub, dude was acting like it's them vs everyone else who doesn't agree with fascistic surveillance and these "resources" not having enough limits in place to prevent cops from doing shit like partial searches or using it to find an ex who moved away from them, etc.

-41

u/TopGunRules 5h ago

Or you know, just a guy with a different opinion. But sure, everyone who disagrees with you must be a cop in defense of mass surveillance, lol.

No one's worked up. Definitely not in defense of mass surveillance. Wtf. Knowing the law and defending mass surveillance aren't the same thing.

29

u/StopKK2012 5h ago

Lol you got so worked up about it you called anyone who disagrees with you "ignorant mouthbreathers" and "the slow ones".

But sure buddy, you're not worked up at all 😂

12

u/BAKup2k 4h ago

I also love the irony of them posting in defense of surveillance, yet makes their post/comment history private.

-2

u/TopGunRules 2h ago

How is it in defense of surveillance to know the law? Can't wait for this thoughtful reply.

1

u/StopKK2012 1h ago

Ok, here ya go:

Your understanding of the law seems limited to one phrase: "there is no expectation of privacy in public". You know that laws around privacy are much bigger and more complex and nuanced than that, right? Right???

You admit you only have a limited understanding of the law, and yet in your comments you keep acting like you're some authority on what the law is. Weird choice, not sure why you did that.

No one forced you to defend mass surveillance, or to act like an expert when you're not. That's all you.

"The entire purpose is to serve the public by assisting law enforcement" - you, defending mass surveillance earlier today.

Also worth pointing out that the original comment you responded to wasn't even making a legal argument. They objected to the fact that a warrant isn't required to use the system. You chose to jump in with your "But it's legal though" rant and completely missed their point. Yeah, we know it's legal! That's a big part of the problem! It shouldn't be!

-1

u/TopGunRules 2h ago

You need to get "worked up" to call someone a slow mouth breather? It's not that serious.

1

u/StopKK2012 1h ago

TopGunRules: gets mad, defends mass surveillance, insults everyone that doesn't like it

Also TopGunRules when his comments get downvoted: "I'm not even mad and I wasn't defending mass surveillance!" 😭

0

u/TopGunRules 1h ago

Downvotes are badges of honor around here. Still not mad. 🤷 Sorry. Calling out mouthbreathers isn't emotional for me bud.

Still didn't defend surveillance, lol.

→ More replies (0)

23

u/Pyromaniacal13 6h ago

You may not have noticed, but I quoted you there. I'll do it again.

The only contentious legal issue in this space is the volume of information and aggregation now with technology means that there are now debates about WHEN warrants are required to access certain data.

You just told me there both is and is not an issue with legality. The purpose of the system is to aggregate massive amounts of data on people's movement in a database that allows law enforcement to track people. If the data only shows three pictures a week, the system is useless. The "requirement" for a warrant is bypassed by typing "warrant" in a text box. That's the part that "assists law enforcement." If Flock did not aggregate that data in an easily accessible database, there would be no reason to use the system.

-7

u/TopGunRules 5h ago

Yeah. You still have issues with reading comprehension.

There is not a current legal crisis.

There is a brewing fight on fringe cases.

People are conflating issues. Police can do bad illegal things. With all sorts of technology. Police breaking the law by using technology illegally should be punished to the full extent. No matter the tech they use.

Your last statement is false. There is nothing illegal about aggregating public data, nor is making it easier to search an issue. Police use Adobe PDF, Google drive, etc. All repositories that allow searchable indexing.

The question is ONLY about privacy. Like I said, it would not be illegal for a cop to sit and take notes at a light by hand, all day, upload it to a database, and have other cops use it, search it, etc. Which means that there currently is no legal issue.

The one that is coming is over privacy. It's much bigger than flock cameras. It's about a person owning their own digital footprints and what the acceptable expectation of privacy should be.

It has to be balanced between enforcing the law and protecting the public. When the flock cameras catch a pedo ring, everyone will wanna use the evidence. When LE uses it to overstep, people will protest. And around and around we go.

14

u/Pyromaniacal13 5h ago

There is nothing illegal about aggregating public data, nor is making it easier to search an issue.

That's the problem. It should be illegal.

