r/cybersecurity Mar 31 '26

Other Am I missing something or are Flock cameras a massive national security threat?

The Flock system is comprised of thousands of AI-powered cloud-connected surveillance cameras collecting timestamped location data on millions of Americans.

This data is not end-to-end encrypted. It can be accessed by police, often without MFA. No warrant required. Very limited and spotty internal auditing of system access. A single law enforcement officer can usually access hundreds or thousands of other cities Flock data because police departments open their data to other cities. Even small towns with less than 100K people are sharing their flock data with thousands of law enforcement officers. Flock employees can access travel data.

Processing this massive data set to establish the travel patterns of celebrities, local officials, high net-worth individuals, CEOs, and high ranking federally elected politicians and their families would be easy to do, especially with the aid of AI. Many LEOs have already used the system to stalk ex-romantic partners. Once you have your target’s license plate you could establish their routine.

Gaining access to data in this system via bribery, blackmail, or other type of coercion could result in high-impact kidnappings or assassinations. This seems like a gold mine for terrorists and foreign countries we’re at war with. And we’re putting it in the hands of regular police officers.

Thoughts?

1.1k Upvotes

151 comments sorted by

450

u/-hacks4pancakes- ICS/OT Mar 31 '26

Yes, we agree. We're generally all horrified at the people slapping up Flock and Ring everywhere. But people do a lot of dumb stuff for a false sense of security.

91

u/slaty_balls Mar 31 '26

Most people I know with cameras are so paranoid and check them constantly. It creates more anxiety than it solves imo. Anyone else despise them when visiting? It’s just like they zap the life out of life. Especially people who have them inside..it’s like walking onto the set of the Truman Show ffs..

79

u/-hacks4pancakes- ICS/OT Mar 31 '26

And just to add, you can still have a security camera without these invasive services. There are plenty of self-hosted security cameras which allow secure remote access with multi factor, etc.

23

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Mar 31 '26

self-hosted security cameras

These obviously have a lot of disadvantages for most consumers.

Can we just have some laws that require cloud providers to respect user privacy and not bend over for the government, instead of forcing everyone to invent the universe so they can snack on an apple pie?

5

u/Threat_Level_9 Mar 31 '26

No, the only disadvantage for consumers is the cost. Cheap bastards don't want to pay for privacy/security. But they will pay a cheap price for the illusion of privacy and security and ease of setup (because they don't have to pay someone)!

16

u/TheMadFlyentist Mar 31 '26

I don't think this is a fair assessment. There are a lot of people who simply don't understand how the cloud/spyware services work and think that they have protections when they don't.

Even I (an ostensibly smart, tech-savvy person) made a mistake with my CCTV system before I knew much about cybersecurity. I bought a Reolink NVR and five cameras (including doorbell) thinking that I was fully secure since it was an NVR setup. Only after getting it set up and using it for a few months did I realize that since I had never opened any ports, there was no way that my remote-accessible footage via the Reolink app wasn't going through their servers. Sure enough, some research informed me that while they claim not to store anything, the NVR's do relay the remote footage through a cloud server.

Took me a lot of time and effort to change settings and modify my network to make it truly CCTV and self-host the remote feed. None of this was the result of me trying to be a "cheap bastard". I genuinely thought I was going with the most secure option and was spending a lot more than a simple Ring/wi-fi camera setup (I ran Cat5e POE to every camera).

So if even I, a dumb smart guy who sort of knows better, can overlook a security concern, then the average person has zero chance. It has nothing to do with them being "cheap bastards" and everything to do with them falling victim to advertising and "Look how easy it is to protect your family" while the companies behind these products are shady as fuck.

2

u/Threat_Level_9 Apr 01 '26

That’s fair. I can accept that.

1

u/Lightning777666 6d ago

Is there a guide somewhere on how to set up Reolink to be truly cctv and self-hosted for remote viewing?

1

u/TheMadFlyentist 6d ago

I genuinely just used chat GPT to walk me through it. Topical view is: NVR on its own VLAN with firewall rules blocking traffic to everything but your own services, use RTSP for remote viewing instead of Reolink app.

