People disagree about this technology. I live in what I believe to be one of the 5 most progressive municipalities in the United States† and I can tell you from recent experience that our community is sharply divided on it.
† (we're a small inner-ring suburb of Chicago; I'm "cheating" in that Chicago as a whole is not one of the most progressive cities in the country, but our 50k person muni is up there with Berkeley and represented by the oldest DSA member in Congress)
That is not the same thing as me saying I think the cameras were a good tradeoff.
I don't doubt that license plate readers are used primarily to solve crimes. But the fact that it is collected and can be made available to anyone essentially strips you of privacy in everyday life. Cops are people too; once the tech is available, it is sometimes abused to spy on spouses, neighbors, journalists critical of the local PD, and so on.
There is also a more general argument: an ever-growing range of human activities is surveilled to root out crime, and we can probably agree that the end state of that would be dystopian: it'd be a place where your every word or even every thought is proactively monitored and flagged for wrongthink. We're ways off, but with every decade, we're getting closer. I'm not saying that Flock-listening-to-conversations is the line we can't cross, but if not this, then what?
It's an invasive surveillance technology that contributes to building the pervasive surveillance day to day reality.
You're muddying the waters asking "why are you against this" without even hinting at an argument why anyone should not be against this.
You can already see the progression. What was sold as "only listens to gunshots" now no longer listens only to gunshots. The deal constantly gets altered.
Whatever else I am, I'm not "muddying the waters". I'm commenting in good faith from actual experience. You're going to find my bona fides here are pretty strong.
I served on a jury where a young woman slipped on ice while crossing the street and was run over by a negligent driver who was fleeing what he thought was the police, because he was on probation and not supposed to drive. With private surveillance, red light cameras and some other sources, they were able to track down the vehicle and apprehend the individual within 45 minutes of the event. Prior to that, much more primitive version of that technology being available, there would no chance of that case being solved.
Personally, I think this technology is dangerous, lacks effective governance, is operated without transparency, and is prone to abuse. Events of late highlight how different jurisdictional boundaries at the city, state and federal levels can be in conflict. But the technology is not going away -- imo it's time to govern it and limit the inter-jurisdictional data sharing.
Still, I'm torn whenever I walk to the city center (Bavarian big city that is not Munich) and see how many rental bikes and rental e-scooters can be found thrown into the river that runs through the city. Or public trash cans that were actually put deep into the earth, with concrete too, lie broken with lots of earth and the long metal pipe with concrete attached because some people spent considerable effort to destroy public infrastructure. Or somebody must have jumped hard and repeatably on a weak point of a public bench, which has very thick wood and thick steel screws, but they still managed to destroy it.
I want those people to be found, I'm very angry. This is a frequent occurrence. If that means more surveillance, I would not oppose. I'm tired of seeing this happen again and again and again.
The city had to start using trashcans that look more and more like little war bunkers. They can't do anything for the bikes and scooters though, making them too heavy to lift and throw into the water is obviously not possible. Police do patrol, but they can't be everywhere all the time.
For illustration: Two bikes of a public bike rental service found in the river. They are not old, all of them are new, but this is how they look after a few days or weeks in the river:
https://img.mittelbayerische.de/ezplatform/images/4/4/8/8/40...
Divers are called regularly to retrieve bikes, scooters, and other big items thrown into the city's river: https://images.nordbayern.de/image/contentid/policy:1.132184...
ALPRs are not an obvious red line. Federal police ignoring court orders with microphones on street corners is.
Again I want to be clear that there's a difference between "bad idea" or "bad public policy tradeoff" and "red line". I believe it's pretty clear that when something is a live controversy with no clear winner in a municipality like Oak Park, whatever else it is, it isn't a "red line".
I doubt any more effort will be made against vandalism for a long time that reaquires to increase surveillance. The cameras and microphones will remain, though.
Edit: I live in a dictatorship. State surveillance and policing has helped with vandalism. But the drawbacks are obvious and nefarious. I would take more vandalism in a mediocre democracy any day.
Obviously I pointed to a conflict (of my interests), that's why I said I'm torn. If I want the second (less vandalism) I'll have to give up at least some of the first (freedom from surveillance while in public places).
And Catholic priests preach. Some things aren't mutually exclusive and a lot of people are capable of holding conflicting ideas in their head.
> I'm commenting in good faith from actual experience.
All good but you didn't say anything. You muddy the water by saying repeatedly how progressive and experienced you are without providing the obvious reasoning that multiple commenters here are missing: why not be against it? This industry in general (and Flock in particular as per the article) have already been shown to continuously escalate things and change the deal to their benefit again and again. Any step they take forward always proved to be an irrecoverable step backward for civil liberties.
You cracked open the door and are looking at someone on the other side opening it wider and wider, and bringing their friends in, and still believe you can close that door whenever you want. Any history book will tell you that's hubris, not qualifications.
What are your bona fides on turkeys voting for Christmas? If you can put together an argument why this isn't a red line given this evidence of escalation, I'll tell you all about my bona fides.
The way out is to turn on the rich and produce a more economically equal society.
this administration is already making proclamations that are not laws (Executive Orders and National Security Directives), which clearly violate 1st Amendment rights to free speech, and yet are being interpreted by states to go after specific groups (may i introduce you to Texas and Florida).
police already exist as an uncontrollable force within most cities who apply the law as they see fit.
do you think a combination of those two things isn't going to result in a tool like this being abused?
if you do think it will be abused and that isn't a red line, that says something about you.
if you don't think it will be abused despite the evidence that police abuse surveillance and the current administration has no respect for due process and that isn't a red line, that also says something about you.
circling back, i hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of the technology you want others to be on the receiving end of.
I’m not even sure why but this sentiment rubs me the wrong way.
Perhaps it’s that what’s resonated most to me about democracy is the premise that it is all “for the people, of the people, by the people.”
There’s something exclusive about that statement.
More cameras doesn't fix this kind of crime.
I'm about 98% certain understands why people are against this; other comments make this more clear, but even sentence right before the one you quoted to suggests this fact ("I understand people not being comfortable with Flock.").
By "I do not understand this idea that it's an obvious red line" he seems to mean that, even if you ignore all authoritarians, there are plenty of smart people who believe the benefits (particularly when well regulated) outweigh the risks.
There are plenty of things that are wrong that are not "an obvious red line," so merely thinking that Flock is bad is not enough to make it "an obvious red line."
His argument for why people should not be against seems to be twofold:
1. If it could be made to work in such a way that isn't invasive, it could be a boon, particularly to the most disadvantaged[0].
2. If all of the places that regulate it well kick it out, then they lose political capital that could constructively be used to encourage their neighbors to also regulate it[1].
0: >>45475617
1: >>45475478
They will happily look the other way when agencies share data that Flock knows they're not meant to be sharing.
They will happily "massage" data when needed to shore up a case (particularly with their gunshot detection).
Their transparency report probably lists only about 2/3 (at most) of the agencies that are actually using the system.
I asked lots of questions about ethics and morality in the recruitment process, got in, and rapidly learned that it was openly mask-off, surveillance state, Minority Report-esque mission.
After repeated requests also from others you're still just waltzing around this, pretending you're not answering because you didn't get the question worded the right way.
If you think that's what good faith looks like I've got news for you.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean surveillance ... or, at least, not automated surveillance.
Your wishes (which I share) can be fulfilled with human bodies (possibly police) on the street deterring these bad actions.
Shouldn't it be the opposite? A thing is tested when it's put under stress. It's a red line because it's not to be crossed even when the temptation to do it increases.
We have a technology that keeps evolving to encompass more and more "protections" for the people, that happen to come with more and more control for authorities. Every step in that direction is a red flag. The red flag is the direction in which things are moving. Don't we have enough chapters in the history books about why that is?
My snarky retorts:
1. "and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle"
2. "Let the bad actors do harm but keep an eye on them so others might do the same instead of prevent them from doing harm" is a wild approach to anything that has to ignore so many things it feels like intentional gaslighting. Even at face value it's absurd; why would only zero and partial regulation encourage similar behavior amongst neighbors but not full restriction? Imagine this suggestion for things we currently call crimes like rape and manslaughter and child abuse!
I'm in my "calling it like I see it era" and I'm calling this one. Shills gonna shill.
The practical effect is most of them have national sharing turned on.
For me, the red line was Texas extrajudicially enforcing its abortion laws through Flock. It’s illegal. It’s invasive.
Perhaps others have asked that question. I have not. Rather, I'm asking a different question:
Why should we believe that Flock is operating in good faith?
Especially given the anti-democratic (small 'd') and likely illegal stuff they pulled in Evanston[0].
That's not a rhetorical question.
[0] >>45382434
If you don’t respond to this comment, I’ll assume you agree.
Which was an annoying lift, because Chicago is part of a tri-state area (Wisconsin and Indiana); there are de-facto suburbs of Chicago in other states, and we had to say "no sharing without a phone call authorizing it".
I really don't think the "rhetorical" thing is going to work with me. I have the impression I might be the one person on this thread who has actually done any policy with with ALPRs.
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun...
My birth, as someone who is bi, is now declared to be tantamount to terrorism in the USA. My belief that race shouldn't matter, is now extremism.
The red line, is systems like this, enable those who would happily hunt me down and gut me like a fish. There are preachers in the government, who frequently say that I am not a person. The government is attempting to move to an extrajudicial procedure where it concerns people the government oppose.
We shouldn't gladly be making it easier for a better Dehomag to be put together - that is the red line.
I still remember my last years in school. Around the turn of the millennium, when the country had an economic down turn. The school building was a bunch of containers. Freezing in the winter, sweating in the sommer. Society saw nothing but a burden in us. The teachers constantly said "no one is waiting for you out there!"
Nothing has changed since then. There is no respect for child care. There is no respect for school children. (Walk into a school and try not to drip over "temporary" support beams.) There will be no "Sondervermögen" for Schools.
You can't fix a social problem - that some recent the society they have to live in and lash out via doing dumb thinks - via technology.
Would whistleblower protections shield you? Or have you taken this to any reputable journalists?
And discussions of ALPRs and the issues around them are absolutely important.
My point was that the City of Evanston required their contractor (Flock) to remove their equipment from city infrastructure. Flock did so and then promptly reinstalled that equipment on city-owned infrastructure, flouting the will of the legitimate civil authority -- because they wanted to get paid by another government agency, against the express orders of said civil authority.
I don't know where you come from, but that sort of behavior just reeks of bad faith to me.
Feel free to disagree. And if you do, given your significant policy experience why Flock acted in good faith in Evanston. I'd be quite interested in your thoughts.
>I really don't think the "rhetorical" thing is going to work with me.
Huh? a rhetorical question[0] is (often) one that isn't actually trying to elicit information. My question, on the other hand, was specifically attempting to ascertain whether or not you think Flock is acting in good faith given their history.
So no, I wasn't trying to "gotcha" you (as in "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of thing), I genuinely wanted your take. But that doesn't seem to be forthcoming, so I'll back off. Have a good day.
I hope it's worth it.
I see your point that something cannot be a red line if it has significant support. Because a red line is something that people universally agree is unacceptable, and if there is even a significant minority who disagree then it's not universal.
Equally, for any horrible thing you will find a minority who support it. Hitler certainl had wide support for deporting Jews, if not worse. Does that mean it can't be a red line? In fact there is no point having red lines that are universally accepted, because they are already, well, universally accepted. There is little point stating that killing babies and eating their flesh whil livestreaming is a red line because no one wants to do it.
I don't have a view on Flock itself.
combine that with a federal government that increasingly says police can do whatever they want and the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments don't apply equally anymore.
so, no, i don't think police should have access to incredible levels of surveillance or military-grade hardware.
No? Just those who are decisionally relevant. Most people are incapable of civic action, for example.
Absolutely solid line, and about sums it up. Batting for practices or technologies like this is publicizing your myopia and lack of imagination for seeing it being used against you or your friends/family/property in due time.
And I wouldn't say that's a widely held definition. For example:
> The red line, or "to cross the red line", is a phrase used worldwide to mean a figurative point of no return or line in the sand, or "the fastest, farthest, or highest point or degree considered safe." [0]
If adopting these practices means they stick around and people will always argue for bringing them back if we stop... We've crossed the point of no return.
> a lot of normal, reasonable people see these cameras as a very good thing
That sums up tptacek's "argumentation". It can be used to justify just about any type of surveillance. I mean does breaking E2EE and monitoring every communication really do any meaningful harm in Oak Park?
It really brings into focus how people who were raised in "good times" just can't wrap their heads around how easily the cookie can crumble into "bad times", and how people who found moderate success in their field believe they can now control everything. The kind of hubris that overrides any history lesson, or boiling frog fable.
And don't even get me started on what self-proclaimed "reasonable people" believe about other topics.
Contrast with the counter-arguments of what lies behind the curtain, here: >>45476100
It was a good way to bring someone down a couple of (dozen) notches in my eyes. Not that it matters, this won't do any meaningful harm in Oak Park.
> 2. If all of the places that regulate it well kick it out, then they lose political capital that could constructively be used to encourage their neighbors to also regulate it[1].
I keep seeing that kind of thinking permeating tech. It is used often to hand-wave away any objections on the thesis that “well, we just have to get it right.”
Dr. Ian Malcolm is instructive here: “you were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you never thought whether or not you should.” (Paraphrased from memory.)