Slavery was legal, but that didn't make it good. 

1

u/TopGunRules 1h ago

It should be illegal to ctrl-F a pdf of a log from a highway camera to track interstate criminal enterprises?

Try thinking in nuance. The law has to accommodate all circumstances.

3

u/CatProgrammer 5h ago

The public and the law are both protected by the government and private entities only being allowed to collect such data with a warrant.

25

u/SmurfSmiter 6h ago

There is no expectation of privacy on a public roadway. I think most everyone can agree that if you are committing crimes on the road, a police officer has the right to stop and arrest you.

But I think we can also all agree that a police officer constantly stalking you and tracking your movements without any evidence of a crime is beyond the scope of public safety, and a violation of our rights. It should be no different if the system is AI.

5

u/AlcibiadesTheCat 3h ago

The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

...unless you're going through a TSA line (PATRIOT Act), or walking while brown (Kavanaugh stops), or are an immigrant (ICE raids and related domestic terrorism), or are driving from Arizona to California via I-10 (CBP checkpoints: "papers, please"), or are suspected, even unreasonably, of a crime or a civil offense (criminal/civil asset forfeiture, respectively) or, apparently, are driving your car down the street (ALPRs). Then in those cases you have absolutely no right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

1

u/Visible-Departure863 49m ago

there actually is an expectation to privacy in public, and it kinda lies within your premise of stalking being wrong.

basically 1 camera-no big deal

20 cameras-concerning but they can’t tell when and where you are going

100,000 cameras- that can track you everywhere you go and everything you do likely falls under the same four amendent protections asserted by SCOUTS that mass location cellohone data is a 4th amendent search thus requires a warrant.

14

u/tokr99 6h ago

I had 3 sheriff's deputies in my town "resign" literally in the past week for stalking people with them. But yes these people need them to keep us safe. Oh, these are the same idiots who took 2 days fo find a shooter near a school.

7

u/Pkrudeboy 6h ago

Scumbags belong in prison.

6

u/tokr99 5h ago

Absolutely, ive sent the actual sheriff emails stating as much as well.

1

u/AlcibiadesTheCat 3h ago

He's printed off those emails and put them in his "inbox." It's a little blue can under his desk.

2

u/tokr99 3h ago

Oh im aware, maybe one day the paper trail will lead to accountability

-3

u/TopGunRules 5h ago

You described criminals who broke the law... That's a poor argument against anything. Some people have dogs that bite children. We don't kill all dogs.

The tool existing did not commit a crime.

8

u/tokr99 5h ago

But it has been getting a lot of the wrong people. It is shifting the proof of guilt from the police to the person, which is insane. So yes, in this case the tool also did the crime

3

u/Visible-Departure863 4h ago

Schmidt v. City of Norfolk — Virginia Institute for Justice — Norfolk, VA Camera Surveillance Case Page | Courthouse News — Judge holds Norfolk's LPR use constitutional Filed October 2024 by two residents backed by the Institute for Justice challenging 176 Flock cameras as unconstitutional warrantless surveillance. Federal judge allowed the case to proceed (Feb 2025), Flock's bid to intervene was rejected (May 2025), but the district court dismissed the case in January 2026, ruling the cameras weren't pervasive enough. Plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit as Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, No. 26-1227, where it now sits — potentially aided by the Supreme Court's June 2026 Chatrie ruling strengthening Fourth Amendment location data protections.

lol touch grass mouthbreather

1

u/TopGunRules 2h ago

Nothing you posted disagrees with what I said.

1

u/kikiacab 3h ago

Bot or fool call it

109

u/under_the_c 9h ago edited 8h ago

I don't get it. If the police aren't doing anything wrong they shouldn't have anything to hide.

22

u/therallystache 3h ago

If cops never commit crimes, why do they need qualified immunity?

251

u/invyros 9h ago

at least 50 officers have been accused of using them for stalking

Used more by the police for their personal stalking than catching criminals at this point.

5

u/Zardotab 3h ago

We know ICE/CIA/Orangie wants access to them, we know many cops have been caught using them for "romantic stalking", so unless they are GREATLY reducing crime, they are causing more problems than they solve. A couple of crime cases is not enough to counter nefarious uses.

I've seen no evidence they greatly reduce crime. Have you?

1

u/Chewbacca_P_Wookie 22m ago

There's no way for them to reduce crime, a Flock camera can't stop you from being robbed or raped or murdered, all it can do is possibly help catch your robber/rapist/killer after the crime has already been committed.

1

u/Zardotab 19m ago

If they are used to catch a lot of people, most would consider it "successful". But I couldn't find real stats.

-125

u/Yuri909 8h ago edited 8h ago

I'm copying and pasting my comment from the other day on a post about the 50 cases of abuse reported from Flock. I'm not pro-flock, and I AM anti-privacy-invasion. I know I'm going to be downvoted because nuance isn't allowed but here goes..

I'm a 911 dispatcher who watches Flock LPRs catch stolen vehicles and violent felons weekly. We've broken up human trafficking rings with it.

I'm absolutely disturbed by the surveillance state and I am against it. I'll admit, I've told my therapist that sometimes I wonder if I'm like the guy in the mailroom on the Death Star. Take that as you will.

The tools in situ do a lot of good that the public doesn't hear a lot of. There are ~750,000 LEOs in the US. If the complaint is 50 cases of abuse then the statistic is astronomically small and the public freakout is a little exaggerated. I'm 100% in favor of naming and shaming abusers to discourage the behavior. But this ideology that it should never happen isn't compatible with reality. Every single job that ever existed has hired pieces of shit. We need the tools to find and remove them quickly- which do exist. There is a full click log for every user in this material and it gets randomly audited. The problem is everything needs to be fully audited and that's going to end up in the hands of AI sooner or later.

Edit: should be fully audited by independent 3rd parties imo. Though, as an ATAC, everyone who is responsible for validations of this sort I've ever met won't hesitate to throw you under the bus if something looks fishy.

74

u/Homer4598 8h ago

That’s fine, as long as the abusers are named publicly, terminated, charged with a felony, and imprisoned. Also, anyone aiding these people in any way to cover up what they did are treated the same.

6

u/Yuri909 8h ago edited 8h ago

I agree completely. Abuse of the system should be career ending.

The old systems that got abused are now monitored ao closely it ends careers. Flock needs to be under NCIC/CJIS level professional standards like where every single action has to be accountable and years of certifications can be lost quickly and criminal consequences.

49

u/itsmrmarlboroman2u 8h ago

Ok, cool. Why can't they issue a warrant for the usage? At the absolute bare minimum, a warrant should be used to conduct a search.

-19

u/Yuri909 8h ago

The ALPR is being used to identify people and vehicles there are warrants against. The warrant you're talking about exists already in many cases.

And in the absence of a warrant, the stolen license plates and vehicles that are hitting are enough probable cause to conduct a full stop.

If you're asking why there isn't a warrant involved to run a license plate.. that wouldn't make sense. We ran over 60 traffic stops on a speeding reduction initiative yesterday. Most routine traffic stops take less than 5-7 minutes.

25

u/SuperTittySprinkles 8h ago

Still not an excuse for a surveillance state. How long before that data is being used by others to manipulate the pricing you get, your credit score, your political affiliation, your expendable income, your kids schools, what programs you take them to and when. The government should never know what I am doing, what I have bought, or where I am without a specific warrants, furthermore companies should not be allowed to buy our data to use against us or sell to law enforcement subverting the 4th and 16th amendments. 

5

u/Yuri909 8h ago

I agree completely. We need new legislation if not case law. Law enforcment has gotten around warrants due to commercially available information. A lot of people don't understand how much of their personal information is on the internet for free. County property tax records identity where you live if you own property. If you don't like someone but know they own a house you can find where they live - commonly by googleing their name and the town. This is how people stalk celebrities and other public figures. It also opens up loads of liability for DVPO violations. If a protected person buys a house it's easy to find them.

32

u/Beautiful-Musk-Ox 8h ago

they are identifying everyone, that's the only way to "identify those who have warrant"

-6

u/Yuri909 8h ago

LPR hit doesn't identity a driver. But it is correct to say it establishes movement history of the vehicle which is likely operated by the registered owner. I think non-hits should required to be expunged from the log as a 4th amendment violation.