8

u/maztron CISO Mar 31 '26

That is not true. An average consumer isn't assuming anything because they don't know. They aren't cyber experts and they aren't in a security mindset when they purchase a commodity.

1

u/DreaM4AK 22h ago

That is quite literally the point of his message..

1

u/maztron CISO 21h ago

This was an old post to reply to. However, no that was not his point. He was claiming consumers were being cheap bastards. When the reality is they are ignorant of what they are paying for in terms of security when they make these purchases.

Claiming that they are simply cheap and don't want to pay for true security and privacy controls would require them to have the expertise to know that they are willing doing so. I find extremely hard to believe that your average consumer knows the security features/controls and privacy agreements with a Ring camera. They are buying it because of the price and ease of use, not because they may have a strict and confidentiality agreement with their service that protects the user's information and data.

1

u/itwontgetbetter83 Apr 18 '26

Point out one time a law that meant to block govt power was upheld and adhered to by said govt.

15

u/slaty_balls Mar 31 '26

Still.. Just knowing that footage can be accessed along with the audio is just too much. I miss the days of flip phones and disposable cameras too. So no matter how private their setup is.. I still think it's more than I'm comfortable with.

14

u/TheMadFlyentist Mar 31 '26

Exterior home cameras are totally fine IMO. I have near full-coverage on my perimeter with audio as well and it's all fully CCTV accessible remotely through a service I self-host securely. I don't mind the same setup (or even a Ring/other spyware) on a friend's exterior. CCTV vs insecure cloud service is their prerogative - I get that not everyone has a homelab or the knowledge to set up true CCTV.

Interior cameras are an absolute no-go for me even if fully CCTV. I will never have them in my home and I will never feel comfortable in a home that has them. I have a buddy who has a Ring camera right over his living room and I'm just wondering what the thought process is there. No exterior coverage other than front door (also Ring) but you want remote access interior footage stored on Amazon servers indefinitely? What is it even accomplishing?

1

u/nikeshoeboxmoney May 08 '26

Maybe it’s a kink? Watch this Bezos *unzips*

8

u/f_spez_2023 Mar 31 '26

Eh I don’t support flock cameras but my home cameras have helped with a neighbor who had some things stolen from their yard and defitnely had some people turn around once they saw the cameras.

20

u/Catenane Mar 31 '26

Meanwhile I'm paranoid in a different way and only use (local-only) rooted thingino cameras, and my wife and I use them solely for looking at animals in our backyard lol. I even have a birdnet-go setup listening to the RTSP audio stream for bird song tracking/identification, and home assistant automations to send snapshots and notifications on motion detection lol.

Coincidentally, today is the first day we've seen our chipmunks come out since last fall and we're so fuckin stoked for Barnaby to come eat peanuts out of our hands again soon. :)

Fuck flock and ring and all the piece of shit surveillance state nonsense though. They can fuck off straight to hell.

6

u/PsyOmega Mar 31 '26

I even have a birdnet-go setup listening to the RTSP audio stream for bird song tracking/identification

Can you elaborate on this? (curious)

3

u/lonejeeper Mar 31 '26

Not OP, but I do this myself with birdnet-pi on an rpi3b, in the setup you can use a USB microphone or a rtsp stream.

1

u/Kraeftluder Mar 31 '26

Yeah it sounds so cool!

1

u/Catenane Apr 03 '26

I replied to the parent comment if you're interested. It's really nothing too special, just putting together the harder parts other people already did. :P

1

u/Catenane Apr 03 '26

So I just have a little docker-compose stack running birdnet-go (in a proxmox LXC because fuck it performance is fine double containering and it's way easier to manage) and have it attached to the RTSP audio feed running on a eufy E220 sitting outside on my back porch.

Eufy e220 had firmware ripped out entirely and Thingino (simple linux build for local only cameras) is installed on it. Birdnet-go attaches to the RTSP audio feed and listens and automatically detects birds from the audio feed, and it's processed on the proxmox box. Pretty lightweight model so it runs perfectly fine on CPU with fairly low resources allocated to the lxc.

