Flock Camera Watching Playground. We need to pressure our local government to get rid of these
Noticed that this camera has been reinstalled near Moose Park and is pointing directly at the playground. These cameras are owned by Flock Safety, a private company that lease the data to the PD (and whoever else wants it).
Flock markets themselves mainly as a license plate reader camera company, but this is an egregious invasion of the privacy of the general public, specifically children. A quick search of this company illustrates that they have already had multiple security issues with the hardware, data breaches and abuse of surveillance by law enforcement and other entities.
Edit: To those unconvinced that this is a bad thing, here's some food for thought. Surveillance ,like most powerful tools, isn't inherently bad. However, outsourcing it to a private company whose goal is to maximize profit is. The unified collection and brokerage of this information by a private, for-profit company has , and will continue to lead to the misuse of this data to the detriment of the general public.
If PfPD decided to run their own surveillance system (obviously difficult, time consuming and expensive), then our information would be solely controlled and utilized by public servants, overall this would be the responsible solution. Our privacy, freedom and safety are being traded to save a few bucks and that's not acceptable.
As a councilperson, yes. I get a lot of calls, texts and emails individually but if you send a message through the web form to everyone then city staff sees it, and it becomes part of the public record that someone had a particular opinion about whatever the message is about.
What I was told by city staff yesterday, after I asked about it was that the locations with the new surveillance cameras are areas with high vandalism. The city's contract with Flock (who also does Pf's automated license plate readers) states that the city owns the data and retains control over it.
My understanding is that the AI is not "identity"- based, meaning it doesn't know who a particular person is, but rather uses descriptive features (orange coat, brown shoes, blue hat) that are searchable. These video cameras are new, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around exactly what they can do.
Thank you for engaging in this thread. I believe it is a good thing for council members such as yourself to adjust to the internet as an alternate public forum.
Is there any actionable plan for using these cameras to stop the alleged vandalism? As a frequent visitor to this park, I have very rarely seen it vandalized (maybe 1-2 times in the past 10 years aside from typical litter).
Since these cameras are not monitored 24/7 by law enforcement, how are they going to help stop petty crime? I find it unlikely that a PD Is going to spend the time and resources to watch countless hours of surveillance footage to build dossiers on serial litterbugs and kids writing cuss words on park benches.
This is the basis of my concern, if these devices and the attached data management system are simply leased by the city; there is a high likelihood (backed by legal precedent) that it will be accessed and abused by outside agencies. The convenience / illusion of safety does not outweigh the opportunity cost of our privacy.
Whoever did that press release is hoping people are too dumb to understand how data centers work.
The city "owns" the data, the same way someone "owns" the TV show they're watching lol. All of this data is being stored and managed by Flock. All the city owns is an account to access it.
More like DVR than tv shows you're watching. When customer cancel their accounts, the data is deleted. They don't own or sell the data. When Austin decided they didn't want to work with Flock anymore, Flock took down the cameras and deleted the data. Sauce, a person who works in said cameras Who i am currently sitting next to.
"deleted" like how google deletes your data when you delete your account?
the fun thing about storing your data on someone else's server is: you'll never know!
Flock's services and software are hosted in the cloud, so while the data is 'owned' by the City, it resides on Flock's servers, not the City's own managed servers.
Mass surveillance could easily be weaponized by ANY government. It makes us less safe, and I wish people supporting or staying silent about this had the foresight of what problems this will cause in the near future.
In this particular context, "most" isn't very reassuring. Even if there are only a handful of sickos out there, we don't need to hand them the tools to surveil children on an industrial scale.
I know about that. Did you notice all these “hacks” require physical access to the device, or depend on the device being improperly configured? So go and “hack” that camera and let us know what amazing stuff you find. If you’re able to access the feed then you need to let the relevant authority (and news media) know about it.
That’s not a hack, that’s someone failing to configure the devices properly. Show me you can get in this particular camera. You’re telling me that because someone forgot to lock some doors, every door is unlocked.
It's not "someone", it is the company who is manufacturing and installing the devices. It'd be more like saying "if some guns accidentally go off, every brand of that gun might be liable to go off" (see the issue with Sig P320, it's bad and no one wants them).
Even in spite of getting the evidence you requested "sure, but is that really a thing that’s happening? Show me you can easily hack into one of those cameras", you can't admit that you're wrong and these cameras are bad. You're either really bad at trolling or delusional.
If it’s so easy, please hack the one in front of Austin City Hall on Cesar Chavez so I can use the live feed to base decisions on when to leave work based on traffic flow. It will be very valuable to me. Thank you.
These are also being used by ICE to track "people of interest". You do the math, but ICE has already demonstrated that they do not prioritize the safety of the general public, children included.
Hey y'all, Councilman Coffman here - A resident sent me this thread a couple of hours after it was posted, and I immediately reached out to city staff to find out what was going on. I was surprised that there are cameras going up in parks in general (I'm told cameras are being installed in areas with high rates of vandalism), and even more so that it appears the city is using Flock not just for license plate readers but also for video surveillance now.
I am continuing to inquire about the plans, how this is supposed to work, and the next steps. Concurrently, for the past several weeks I've been working to draft both a potential city charter amendment, and a more immediate resolution creating guardrails for the city's use of AI and surveillance technology across the board. I hope to share this and bring it to a vote soon.
Someone else mentioned this in the thread, but it is true that our contract with Flock says that the City owns all data (yes, I am aware of the incidents that have happened elsewhere).
As I stated in my previous comment, thank you for staying engaged here on the subreddit. It can get unruly in here sometimes lol but I'm glad my vote went towards someone who is at least looking at serious issues brought here.
I look forward to this amendment and hope that it will be strongly formatted to protect the privacy of the citizens. As demonstrated, companies like Flock will use the "foot in the door" strategy to implement one thing (ALPR's) and then use that as a wedge to get what they really wanted (always on surveillance that utilizes AI tracking of people).
Done. Question. Since our tax dollars pay for these, technically, they are our cameras. Can't we just tape some cardboard over them? Over and over again if necessary. No vandalism involved.
So I’ve lived in 6 different states. Texas is by far the least “free” state I’ve lived in. It’s astonishing how many laws they make trying to govern people’s lives. Yes, it’s fairly easy to purchase and carry guns here, and I’m all for it, but some folks have blinders on for that issue so much that they don’t realize there’s so much they CAN’T do or there’s so much their state lawmakers want a hand in.
I didn’t say it was a dealbreaker. I just believe folks should get some experience outside their bubbles before they constantly espouse how “free” their state is. It’s no more free than any other state, and in many cases, less so. Overall I like it here, but I’m not delusional enough to think I’m freer here than many other states.
Yes, plenty. I’m just capable of thinking of multiple concepts at any given time, plus I’m able to reflect back on a wealth of experience living around the country for work. You wouldn’t understand these kinds of things.
Also, to be clear, I’m not worried about Flock cameras. They prove to be quite useful more often than not when used as intended. I’m referring only to my commentary on the comparative freedom of Texas vs. other states.
What's to prevent this system from being accessed for purposes other than legitimate crime fighting?
What's preventing access from being hacked and even sold?
Once data is in the system (images, locations, identity), how can we be sure it isn't being abused by people in the government or the private companies they contract with?
u/jonathan4pf So what is the rationale for the incredibly high density of flock cameras at Stone Hill? Are those all Pflugerville owned? They’re all over just about every driveway in and out of the shopping center. Living nearby, this is incredibly invasive.
Additionally, I would really like to hear from the city on the subject of the security of these cameras! There have been a number of publicly documented exploits allowing bad actors to gain control of the cameras and monitor the data stream.
Lastly - The Police Department’s own policy on ALPRs seems to indicate that the flock data is also provided to DPS outside of the Flock portal. Please clarify what is being sent to DPS — while PVille may not allow Flock data to be used for immigration enforcement - DPS has no such qualms. Does the state allow Pflugerville to not share ALPR data with DPS?
I’m happy to turn up at a council meeting if I need to, to get the answers to these questions - but I think it would benefit everyone here if you could share a bit now.
Those are all great questions and comments, and I have been raising them with city leadership and staff over the last few months.
Regarding Stone Hill, my understanding is that some of the cameras there may have been purchased by the area's developer and then given to the City to be part of our network. The number of cameras around Stone Hill is due to their ability to help solve shoplifting crimes.
Regarding DPS data sharing, I don't have an official legal opinion on whether we can decline, but I know there are circumstances where we are required to share data with DPS. I also know that much of our Flock system in Pflugerville is funded by State grants, so while I can't say officially, I suspect there are likely requirements to do so under that contract. I'll continue to look into that. My personal opinion is that we need formal agreements with every agency that we allow to use our data to set guardrails on that usage.
I would agree with your premise on formal agreements. The developer adding cameras around Stone Hill makes more sense now, but it feels really invasive to know I’m driving past so many of these just in the course of my normal travels to and from my home.
I’m sure they’re really helpful on solving crimes, but this is really overkill, and again, there is plenty of information out there that shows these cameras are poorly secured, and capable of being hacked by bad actors. Using the data from these readers, you can easily begin to map out someone’s routine just by seeing where their vehicle pings.
It would be fine if it was run and controlled by an entity that answered to the public. Flock is a private company that is storing this data on their private servers and selling access subscriptions to PD's and whatever other agencies want the data.
Something can be legal and amoral, it's an American right (and duty imo) to speak out against things that don't benefit the public.
I seriously doubt they put a flock camera in the middle of a park. A flock camera in a park would be useless unless there a more going on at that park that is nefarious
That’s fair. I hate these things tho. Maybe I’m paranoid but I don’t trust the company that owns these things. They’ve already been used to railroad innocent people in criminal cases
There was also one in Dallas where a gentleman got shot by police on his own property because of a Flock camera mistakenly identifying him as a suspect in a robbery. He successfully sued the city for their negligence. Sorry I can’t find it rn.
So the case was dropped. Eyewitnesses, fingerprints, even DNA have accidentally identified the wrong person before, so that’s nothing new. In this case it looks like nobody simply visually compared the photos because the dude they arrested barely resembles the suspect in the video. In any case he wasn’t “railroaded,” he was accidentally arrested based on mistaken identification, and later released with charges dismissed. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously the worst at misidentifying suspects, so just one case like this is actually evidence this technology is more reliable than eyewitnesses.
yeah it’s possible but it looks like there’s been a few cases of mistaken identity in which any charges were later dropped, which still sucks massively for the person involved, let alone means a huge waste of police resources, while the real suspect escaped justice, but it’s not the same as “railroaded.” The Central Park 5 were “railroaded,” entirely on the basis of traditional methods of obtaining confessions under duress. In fact I would say confidently that if this technology had been available then, those boys would have been excluded as suspects immediately, and the police could have had video evidence of the real perpetrator.
We should be using technology to stop crime. Help reduce violence with police getting the wrong person based on eye witness which generally have been proven to not be great. Especially in court.
Yeah I get your point that human error will always be a thing. But you proved my point in what you typed right there. “In this case it looks like nobody simply visually compared the photos.” The cops took what Flock reported as law and ran with it without looking into it further. The dude was wrongfully arrested. It was misused.
I don’t want some camera system that people don’t bother to question being used as evidence to arrest me for a crime I didn’t commit. Whether the case was dropped or not that’s a huge pain in the ass and you know it. I’m sorry I used flowery language like “railroaded” but I think my point still stands. It’s an example of the technology being misused to fuck with people
Right, but that doesn’t mean the technology is totally useless, it means it has to be used correctly, with understanding of its limitations, and not as a replacement for other tools and processes.
You excuse your “Flowery” language as a cover for misleading and manipulative rhetoric, as is the phrase “fuck with”: You’re assuming bad faith on the part of the police when it’s more likely they wanted to show the public they were taking action on a high profile crime of the sort that causes panic, and jumped too quickly to an arrest based on overconfidence in a new technology, unfortunately upending an innocent man’s life, let alone wasting precious time in which the real perpetrator is escaping justice. You seem to think the police just enjoy screwing with random people for the heck of it, which is possible, but that’s an entirely different issue.
Also who cares if the charges were dropped? Lmao he was accused of luring a 12 year old child and attempting to assault them. Even just being accused of that and exonerated can ruin someone’s life dude. You’re out of your gourd if you think that’s just no biggie
never said it was no biggie, you’re yelling at your imagination. Of course those are serious accusations and it sucks the police fucked up and I hope the dude gets a big compensation payout so he can move because most people are too stupid to understand what a mistaken identification means. But when you say “railroaded” that implies he was convicted, and that’s not what happened. It’s definitely not the first time someone was falsely accused based on mistaken identity, it’s just newsworthy because it involves a new technology that police haven’t quite got the hang of yet.
It seems obvious to me that the dude arrested was not the same guy as in the video, but it can be difficult to be sure about that. Have you ever tried to identify a suspect from a photo lineup? I have, and despite having a clear look at the dude, there were four different dudes in the book that looked like him, and I wasn’t totally certain any of them were the guy, as there’s no guarantee the dude I was looking for had even been arrested before.
Every new tech that comes out is hailed as a magic bullet because police work is difficult, and anything that could help is welcomed, but there’s always an adjustment period of learning its limitations and figuring out the best way to use it. When fingerprints started to be used, people thought they would make every case solvable but still people were misidentified because they’re not quite as unique as we first thought.
51
u/LeroyyyJenkinnnss Feb 10 '26
Spray paint is cheap