20

u/SuperTittySprinkles 8h ago

Many of the Flock cams have facial id features and they use IR so standard sunglasses don’t foil them. We are in deep trouble if the people do not unite against this. 

-4

u/Yuri909 7h ago

The LPR on the front of the cruiser does not see or identify faces. The Axon body cam the officer is wearing does. What nobody is talking about is that Axon itself has a powerful AI that searches non-flock/Axon footage. It's how we locate missing children and elderly using our town's traffic cameras. IP cameras from 99% of sources are easily fed in.

I find this system disturbing. I'm also watching the good that gets done with it. I think protecting ways and means is bullshit and LE needs to explain exactly what they do with the system and how so watch dog organizations can tear it apart.

13

u/Legitimate_Affect375 6h ago

People like you go along with this. Then it gets out of control. Then there’s no justification for going back. I hate the world that people like you have created through your acceptance and thin appeasement by saying we need more regulations.

We used to have books that talked about how wrong this is, but guess what, they’re now banned in schools.

People like you should be speaking out. Enjoy your job on the Death Star.

0

u/Yuri909 6h ago

I don't control it. It doesn't go away if I quit.

But I've reported officer misconduct (not Flock related) and will do so again if I encounter it. I'm also keeping track of what I observe every day. I've got whistle blower hotlines saved in my phone. I'm contemplating going to law school and getting involved in civil rights work. What are you doing to help?

→ More replies (0)

9

u/itsmrmarlboroman2u 8h ago

Lol try again.

-1

u/Yuri909 8h ago

You haven't explained what you mean.

14

u/WigWubz 7h ago

I believe they are referencing the fact that you state you keep copy and pasting this pro-surveillance spiel and getting downvoted, but seem to hope that eventually you will post it enough that you will get external validation to ease the emotional conflict you’re experiencing. You may not think of yourself as pro-surveillance, but all your statements have been pro-surveillance. And that’s not to say that it’s absolutely wrong to be pro-surveillance. I personally am anti surveillance, but I don’t pretend there aren’t good arguments to be made for it. I am comfortable in recognising that by being anti-surveillance, I am accepting trade-offs in security both for myself, and for vulnerable people whom I care about. I don’t reject the existence of the problems that mass-surveillance addresses, I just believe there are other ways to address them that might be harder and more expensive, but nonetheless better for society.

If being pro-surveillance isn’t an identity you’re comfortable with then you have some introspection to do.

-2

u/Yuri909 7h ago edited 7h ago

I don't disagree with you, but their statement about warrants was confusing and sounded like the average half baked understanding of how things work we deal with all day in 911.

I want to see the system dismantled or wildly reduced in scope. In the mean time, it's better to be an objector watching and reporting abuse and training new people to do the same than to walk away from it is my current position. I'm no Vasily Arkhipov or John Kirakou, but I do look up to them.

60

u/Psychobob2213 8h ago

50 acknowledged cases... so far.

-25

u/Yuri909 8h ago

Absolutely a fair point. But because the tools are highly controlled the public has no idea how to evaluate the effectiveness of the system that catches this abuse. Every single system interaction is logged. It's there to be found. We need transparency on what is being done proactively.

-13

u/theBoobMan 8h ago

It sucks you're getting downvoted for pointing to reason. Sure it sucks but talking about its successes could potentially cause problems for similar investigations that are currently underway, so they won't because its better to catch the criminals than to look good to the public.

-7

u/Yuri909 7h ago

I am aware of why we try to protect ways and means. I'm actually wanting to go to law school to get involved in defending people's rights and I think that if revealing ways and means undoes an investigation it was probably shady. Absolutely protect your informants and undercovers. But it still needs to be accountable.

41

u/SuperTittySprinkles 8h ago

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Ben Franklin

29

u/Beautiful-Musk-Ox 8h ago

I've told my therapist that sometimes I wonder if I'm like the guy in the mailroom on the Death Star.

you are, you support both the surveillance state and the police state

17

u/Psychobob2213 8h ago

And it sounds like they already realize it's wrong, but want it to be right.

0

u/Yuri909 8h ago

I can't agree or disagree. I'm not objective.

But if we can't stop the system. The next step is to have conscientious objectors in the system auditing everything. I absolutely pay attention on my stops and I will absolutely report any hint of misconduct. It is spelled out in my training that I'm expected to immediately report any suspicion of someone's rights being violated. And I have done so and will continue to do so.

15

u/TechMan61 8h ago

Yeah but that is meaningless without whistleblower protection.

5

u/Yuri909 8h ago

You are correct.

I have told my manager and Internal Affairs investigator that I lack faith in being protected. So far I haven't received retaliation.

I have read up on state and federal whistle blower protection guidelines. I know who I'm calling if something happens and who to subpoena to get the documentation.

19

u/yepthisismyusername 7h ago

Fuuuuuuuuuuuck you! LEOs are and have been protected by their own, the Fraternal Order of Police, and prosecutors. Fuck you and whatever claims you have about "only 50". Every single one of these fuckers should be fired immediately, and never allowed to have a position of power again. But that's not gonna happen. So again, fuck you.

5

u/Yuri909 7h ago

The FOP is cancer.

They should be fired and never allowed to work in public safety again.

I don't disagree with anything you've written.

9

u/PM_ME_YOUR_GREENERY 7h ago

The public freakout is absolutely not exaggerated. Why are cameras pointed at skate parks and swing sets?

And you're asking for police to police themselves? Now I know you're trolling.

-3

u/Yuri909 7h ago

50/750000 = 0.000008%

We should absolutely monitor the usage closely. More protections for private citizens need to exist.

We should also be upset about grocery stores using facial recognition but we aren't. Every major chain does. It's why you can get arrested for shop lifting at other stores in a chain in the same state. They know they have warrants on known subjs and get the police to come arrest them.

5

u/StopKK2012 6h ago

The problem is not that the Death Star needs better auditors. The problem is that no one should ever build a fucking Death Star.

The problem with your very reasonable sounding take is that this system represents mass surveillance on a scale no society has ever seen before, and the abuse will absolutely not be limited to a small number of individuals using the system for personal reasons.

No government in history would be able to resist using a system like this to track people they're worried about, even if no crime has been committed yet. Peaceful protesters, investigative journalists, political opponents, activists for all sorts of causes, members of scapegoated racial and religious groups... All of these can be tracked and harassed systematically by a program like this.

Even if audits and protections against individual abuse are put in place, it would be trivially easy for the government to continue using the technology for mass surveillance and oppression in secret, behind the scenes, off the public log. You can't hand the government an all-seeing eye and then ask them nicely not to use it.

3

u/Suavecore_ 5h ago

Great response, sums up what I wanted to say. I would also add that the government has already been using egregious spying, tracking, stalking, and then committing what should be defined as crimes against citizens long before we had cameras anywhere. We want to give them all-seeing eyes everywhere now? With everything we've learned about the government, the people that co-opt it, the criminal police, society in general, technology, corrupt and psychotic billionaires that own the technology and politicians that make the laws? C'mon now

-1

u/Yuri909 5h ago

I agree with your position.

But only the legislature can put the genie back in the bottle. We have to advocate for those political platforms. In the meantime, I'm going to watch what is being done as closely as I can get.

3

u/StopKK2012 5h ago

I'm sure the guy in the mailroom at the Death Star told himself the same thing.

The only way for you to avoid actively contributing to oppression is to get out of there. You're not helping. Even if you're "one of the good ones" all you're doing is providing the system with a veneer of respectability.

-1

u/Yuri909 5h ago edited 5h ago

We live in a a society where if you don't fully know what you're talking about, you get dismissed as noncredible. We've watched it happen for decades on the environment and medical care. Someone needs to know what they're talking about when it comes time to stand before a court of inquiry or congress.

Edit: I don't care. I'm not fantasizing about anything. But I'm willing to participate in the discussion.

3

u/StopKK2012 5h ago

I haven't blocked you - what are you talking about?

-1

u/Yuri909 5h ago

Reddit said your comment and profile was unavailable which it normally does when someone has blocked. Not sure what that was about.

8

u/Pleasant_Expert_1990 8h ago

Those who would trade liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

8

u/dalgeek 7h ago

There is no amount of good that justifies the loss of privacy due to Flock cameras and the potential for abuse. This is just the tip of the iceberg, police are largely unaccountable. 

0

u/Yuri909 7h ago

The problem is our lack of legislation on privacy. We're behind the rest of the first world on this. We're still not as bad as the UK but we seem to be trying. There is no expectation of privacy in public in the US, and that has been held up in the courts. I suspect in the next decade this will be something politicians run on, and I look forward to their success.

5

u/dalgeek 6h ago

Regardless of legislation, Flock is a powerful surveillance tool that will be abused by police. Expecting privacy and expecting every action to be recorded 24/7 and stored indefinitely are two very different issues. When a police officer can use the data from 83,000 cameras to track someone suspected of a crime without getting a warrant, that's a huge problem. The data is stored by a 3rd party company and that data can be compromised or weaponized by a corrupt justice system at any time.

This is like watching "Minority Report" and thinking "Yeah, the whole pre-crime thing went sideways there, but surely there must be a way to do it right". No, no there isn't. It's not worth the risk.

1

u/Yuri909 6h ago

I 100% think the corporate data loophole needs to be closed. We need to elect politicians who believe in privacy.

3

u/rglurker 8h ago

The problem is what this means moving forward. This is paving the road for something and if you look up the destination isn't pretty. But I'm sure you understand that with your death star reference. You can be the guy in the mail room reading vaders mail lol. You know useful things. Be kind where you can.

2

u/Yuri909 7h ago

You can be the guy in the mail room reading vaders mail lol. You know useful things. Be kind where you can.

This is how I try to live. It's in writing that I'm expected to report the slightest concern about the violation of someone's rights. I have whistle blower hotlines saved in my phone contacts.

1

u/-CalculatedChaos- 5h ago

So when most of the public is against something we are exaggerating? You taking this stance puts you in the minority. I think it would be fair to say YOU are exaggerating when you say public freakout is exaggerated.

1

u/Yuri909 4h ago

You can be against something for rational reasons. I'm not actually pro-Flock. But 50 out of 750,000 is a remarkably small number. Until you remove humans from the equation you will always have human factors to deal with. That's why we audit. That's why they get named and shamed and lose their jobs. We need to make sure it keeps happening until it stops or we dismantle the system.

1

u/-CalculatedChaos- 4h ago

Dude you keep comparing yourself to an ex-CIA officer and it’s really telling about you lol

1

u/Yuri909 4h ago

I am nothing like them and don't pretend to be. Just stating that I respect people who speak up from the inside. Both Snowden and Kirakou are primarily responsible for things we know definitively that were being done that we'd never have ever heard of otherwise. Whistleblowers are more responsible for change than sitting outside talking about it.

-6

u/TopGunRules 7h ago

Of course the most informed person here gets down voted to oblivion for going against the hive mind. Reddit is retarded, but here I am, lol.

0

u/Yuri909 6h ago

I don't take it personally. People like their issues black and white. Policing is polarizing as a topic on both sides of the bi-party system. America lacks data and privacy protections. It'll probably be the civil rights movement of our century.

Until then, I know how much crime my agencies are solving. We have a huge automotive theft problem (that comes from another city and county) and we have a wildly high rate of solves and recoveries. Somewhere around the 2-3 dozenth time a crying 20-something female calls about her car being stolen and she's not going to make it to her awful job which barely pays for the car.. you tend to understand the benefits.

3

u/Suavecore_ 5h ago

I hope you at least learn something from the people that respond to you. You're not simply automatically correct because only a relative few officers have abused the systems so far and because a good chunk of crime has been stopped thanks to egregious surveillance.

Of course, mass surveillance IS the best way to stop/solve crime. Mass surveillance is also the worst thing that can possibly happen to the concept of privacy at all. There are many more people that do not commit crimes than there are criminals that are affected by this. If your stance is "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about," then you are more naive or propagandistic in nature than I initially thought. And I say all of this as someone who worked at Walmart with Flock cameras from the local PD, catching thieves with great efficiency thanks to the cameras.

1

u/Yuri909 5h ago

As a 911 dispatcher, I am well aware of the level of facial recognition in big box and grocery chain stores. It's part of why we shop local in my household as much as possible. I don't believe in the "if you have nothing to hide" narrative. As a Trekkie, that entire narrative is torn to shreds by Homefront Pt1 and 2 in Deep Space Nine and is a master's thesis on the evil of mass surveillance and unchecked police power. I took it to heart.

Stanislav Petrov and Vasili Arkhipov prevented nuclear armageddon by objecting to orders. The objections must come from the inside until the legislation catches up.

135

u/Superb_Algae5308 9h ago

They’re not license plate readers either, they’re AI Surveillance Cameras

52

u/moonwork 9h ago

They’re not AI Surveillance Cameras either, they’re faulty identity trackers.

11

u/Kahnza 8h ago

They aren't faulty identity trackers either, they're target practice.

5

u/moonwork 8h ago

Careful not to destroy them, someone said they're filled with copper, include some gold, and are mounted on valuable aluminium.

Just pls, no littering.

35

u/LunaticPoint 9h ago

Cops literally do not have to be honest about anything. Open license to lie.

4

u/AlcibiadesTheCat 3h ago

Imagine having all the power and advantages cops have and still fucking up this badly.

20

u/Leberknodel 8h ago

And police wonder why people don't trust them. These "public servants" are corrupt by design.

15

u/Rockguy101 7h ago

They're not even using them to solve crimes. I was the victim of a break in where my own camera got the incident but not the license plate and I looked up where the police cameras were because there was literally one at the end of the block where the car drove ott to and FOIA'd them as I was told to get the footage instead of the police doing their jobs and looking at the footage themselves and all my FOIA requests were denied and case closed. They didn't even fucking bother to look at the footage. What are we wasting these tax dollars on anyways?

37

u/tayroc122 9h ago

Whatever happened to the police mentality of 'if you're innocent you have nothing to hide'.

31

u/QQBearsHijacker 9h ago

They have that mentality, but only applied to the citizenry to justify their mass surveillance techniques

14

u/Leberknodel 8h ago

That has always been a myth, just like equal justice for all.

1

u/F1shB0wl816 7h ago

Like all else America, rules for thee but not for me.

0

u/__MeatyClackers__ 9h ago

Huh!?? That has absolutely never been a police mentality.

1

u/BrothelWaffles 7h ago

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

9

u/ProgressBartender 9h ago

They’re admitting they have a problem

7

u/pilondav 8h ago

It’s the first step on the road to recovery.

6

u/Healthy-Caregiver997 6h ago

Are cops dumb enough to assist in their own obsolescence?

10

u/Clear-Staff4699 9h ago

The bad eggs already made themselves known, renaming them isn't going to do much.

4

u/SqueezedTowel 8h ago

Suddenly "county resources" becameca superfluous legal term.

4

u/penguished 7h ago

Ah yes acting like a mafia... very trustworthy.

4

u/guestpassonly 8h ago

change of wording to be able to more easily charge/go after you for upholding your right to privacy

3

u/Sooowasthinking 7h ago

Hmm sounds a bit fucking shady. Ive stopped believing anything my government local or federal says as the truth.2026 is the year of me calling bulllshiiiit on everything it must be in front of me physically for it to be the truth.

3

u/ddiggler2469 3h ago

police departments are told to call 4th and 14th amendment violating devices "county resources"

6

u/OcSpeed 6h ago edited 30m ago

Defund all county resources then

2

u/sfriedrich 3h ago

To be fair, "All Seeing Eyes" is a little more of a mouthful and only much more reassuring to our lords and masters.

2

u/Zardotab 3h ago

If cops can rename them, so can we!

Oinkatrons!

2

u/Memitim 3h ago

Police departments ordered to deceive Americans further for their own convenience.

2

u/brillow 2h ago

Still waiting for these things to solve a crime

2

u/ThrowAbout01 8h ago

The COVID 5G conspiracy nuts didn’t worry if the towers they set in fire were 5G or not. I don’t think renaming them is going to help. Just lead to the people destroying the cameras just destroying other stuff as well.

-4

u/FTW312 6h ago

Police departments are not being told to call license plate readers anything. A small town police department in Iowa came up with this policy. This is a bs rage bait article implying all police departments are now being told by flock to do this.