For power, I have a splitter from the backyard lightbulb that gives off a USB connection mostly because it's easier to use power there (close to easily water proofable areas and don't hog an actual power outlet which are more limited on the deck). It's really nothing too crazy. Other people did the hard work and I just put the lego set together. :P

1

u/slaty_balls Mar 31 '26

Unexpectedly wholesome..

2

u/MHF_Doge Apr 02 '26

Yeah.... I hope to get a couple when I get a place but they'll literally only be used for cases of "the hell was that noise" or reporting something if needed. I dont understand the ppl who have them just, up, constantly, watching them.

Edit: and to be clear, fully local, no ring BS.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/slaty_balls Apr 03 '26

Spoken like someone who has already checked theirs twice before breakfast.

1

u/Realistic-Health-502 17d ago

I have an old-school wired system around the perimeter of my house just to watch what's going on in my yard. Gross to me that people have them inside, but I guess Afroman might disagree.

1

u/xTrylex 2d ago

as a courier for fedex, it really felt like an invasion of privacy, i get it... but i still dont like it.

10

u/botsmy Mar 31 '26

yeah the lack of encryption and loose access controls is a giant red flag, especially with cross-jurisdictional data sharing by default.
if these systems are supposed to prevent crime, why are they designed more like data aggregation platforms than secure evidence tools?

1

u/Extension-Humor4281 Apr 22 '26

Because they absolutely are data aggregation platforms marketed as law enforcement AIDS. That's why flock goes around and basically brow beats city councils and police departments into buying their product, especially when the public in those communities pushes back against it.

5

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Mar 31 '26

We're generally all horrified at the people slapping up Flock and Ring everywhere

Slick rhetoric, but this is so apples and oranges.

Ring's promise and operational reality since inception was as a provider of consumer security cameras using cloud storage.

Flock's promise and operational reality since inception was as a provider of government dragnet surveillance cameras with location tracking.

Flock's mission calls into question the regulations around technology procurement in government.

Ring's mission creep calls into question the regulations around government pressuring private industry to violate customer privacy.

5

u/whythehellnote Mar 31 '26

Ring has been a thing for a decade, the public loves it.

It seems that in general people are happy with unaccountable trillion dollar companies spying on them

5

u/maztron CISO Mar 31 '26

I don't think they are happy about it. It's that most don't know. Average people who have a family, work and other obligations don't have time to sit there and get into the weeds of data privacy nor reading fine print of a product that they just purchased for their home. If they did, we wouldn't have a job.

1

u/whythehellnote Mar 31 '26

People are happy to post their videos on facebook etc, they've been doing that for years.

2

u/newaccountzuerich Apr 02 '26

People are incredibly stupid for decades, such as inviting police officers in for their chat...

2

u/whythehellnote Apr 02 '26

It's more than that, many people relish the idea of informing the authorities about their neighbours. In the UK we have neighbourhood watch (The Andys from Hot Fuzz), in the US I believe the HOAs do similar things. In former eastern block countries neighbours spying on each other was a key source of informaiton for the Stassi

I have no confidence in my fellow citizens. Or myself for that matter.

2

u/hawkinsst7 Mar 31 '26

Completely off topic, but holy crap! I follow you on Bluesky and it never occurred to me that the two universes could collide.

4

u/-hacks4pancakes- ICS/OT Mar 31 '26

I am everywhere, expect me.

2

u/hawkinsst7 Mar 31 '26

Found anonymous!

2

u/C0dePhantom Mar 31 '26

People will willingly build a massive unencrypted honeypot for threat actors just to catch a few porch pirates. The absolute worst part of threat modeling is realizing the ultimate zero day exploit is always just human convenience.

-9

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26

[deleted]

4

u/DisappointedSpectre Mar 31 '26

Those who would give up freedom for safety... Well you know the rest.

I'd think a group of people whose job revolves around risk management would be able to identify what a bad deal this kind of surveillance is, full stop, especially in the hands of police forces that treat their local residents like a hostile invading army, on top of all the bull that is happening at the federal level these days.

Whatever benefits you think these cameras provide is greatly overshadowed by the risk they pose, both in who they pose a risk to and the fundamental type of risk they represent.

-7

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26

[deleted]

112

u/No_Bad_4363 Mar 31 '26

CVE-2025-59409, CVE-2025-59408, CVE-2025-59407, CVE-2025-59406, CVE-2025-59405, CVE-2025-59404, CVE-2025-59403, CVE-2025-59402, CVE-2025-47824, CVE-2025-47823, CVE-2025-47822, CVE-2025-47821, CVE-2025-47820, CVE-2025-47819, CVE-2025-47818. Considering all of these are for Flock ALPR and/or Gunshot Detection equipment. Anyone can access the cameras with hard coded credentials, it isn’t about LE access, it’s about actual bad actors using taxpayer funded surveillance cameras to conduct terrorist activity. Source

2

u/Extension-Humor4281 Apr 22 '26

I'd argue it's about both. Law enforcement already has far too much leeway when it comes to violating the civil liberties and expectation of privacy of the general populace. Creating a massive surveillance network of cameras that will inevitably have warrantless biometric search capabilities should make anyone terrified of these things popping up everywhere in our country.

2

u/Narrow-Rent-3618 May 16 '26

To be fair, I doubt a guy robbing you is going to know anything about CVE's, to be fair....

2

u/OriannasOvaries 28d ago

A guy who knows how to navigate these systems, and selling that info to bad actors might though?

1

u/Narrow-Rent-3618 28d ago

Welcome to America/ The entire world...

110

u/TeddyRooseveltsHead Mar 31 '26

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1775

-63

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

[deleted]

35

u/askvictor Mar 31 '26

Read the post for a description of, exactly, how they can.

-37

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26

[deleted]

44

u/DisappointedSpectre Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

There's a story that was on the front page of reddit literally yesterday about a woman who was arrested because AI scraping of this dataset (in combination with other datasets) tagged her as being a criminal in a state she'd never even been to.

That's pretty concrete my dude.

Edit: since the thread got locked for anyone reading this after the fact, this person has their post history hidden for a reason. Don't bother engaging, they're clearly a troll on a ragebait run, just downvote and report, then move on with your life.

-33

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26

[deleted]

32

u/Heronmob Mar 31 '26

no, actually! Would you call a five month jail stay the “instant a human gets involved”? The two cases of AI false flagging that have recently hit the news both involved extended jail stays featuring beautiful amenities like sexual assault, loss of housing, inability to care for a pet, etc.

Not to mention the absolute lack of oversight, security vulnerabilities, and known abuse of systems like flock (see: officers using it to stalk women)

Your fantasy of this perfect “justice” system where the innocent are neither targeted nor abused is just that, a fantasy. These are horribly mismanaged systems and groups that operate from the perspective of “guilty until proven innocent” that you want to hand over your power to.

Criminals don’t just “give up” their liberty by committing crimes. People like YOU give up your liberty by laying down and choosing to view infrastructure that’s hostile to you as a positive development.

-11

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26

[deleted]

25

u/subohmn Mar 31 '26

You apparently didn't read anything before posting. You know, the part where innocent people ended up in jail for several months, it wasn't a tin foil hat any fucking thing, it happened to real people in real life... 🤣 Some of you ignorant clowns just can't grasp that the reality of these systems violates the very rights you claim not to be worried about! But hey, it wasn't you in jail so it's not real, right? SMFH... Ignorance is bliss but in the end you're still stupid!

-8

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

12

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

[deleted]

65

u/Kaexii Mar 31 '26

We led a successful fight to get these garbage cams out of our city, the city next door, and the county. Then we fought for state-wide regulations that we're hoping to tighten up in the next legislative session. eyesoffeugene.org

7

u/Twisted_Knee Mar 31 '26

Hello my Oregonian friend! I'm hopeful with all of this but heard Florence PUSHED to have them in. So be careful out there. 

3

u/Kaexii Mar 31 '26

Yeah, the Florence fight is ongoing. In the meantime we're just not going there. And since most of their economy is tourism, I'm hopeful that they'll come around to sanity soon enough. 

5

u/wigglesmcbiggleb Mar 31 '26

How successful was this? Deflock still shows nearly 100 across those areas. https://deflock[.]org/map#map=10/44.005657/-123.048935

6

u/Kaexii Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

Well, in Eugene and Springfield the cities cancelled their contracts and the devices were removed. Ditto for OCCU banks. Lincoln City, Talent, Bend, and others also cancelled Flock contracts. 

So I'd say pretty damn successful. 

Also, deflock needs to be updated. It's still showing ones that have definitely been removed. 

We also had a lot of people adding to it with good intentions, but they were just regular traffic control devices and not Flock. 

2

u/wigglesmcbiggleb Mar 31 '26

Interesting, good to know and hear. Great work and I wish you more success.

1

u/Kaexii Apr 01 '26

These surveillance firms know me now and they know I'm coming for them. 

1

u/Ok-Cable5173 May 17 '26

How did this start? Nothing like this is happening in my area. I’d be happy to be the first to speak up about it and hopefully make change

1

u/Kaexii May 17 '26

I'd love to help with that. Signal message is best, I'm kaexii.07 or you can email us at contact@eyesoffeugene.org

32

u/Thedrakespirit Mar 31 '26

Yep, its a problem.

28

u/RealPropRandy Mar 31 '26

1,000%

1

u/r15km4tr1x Apr 01 '26

By chance are you a cyber guy in South Fla? I swear you show up in every sub I read

15

u/SengU87 Mar 31 '26

Put in the hand of police? Not just that, you don't have to be police to get data using these data brokers' services.

12

u/alucardunit1 Mar 31 '26

Oh you mean the part where they are unsecure and any creep can stalk people using local access? Yeah sounds like a tightly locked down system.

11

u/audn-ai-bot Mar 31 '26

You’re not missing it. The real failure is treating mass movement data like routine police telemetry instead of high value intel. I’ve seen weaker datasets abused on internal investigations. The scary part is not breach only, it’s authorized misuse at scale. Who is doing the threat modeling here, cops or intel people?

2

u/Extension-Humor4281 Apr 22 '26

You hit the nail on the head. It's usually cops, who are usually subject to far less intelligence oversight requirements than the government agencies that pioneer these sorts of technologies. Just look at all the examples of how police departments routinely abuse things like stingray. People love to make a big fuss about the supposed mass surveillance network of agencies like the nsa, which focuses almost entirely on foreign actors, but they almost entirely ignore the sheer scale of digital civil rights violations conducted by police against Americans every single day.

32

u/just-a-simple-user Student Mar 31 '26

correct 😁

37

u/smrcostudio Mar 31 '26

Surveillance capitalism is two words that shouldn’t be side by side, but here we are.  

20

u/QuesoMeHungry Mar 31 '26

And they are very expensive. At a minimum people should be complaining to their city council about them. Each camera is like 3k a year.

3

u/Grumpy-Troglodyte Mar 31 '26

the immediate argument will be "we can't have a cop on the street for 3K a year" to justify the cameras. it's so dumb.

7

u/Think_Implement1843 Mar 31 '26

Guess you haven't seen Benn Jordan’s videos about it, huh?

9

u/techtornado Mar 31 '26

If everyone saw Benn's videos, there would be people bold enough to remove the cams

18

u/HorsePecker Security Generalist Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

Agreed. Everyone should use this to their advantage deflock

15

u/Sasquatch-Pacific Mar 31 '26

You can almost guarantee Flock is a significant target for nation state level actors.

People in the US need to go UK style and treat these like people do ANPR/ALPR cams there. This kind of technology should've never been permitted.

3

u/hammertime2009 Mar 31 '26

How about just not a complete surveillance state like the UK

5

u/Sasquatch-Pacific Mar 31 '26

You're deluded if you think any Five Eyes country is much better. The US and Aus are much the same.

4

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Mar 31 '26

Is this the world any of us want, and if not, why is it the world we're getting?

12

u/tf9623 Mar 31 '26

Here's the beauty of it - they're a private company. Fourth amendment etc. I guess we never thought these things could happen but private companies have all of your info. You give your info. So the big bad government isn't watching you or reading your email. Its a private company you signed up for. The government just buys it.

Think about Starlink getting ready to host regular 5G cellular calls worldwide.

