360

Flock Safety’s car-tracking cameras have been spreading across the United States like an invasive species, preying on public safety fears and gobbling up massive amounts of sensitive driver data. The technology not only tracks vehicles by their license plates, but also creates “fingerprints” of each vehicle, including the make, model, color and other distinguishing features.

Through crowdsourcing and open-source research, DeFlock.me aims to “shine a light on the widespread use of ALPR technology, raise awareness about the threats it poses to personal privacy and civil liberties, and empower the public to take action.” While EFF’s Atlas of Surveillance project has identified more than 1,700 agencies using ALPRs, DeFlock has mapped out more than 16,000 individual camera locations, more than a third of which are Flock Safety devices.

Flock Safety’s cease and desist later is just the latest in a long list of groups turning to bogus intellectual property claims to silence their critics.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 77 points 2 months ago

Uh if the cameras are in public, they have no expectation of privacy, right?

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 66 points 2 months ago

Yeah but it's a corporation. They get more rights than us humans.

[-] em2@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 months ago

There is a question on the constitutionality of automated surveillance technology, the type of data that is being collected, who has access to them, and how they are using it. Additionally, some other concerns I can think of off the top of my head are:

  • Are the taxpayers funding this?
  • Is my data being sold?
  • If so, who is profiting?
  • Where is supporting data showing this type of surveillance is needed?
  • What demographical areas are these cameras more prevalent in? Aka are there a subset of peoples being targeted by this type of surveillance?
  • What are the rules and regulations agencies need to follow with the data they capture with this tool?
[-] privatizetwiddle@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 2 months ago

We appreciate your well thought out and constructive comment, but the one you were replying to was about the cameras themselves not having any expectation of privacy, a reversal of the common excuse from the camera owners that your comment addresses.

[-] em2@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago

Oh, definitely not what I thought or intended. Thanks for the heads up and kind reply. For clarity, I believe those cameras shouldn't be installed or used, especially under this administration.

[-] warbond@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago

Aggregating location data is very different from having a picture taken in public, wouldn't you agree?

[-] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago

If it was a person maybe. But these are objects. Objects have no expectation of privacy.

[-] warbond@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

My bad, I thought the original comment was about tracking cars, not the cameras.

[-] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago
[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

You may have misunderstood my comment. I was joking about Flock being mad at their cameras being tracked, by using one of the arguments for public surveillance.

[-] warbond@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Ah, gotcha, I thought it was a sincere argument about tracking people's vehicles.

this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
360 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

37712 readers
1826 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS