Legislation Killed Would Have Effectively Blocked Police LPR, Including Flock

5/28/2026 at 8:55:43 PM

It also would essentially have blocked all traffic enforcement cameras (red light, speed, bus lane, school bus passing, etc.) too.

by FateOfNations

5/29/2026 at 12:29:53 AM

Enforcement cameras seem like the least objectionable thing police do. They catch law breakers without the possibility of violent confrontations with law enforcement or bias. Why do people object to that of all things?

by rayiner

5/29/2026 at 12:48:25 AM

Fundamentally people don't like being held accountable for their "wrongdoing". My state banned automated traffic enforcement aside from very specific circumstances, but we're stuffed to the gills with Flock cameras.

by SauciestGNU

5/29/2026 at 5:25:25 PM

This is why democracy ultimately becomes corrupt. The voters are not willing to vote for things that might cause them short term suffering yet are good in the long term.

by someguydave

5/29/2026 at 3:52:15 AM

Because Flock data is used to prosecute the right kind of people. Automatic traffic enforcement doesn't allow any discretion, so elite folks lobby hard against it.

by MengerSponge

5/29/2026 at 5:17:25 AM

> Automatic traffic enforcement doesn't allow any discretion

Only if you place cameras uniformly. What you need to do to not rock the boat is exclusively place the cameras in "high crime areas", and you get a twofer: rich lawbreakers stay with off the radar, and you get a perpetual-motion machine for crime statistics.

by overfeed

5/29/2026 at 5:24:19 PM

You mean criminals?

by someguydave

5/29/2026 at 12:53:21 AM

For folks wanting to answer this question, please ask yourself:

Which laws?

Where were the cameras installed?

Are the fines disproportionate?

Are subpoenas necessary to access footage/data? If so/not, who's accessed it?

Are there ways to FOIA the data to answer these questions?

by chaps

5/29/2026 at 7:13:46 AM

I submitted a request for exactly that to my city clerk a few days ago. They confirmed receipt from the clerk and the local PD, but still waiting for anything substantial.

by ilinx

5/29/2026 at 7:19:45 AM

The viewpoint is because the cameras are intentionally set lower than is reasonable in order to generate revenue, err, catch speeders.

There's a contingent of people on one side of the spectrum that wants to ban all cars ever. At the other end of the spectrum is the contingent that wants to go fast. Those two groups will never agree.

by fragmede

5/29/2026 at 5:26:51 AM

I don't know what people's reason is, but I can hazard some guesses. First one is basic disagreement with the laws themselves. For example: do you actually always obey speed limits everywhere? Would you appreciate law enforcement if you got a ticket every time you exceeded the legal limit?

by dataflow

5/29/2026 at 1:21:50 PM

If they coupled strict speed limit enforcement with adjusting the legal limit to the speed at which people actually drive plus a tolerance buffer for speedometer variance, properly publicized the change with both road signs and advertising / media signs, and applied this change in a non-discriminatory way - then yes.

Certainly I wouldn’t support such strict enforcement with the current usual driver approach of aiming for a bit above the limit under good road and weather conditions, nor if applied disproportionately against less privileged people.

by jkaplowitz

5/29/2026 at 1:41:47 PM

> If they coupled strict speed limit enforcement with adjusting the legal limit to the speed at which people actually drive plus a tolerance buffer for speedometer variance, properly publicized the change with both road signs and advertising / media signs, and applied this change in a non-discriminatory way - then yes.

Go en we're talking about the real world that already exists here and not some alternate reality, how often do you find these "if" conditions to be actually satisfied?

by dataflow

5/30/2026 at 12:03:25 PM

Or if you run a red light in the middle of the night when you have clear view of the all the intersecting roads and there's not a another car for miles, is that a crime worthy of punishment?

by Eddy_Viscosity2

5/30/2026 at 3:34:39 AM

Because the majority of the time they are enforcing laws that don't need to be enforced, and the enforcement of which is only to pad the pockets of the police force.

> You misjudge your speed and end up going past right as the light turns red on an empty 4 way? Speeding ticket

> Go up to 85mph to pass someone using the fast lane because people are going 77 MPH? Speeding ticket

Etc. Etc. Etc.

by KetoManx64

5/29/2026 at 3:39:35 PM

You have a right to face your accuser before a jury of your peers. How do you do that when your accuser is a machine? Or a dog, for that matter.

by SoftTalker

5/29/2026 at 8:47:35 AM

[dead]

by GenericDev

5/28/2026 at 9:57:29 PM

"Harry, I already said I liked it. You don't need to sell it to me!"

by ryandrake

5/28/2026 at 6:42:07 PM

[flagged]

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 6:49:39 PM

The problem is right now LPR data is available to just about everyone who wants it for any reason as long as they are part of law enforcement. They are using it, for example, to crack down on dissent, to stalk ex lovers, and to enforce abortion restrictions that are constitutionally dubious.

If we are to maintain our liberty, the vast power such a surveillance apparatus should either not exist or only be accessible through an adversarial court system (i.e. a search warrant).

(1) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flo...

(2) https://local12.com/news/nation-world/police-chief-gets-caug...

(3) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas...

by torpfactory

5/28/2026 at 9:39:11 PM

No, it’s available to anyone. Most tow trucks and parking garages have them, and there are massive private networks.

by Spooky23

5/28/2026 at 9:36:50 PM

The problem is the people. The people have no goddamn principals.

Everyone wants "privacy" but nobody is willing to give up the government's ability to cheaply go after whatever class of petty deviant they personally hate to get it. So we get this stupid situation where the sum total of the political will is enough to keep these programs alive even if the cumulative result is indefensible.

The HN demographics are a prime example. They'll complain about data dragnets in the ICE thread and coo about how savvy the IRS or the EPA or whatever other agency they like are for using their own data haystack to comb for deviants. Now multiply by every other demographic and every other issue. That's why this stuff sticks around.

If people had some goddamn principals and said "this is wrong even if causes I care about are advanced by it" over time politicians would get elected in part by pandering to those people and at the margin some amount of shit would get done. But they don't, so it doesnn't.

by cucumber3732842

5/28/2026 at 10:05:19 PM

[dead]

by cindyllm

5/28/2026 at 6:55:24 PM

We need to tighten the legal guardrails around this data and punish cops who misuse it.

This would move society in a positive direction.

Making the data itself a Taboo, just to avoid jailing bad cops, does not.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 7:23:33 PM

I don't think any entity (including but not limited to the government) should be allowed to create or maintain data sets of people's near or real time location data. Think about all the ways this data can be misused.

We are truly creating the chains that will bind us by allowing these kinds of tools to exist. And for what? We managed for generations to do policing without LPRs. Are we so drowning in crime that we should create universal surveillance as a solution?

by torpfactory

5/28/2026 at 9:38:15 PM

> Are we so drowning in crime

Not only are we not drowning in it, virtually all crime is at historic lows. The world has never been safer, the problem is every bad thing now is reported on every major news feed and shot across every social media algorithm. People have paradoxically never been safer, and never been more terrified.

And none of this is helped at all by greaseball politicians who use fear of the Other to line their pockets and increase their power.

by ToucanLoucan

5/28/2026 at 7:53:19 PM

> and punish cops who misuse it

Cops, who commit domestic violence that rate at least twice that of the general public, misuse ALPR's to stalk women.

But I will accept an example of any punishment for any misuse as a sign that such punishment could actually happen.

by Zigurd

5/28/2026 at 7:23:11 PM

> punish cops

just say you're not being serious and save us the time.

by arvid-lind

5/28/2026 at 7:35:04 PM

This is such a silly perspective and it stands in the way of making things better.

Cops are not going away. And we're not going to hide from them through Cyber-Libertarianism.

We can either accept the status quo or, yes, push for more accountability from the agents of the state.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 8:04:09 PM

>And we're not going to hide from them through Cyber-Libertarianism.

Like we did for over 230 years? I'm not entirely sure why you choose to call that period before vast ALPR networks "cyber-libertarianism", I'm not a serious historian as perhaps you are but that's a label for the first few centuries of American history I haven't encountered before. But it sorta feels like we somehow made it through it and in fact did pretty well in much of it? Despite us simply forbidding cops from using certain tools or techniques. So what precisely do you think has changed such that if we don't enable an unaccountable panopticon, it'll mean things will be worse? And have you maybe considered that we should pursue your noble dream of "more accountability from agents of the state" first, and see success BEFORE we give them vast new powers? Like, how about the new powers after that works?

by xoa

5/28/2026 at 7:38:25 PM

Why not also require that cell companies share up to the second location data with authorities? It would be so much easier to catch criminals!

by torpfactory

5/28/2026 at 7:42:31 PM

[dead]

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 6:58:22 PM

[dead]

by cindyllm

5/28/2026 at 7:33:05 PM

Just to expand on my ideas above about how we might manage them:

(1) Entities creating these data sets should require licenses to do so. (2) Creation of real-time location data sets would itself be a criminal offense without a license. (3) Data would need to be encrypted and stored according to a set of best practices. Failure to do so would be a criminal offense. (4) Access to data would be available through a court, ideally with the judge literally controlling access to the cryptographic keys. (5) Accessing the data without permission would be a criminal offense. (6) You would probably need to add civil penalties not subject to sovereign immunity. Otherwise cops would just ignore the law about unauthorized access and then also fail to prosecute themselves.

Or you know we could just make them illegal altogether (including the ones the cell phone company creates for advertisers). Much simpler!

by torpfactory

5/28/2026 at 7:53:54 PM

The question though, surely can't be whether there's an expectation of privacy on public roads, but the total effect of knowing where people are at essentially all times through a combination of things like location data from phones, license plate readers, facial recognition etc.

Whether there is an expectation of privacy can't be what matters, what matters has to be whether the total effect allows a level of control that is dangerous or might have chilling effects on speech or on participation in things that are controversial.

by impossiblefork

5/28/2026 at 7:54:28 PM

A better compromise is to require a warrant from a judge

by lokar

5/28/2026 at 8:13:54 PM

Your terms are acceptable.

That's not what the killed legislation did, though.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 8:55:10 PM

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

by amanaplanacanal

5/28/2026 at 9:19:07 PM

warrants are handed out like candy already

by downrightmike

5/28/2026 at 10:01:45 PM

Not if the reason is "I want to stalk my ex".

by gleenn

5/28/2026 at 10:48:31 PM

Then write down a different reason? There are no consequences for being dishonest.

by mulmen

5/28/2026 at 8:23:31 PM

People always talk about "no expectation of privacy in public." Ok, so would you support total universal surveillance of 100% of public space? Or a drone that perches outside your house when you are inside, and then follows and surveils you everywhere you go when you leave?

by jollyllama

5/28/2026 at 6:49:27 PM

Idk. Collective small harms vs individual harms.

Along a similar line, speed limits should be reduced to 35mph maximum for non-emergency traffic, it would save thousands of pointless deaths every year.

But the small harm of time wasted in traffic is -worth- the. sacrifice of thousands of lives, as it turn out.

by K0balt

5/28/2026 at 6:56:31 PM

I am not harmed when I go through a toll plaza or an express lane.

Nor when I pass a flock camera.

You are boxing with phantoms, I think.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 7:01:36 PM

> Nor when I pass a flock camera.

You are not, or at least, you think you are not.

How far removed are we from the federal government revoking the passports of everyone who attended a No Kings rally, anywhere in the country?

by macintux

5/28/2026 at 7:25:18 PM

> How far removed are we from the federal government revoking the passports of everyone who attended a No Kings rally, anywhere in the country?

Many trans people have already had their passports revoked, for some there is no path to obtaining one again, and it is deeply unsettling to me.

by TimorousBestie

5/28/2026 at 7:11:17 PM

... And what do you think stops them from revoking the passports, today?

Do you think it is Courts and the looming Midterms; or are they just flummoxed by the lack of good surveillance data?

It's really a fantasy and a silly Taboo.

Our Democracy will live or die by politics, not silly rules on data collection at the margins.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 10:30:06 PM

Global entry privileges have been revoked for people present at legal protests based on facial recognition.

Not a fantasy and the taboo has already been broken.

While losing access to global entry without due process isn’t the same thing as revoking a passport, it’s awfully close.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-30/minnesota...

by dghlsakjg

5/28/2026 at 7:15:39 PM

We’ve never had a central data store that would make it practical to achieve such a feat. Now we have one that could answer questions like this, forever.

Mass surveillance at scale is not a trivial problem to solve, but Flock is both making it happen and making it clear that they are fine with enabling bad actors to take advantage of it.

by macintux

5/28/2026 at 7:24:16 PM

The FBI has been an IBM customer for a very long time.

Like maybe the "cheap cameras everywhere" part is novel + important, but "central data store" truly is not.

Slippery reasoning like this is how silly taboos get perpetuated.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 11:52:15 PM

While I don't love the FBI's history of data collection, there is a world of difference between warehousing data from government records, and building a graph of warehoused data from all possible sources and selling access to any small town police chief that can convince the city council to pay for it.

Plus, data in FBI custody is nominally subject to laws and oversight in a way that privately held data is not.

by dghlsakjg

5/28/2026 at 7:32:51 PM

[dead]

by anigbrowl

5/30/2026 at 2:56:49 AM

If you think democracy still has a chance in a nation as diverse and expansive as the united states, given that technology empowers despots and poisons democracies that are too big to be held by social bonds, then you are much more optimistic than I am.

At this point, the only way to preserve democracy would be to mostly dissolve the federal system, leaving states as democracies without the heavy hand and massive financial leverage from above.

States are closer to the right size for democracy to be resistant, but I think we’d need city-states of the metropolises, and big states like California would possibly need to subdivide.

by K0balt

5/30/2026 at 3:08:52 AM

Harms of this sort tend towards societal harms toxic to democracy like chilling effects and loss of social cohesion, but you definitely could end up being much more directly harmed by invasive antiprivacy technologies.

by K0balt

5/28/2026 at 7:39:26 PM

> I am not harmed when I go through a toll plaza or an express lane.

Yet. The jewish people had no problem that the government had detailed lists including the religion. It helped the Nazis killing many jews. Total surveillance will always be abused like every other invasive law.

First it’s against child abuse and terrorist, then organized crime, then crimes like theft, then littering and jaywalking, then swearing in public

by croes

5/28/2026 at 7:55:55 PM

Were the lists really the problem though?

Or was it the Genocidal Intent?

The first mass killings, on the Eastern Front, made no use of such sophistication and had no need of it.

It's always Politics.... Terrible ones in the case of WW2 Germany.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 8:08:08 PM

Yes, the lists where the problem because it is a lot easier to find your victims if you have a list of their addresses.

You‘ll never know when the next group with bad intent get access to surveillance data.

Every crime organization would be glad to have the opportunity to find witnesses in witness protection. Was a lot harder back then.

by croes

5/28/2026 at 8:57:12 PM

By that logic, why bother requiring search warrants? As long as government doesn't have bad intent, it should all be fine.

by amanaplanacanal

5/28/2026 at 11:56:13 PM

Yes, the lists were a huge problem.

In places where the germans had access to identity information survival rates among jews was much lower. The Danish government refused to provide data about Jewish citizens to the occupying germans, and simply didn't comply in general with anti Jewish efforts. 99% of Danish jews survived the war.

In the Netherlands, where there was initially a policy of compliance, the occupying germans got their hands on the lists of jews and only 25% of Dutch jews survived.

by dghlsakjg

5/28/2026 at 8:00:48 PM

> Just yesterday, flock helped police catch a dude

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

— Benjamin Franklin

by rectang

5/28/2026 at 8:02:01 PM

I don't regard complete anonymity on a public roadway to be an "Essential Liberty" and neither would the Founders.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 8:57:51 PM

You are trying waaaaaay too hard on this topic today. Your HN account is already bombed out and likely rate limited. Go take a break from posting and go outside. Maybe wave to a flock camera. After all, you have nothing to hide.

by MisterTea

5/28/2026 at 9:12:25 PM

Is a dozen replies on a forum really so much?

And yes, I will wave to the SF speed cameras I pass today.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 7:28:37 PM

How about GPS tracking for every step outside your house.

Would also help prevent and solve crimes. No privacy on public roads.

There is also something like proportionality.

by croes

5/28/2026 at 8:18:06 PM

How about we eliminate Police entirely, since they will inevitably misuse any power we give them?

Of course we have to strike a balance. We just disagree on where "cameras on a public road" fall on the scale.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 8:48:47 PM

How about implementing proper limitations first for the abused powers they already have?

If someone proved he can’t handle a car you wouldn’t give him a truck, would you?

by croes

5/28/2026 at 9:18:13 PM

Fair point. I'll never argue against greater police accountability.

This would indeed be the best outcome. A framework of accountability we all trust and modern tools to do their job.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 6:50:22 PM

Wrong metric-- the person caught would have almost certainly been caught absent it, making it easy to overstate the benefit.

When someone with access-- potentially LEO but the access set is much larger-- uses the data to stalk and harass someone you'll usually never know that the ALPR camera was the data source.

So its easy to overstate the contribution and understate the harm.

But if you talk a step back you can see the dramatic change being made to our world: making it impossible to go about your life without being constantly tracked, cataloged, and having your history made available to who knows who, for who knows what purpose, for who knows how long (but probably forever).

by nullc

5/28/2026 at 7:52:55 PM

You're making a strong statement about the counterfactual here; how could you know? Clearance rates for most crimes in the US are abysmal, the expected outcome for most crimes is "unsolved."

by bklosky

5/28/2026 at 6:59:09 PM

Why would they "almost certainly" have been caught otherwise?

This is a load bearing component of your argument and it seems thin.

From my perspective, you are synthesizing a harm while ignoring the clear and concrete contribution.

by Lonestar1440

5/28/2026 at 7:20:00 PM

Synthesize no longer: https://ij.org/police-have-reportedly-used-license-plate-rea...

by lelandfe

5/28/2026 at 11:47:28 PM

Your argument cuts the other way too: the article doesn't say anything about the crime being unsolvable but for AI cameras that are part of a private nationwide surveillance network.

In fact, the only mention is via the police PR department, which presumably has an interest in making these cameras palatable to the public. There's nothing to say that a regular CCTV camera couldn't have been just as effective, or that normal police work wouldn't have gotten the job done ("We found him by his license plate" isn't exactly cutting edge applications of an AI panopticon, nor does it require cameras at all.)

by dghlsakjg

5/28/2026 at 7:40:07 PM

You don't have an expectation of privacy. I do. I don't want to go outside and have my every move recorded. There is something deeply disgusting about that notion.

by AlienRobot

5/28/2026 at 9:16:12 PM

When a set of banal traffic observation cameras turn into surveillance of a particular individual, then you’re being unreasonably searched/tracked/stalked. This should require a probable cause and proper warrant "we want to identify this individuals movements because …"

This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

by garyfirestorm