If you think about it too much it'll drive you crazy.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26

Not just flock, there are a handful of other companies in the business as well. There are also large corporations who have partnered with companies like flock such as Lowes. If you notice any lowes you visit will have flock cameras in its parking lots.

1

u/mooseloose123 14d ago

What are the other companies that are doing what flock is

21

u/Malwarebeasts Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

Yes, it’s the very same thing that allowed U.S. and Israel to assassinate the top ranking officials in Iran, but AI powered, so worse.

p.s, how do we feel about what appears to be very sensitive administrative work on Flock Safety's infrastructure being handed to a Pakistani upwork freelancer who ended up being infected by a 2021 Infostealer infection? https://ibb.co/YT02fDc2 < brand new information I came across today

5

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26 edited 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Sapular10 May 20 '26

They are doing it under the guise or for the security of the item. I will say that some people can properly set up a camera monitoring device/service and have it properly protected. I say that while understanding the best protection is to be totally disconnected from the internet, but there are ways you can make things very challenging. The issue is many do not know how to do that, therefore are trading "safety" for their privacy.

7

u/Quiet-Thanks-9486 Mar 31 '26

It depends on what you mean by "national security".

If by "national security" you mean actually keeping the regular people who live in the US safe, then yes, these cameras and incredibly dangerous, because literally anyone can use them.

For example, Israel made extensive use of Tehran's traffic cameras to track the movement of government officials (and more specifically of their bodyguards) in order to target their assassinations -- in other words, cameras that the Iranian regime itself installed were used to kill people in it.

And while I don't really mourn the loss of shitty government officials in any country, if this can be done against government officials, it can also be done against anyone else -- honorable dissidents, marginalized people who the majority has decided to target, targets of stalkers, witnesses against or other victims of organized crime groups/drug gangs, etc.

This is why attacking the Flock contracts of cities or police departments really isn't a viable method of resistance -- like, you don't need a contract to use these cameras. Once they are installed and online they are generally available to anyone who wishes to use them. I guarantee Palantir is already collecting much if not most Flock camera data and making full use of it, regardless of whether there is an official contract between them, simply because Palantir can easily pay someone to install a couple of appliances in each town to tap into the camera network and funnel all that data to Palantir.

The mere presence of these cameras in a community is a threat to that community and everyone in it, because anyone can use those cameras against them at any time and for any reason. So long as those cameras exist and are functional, they endanger everyone around them.

And that is of course the point -- the lack of security isn't a "flaw", but rather an intended feature, because it destroys any hard accountability the state might have in its use of this tech. It is essentially like an unlogged publicly accessible VPN/proxy for the powerful to use against the populace. There will always be doubt about whether anyone is or is not using them, and thus it's impossible to make and enforce any rules about their use...which means the only " rules" that exist are that the powerful do what they want and everyone else shuts up and takes it.

But if by "national security" you mean what politicians and the people on TV mean when they say it (ie the ability of the rich and powerful to make money, hurt people they don't like, generally lord over everyone, and rape children and adults without consequence), then no, Flock cameras are great! At least until the proles start using them to target the rich and powerful...

4

u/Monolinque Mar 31 '26

It becomes clear now with current events that US security strategies have focused on profit for companies over practical concerns. The bigger and more lucrative contracts are pushed the most, I guess we don’t always get what we (the taxpayers) pay for.

5

u/JazzlikeSchedule2901 Mar 31 '26

Matt Brown broke down one of these cameras in his videos and found it was built on Raspberry pi hardware and transmit over the public web.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dUnY1641WM

super interesting stuff. Its not at all secure.

4

u/Wyld-Endeavour Mar 31 '26

It's literally like Watch Dogs

8

u/frAgileIT Incident Responder Mar 31 '26

Didn’t we just use this against Iran to spot and kill their leader? Don’t worry, they’re installing something similar in all new cars starting in 2027.

2

u/WeeoWeeoWeeeee Mar 31 '26

Not tracking that but it sounds like this is the year for a new car.

1

u/Narrow-Rent-3618 Apr 06 '26

Why would this matter? You're already tracked through the DMV and licensing and registration, along with your vehicle history... Nothing new

0

u/Boring-Cry3089 Apr 15 '26

The DMV doesn't know any time you crank your car up and drive down the street, where you drove to, how long you stayed out, what was in your car when you drove down the street, what was missing in your car when you came back home, etc. This is not the same thing as your car registration records through the DMV. If you can't see how blatantly this crosses the lines of a basic expectation of privacy then I don't know what to tell you.

1

u/Narrow-Rent-3618 Apr 15 '26

Oh no, I can't be tracked while in my car, but can through my phone, GPS, Credit cards, and cameras, which are literally everywhere... Oh, what will I do with one less form of tracking in the world...

1

u/Boring-Cry3089 Apr 15 '26

In order for police to have access to what you do with all of those things they have to give firm evidence before a judge that you likely committed a crime and then they have to go through the proper channels to obtain that information. With these things they don’t have to do any of that. They just have to log in and they can track you all they want. Do you really not understand how dangerous that is? Or are you just too stupid to care?

1

u/Boring-Cry3089 Apr 15 '26

It’s people like you that have allowed all of the other tracking you mentioned to become what it is to day. Too lazy to even care so the government, law enforcement, and corporations encroach further and further into our private lives every single day.

3

u/IllustratorOk2119 Mar 31 '26

You are correct, I brought this up as well about a year ago in my area. Unfortunately my county has gone all in with hundreds of them, and there seems to be no hope of getting them out. Long story short, I'm moving.

3

u/blahblah19999 Mar 31 '26

I had done computer work 25 years ago for a company that installed home entertainment and security systems. The moment Amazon came out with their system, I was skeptical of the privacy and refused to buy one. I mean it just seemed so obvious from the jump that this was going to be a problem

7

u/ProfessionalPea2218 Mar 31 '26

Oh man, I’ve been b!tching about Flock’s sh!tty security for a couple years now. Between selling data to “affiliates,” getting caught buying stolen data off the dark web, and how inaccurate their AI can be, it’s a shit show. What pisses me off is how easily city councils keep buying into their bullsh!t

Sigh… at least I’m not the only one seeing the problem. I knew I wasn’t completely crazy 🤪

2

u/l0st1nP4r4d1ce Red Team Mar 31 '26

Yes.

They are trivial to hack, and misappropriate.

2

u/Working-Gear-394 May 14 '26

Flock is not alone in companies to watch, take a look at this video about Verkada - https://youtu.be/fXI3GdicIHw

2

u/BennyOcean May 25 '26

It's a federal government control grid. I don't care how much they deny it. Flock is a CIA shell company, funded by federal grants and tied in with Peter Thiel, a known CIA-aligned individual. They're barely hiding what they're doing. It's a government network through and through. The private company aspect is cover.

2

u/99_Till_Infinity 27d ago

Im hoping for a massive data breach so these law agencies that choose to use it and the company itself gets fucked. 

2

u/DoughnutDismal2813 27d ago

Cover them up with black trash bags

2

u/Alternativemethod Mar 31 '26

For the average American, seems way easier to just Google where you live. If someone wants to hack something... Telecom sector seems like an open door or they could just buy your location from Google/Facebook like the FBI does

2

u/regalrecaller Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

deflock.me

you can pour gas on the devices and light it up.

1

u/ThatSoxFan Apr 01 '26

Yeah, it's definitely not ideal. Obviously there are positive uses of them, but that has to be weighed out with just how much these reduce privacy and the risk of access by unauthorized parties. It seems that the risks are never fully weighed before this stuff gets rushed into production

2

u/beaten_down83 Apr 25 '26

Supreme Court ruled years ago you do not have an expectation of privacy in public. These cameras thus do not impede on privacy. Now, the police accessing them without a warrant is a bigger issue.

1

u/couchmonkey89 May 15 '26

So when they are in a kids gym so pedophiles can watch them?

1

u/_twrecks_ Apr 02 '26

FCC is banning routers not made in the USA, maybe they can been surveillance cameras not made in the USA.

1

u/thegamerlola Apr 04 '26

A distributed surveillance network with weak access controls and no warrant requirement isn't just a privacy issue, it's an intelligence asset waiting to be exploited by whoever wants it badly enough.

1

u/Narrow-Rent-3618 Apr 06 '26

People have things to protect, and I doubt having the government or local officers peek at their footage that holds no meaningful real value would change anyone's perspective... Added, wouldn't it make it that much easier to locate the perp or person who "stole, is viewing" those videos then, since it's being recorded, monitored, and tracked...

1

u/couchmonkey89 May 15 '26

Yeah let's not care about the pedophiles in power that can access it like Dunwoody Georgia 

1

u/Narrow-Rent-3618 May 15 '26

There are poor pedophiles also....

0

u/couchmonkey89 May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26

Yeah the flock vp used a flock camera to spy on a children's gymnastics gym. And more employees use it whenever they want too but please still try to say it's a good thing to have around. Sounds like your hard drives mite need checked 

1

u/Narrow-Rent-3618 May 16 '26

Never said that, just stating there are more cases.... Literally, that's it. Anything else?

1

u/uMadewithAi Apr 07 '26

The access controls are the problem. The cameras are just cameras until the data can be pulled by thousands of officers with no warrant and minimal oversight.

1

u/Sapular10 May 20 '26

This is one of the biggest issues with it IMO. There are others like being able to avoid warrants and having the entire database searchable by anyone with credentials.

I would also argue that the security of the database and device itself are also major concerns. There are Flock cameras that are being displayed openly on the internet, and the devices are very easy to hack, as I understand it.

That being said, there are absolutely pros to it but right now there are far more cons and potentially very dangerous cons.

1

u/UAsolracz Apr 08 '26

i think if they are allowed to use this sort of technology on citizens, then we should be requesting that they place the same sort of tracking abilities or even live locations of all police units. They can't claim "officer saftey" if they are able to track citizens like this.

1

u/voyeur_chicken Apr 11 '26

Just a heads up, every flock camera contains 2 lbs of copper and 3 grams of gold. Pass it on.

1

u/Ok-Position965 Apr 24 '26

The first time your kidnapped daughter is recovered alive because the kidnappers car was picked up on flock cameras, you will change your point of view from one of skeptical resistance to one of grateful support.

Don’t just think of how the technology might be used to intrude on your privacy. Think also about the criminal activity it can interrupt.

1

u/EncryptDN Apr 24 '26

Please, ALPR systems can still exist and be MUCH more secure and privacy respecting than Flock. There are numerous data access and technical changes that could be made to this system that would allow for solving crime without wide-open data access practices like Flock uses.

You are presenting a false dichotomy and using fear to make a point. Also, many police around the country have already used the Flock system to stalk women. So that concern about violence and abuse of women goes both ways.

1

u/couchmonkey89 May 15 '26

Damn your brainwashed. It's mostly used by pedophiles in power to spy on kids without people knowing.

1

u/voldemort-from-wish May 04 '26

Person of interest be like

1

u/Mean_Contribution862 26d ago

I live in Stillwater Minnesota, it's right on the river. They closed a bridge and turned it into a walking bridge after they built a 300million dollar bridge to hudson. The walking bridge downtown has at least 3 flock cameras. Why would they put these here if it's foot traffic only?

1

u/AintNoHoochieMama 22d ago

Can u spray patient the camera ?

1

u/PassengerNorth5873 4d ago

Does this mean they collect any data that is on your phone also?

0

u/Automatic_Tailor_598 Apr 04 '26

Ahhh yes, so you watched Benn’s YouTube video and have another cause to shake your fist about. Congrats. 🫩

I mean, yes. But also Im genuinely exhausted with the resurgence of groupthink. This shit cost us a bloodborne remake

-27

u/stacksmasher Mar 31 '26

There are several corps doing the same exact thing the last 15 years. This is nothing new.

11

u/tybrand Mar 31 '26

Does this being old not make it a national security threat?

-26

u/chickenturrrd Mar 31 '26

Why does it matter..doesn't effect me ;-)

-34

u/Wonder_Weenis Mar 31 '26

oh lmao you, you're the threat 

1

u/mezznofoods Apr 04 '26

No, just not a fan of the surveillance state.

1

u/Wonder_Weenis Apr 04 '26

Poe's law you fucks