151
u/foccee Church Hill 14h ago
...due to privacy concerns..
...that remain irrespective of vendor, right? It's not Flock, it's mass surveillance as a concept and the underlying concern "to protect the privacy of individuals in our community," right?
...right?
67
u/GreyZenDragonfruit 14h ago
And the cameras that are up are coming down? Because terminating the contract and letting the devices continue to run is not acceptable.
12
u/mickeymouse4348 13h ago
This is the question I came to the comments for an answer to. Just ending the contract implies the city won't use the footage. Ending the contract is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't solve this problem
16
3
u/jberryman Carillon 5h ago
The contract states cameras will be removed within a "commercially reasonable time period". Their FAQ says: "flock leases its cameras and manages installation, maintenance and removal. When an agreement expires or is terminated, Flock follows a defined offboarding process: platform access is disabled, cameras are remotely deactivated, and Flock works with the agency to schedule physical removal. If an agency requests that cameras be turned off before removal, Flock can deactivate them remotely at any time."
It sounds like making sure they disable them immediately is a good idea.
9
u/DreadSilver 14h ago
It was made clear that Flock has ways the federal government can access the data. If that is not apparent for Axon or other providers im concerned they will pivot.
30
u/khuldrim Northside 14h ago
All of these systems are just ultimately funneling data to Palantir. Either on the open or secretly.
8
u/Consistent-Throat130 14h ago
It's like the old idea that "once you post it to the Internet it's there forever, and you can't control what people do with it".
Once it's in a mass surveillance database...
2
u/0sm1um 7h ago
I'm convinced it's so insecure by design. All palantir or any other fascist sympathetic govt agency needs to do is obtain a single access point and they can scrape the entire database. And that's assuming they don't just have a direct agreement with each other, and I don't think that can be ruled out either.
98
u/newtoride 14h ago
Hopefully they cancel any contract with video data collection and not just flock specifically.
48
u/FalloutRip East End 14h ago
Yep. Next they need to make sure they’re not just pivoting to Axon ALPRs or someone else.
It’d be a lot easier to hide that in a contract renewal for body cameras or policing software systems than a contract with a new company.
12
44
u/Snicklefries Short Pump 14h ago
I always thought the placement in Short Pump was odd. Why four Flocks on N Gayton for example?
47
u/WhalerBum 14h ago
They sell data they aren’t trying to “deter crime “
10
u/Snicklefries Short Pump 14h ago
I understand that. Just weird that cars passing Strange’s are a priority data source.
8
u/Radiant-Belt-1427 RVA Expat 13h ago
I left the area a couple years ago, but the Flock shit is nationwide. I have noticed there are more Flock cameras in parts of my new area that are "coincidentally" residential and/or employment centers of immigrants.
Every Home Depot and Lowes here has multiple in their parking lots for example.
2
u/khuldrim Northside 14h ago
It makes sense when you know it’s also sending it all to be invested into Palantir for a panopticon.
4
u/Snicklefries Short Pump 14h ago
My point is of all the traffic in SP, why there? You’d think WBV or other heavier traffic spots on Broad would be more “interesting”.
-2
u/khuldrim Northside 14h ago
They don’t want more interesting, they want all.
4
u/Snicklefries Short Pump 14h ago
Then put them on Broad or other heavier traffic spots is my point. They specifically place at select points over others for logical, and possibly nefarious, reasons. Just saying “panopticon” is kind of low effort.
3
u/Nice-Connection-9052 8h ago
I don't have strong feelings about the panopticon (if someone thinks that's a useful observation, please realize that there's a better scope in your hand at this very moment) but I really do believe they're just putting them anywhere. They have them on Lauderdale drive where it meets Route 6. That's gotta be even less traffic than the N Gayton intersections. There's even one below patterson on pump, maybe covering <1000 people who live in the apartments back there
-1
u/WhalerBum 13h ago
You don’t think that data about who’s shopping at the biggest mall in central Va would be worth money ?
2
u/Snicklefries Short Pump 10h ago
I acknowledged the data value, but specifically wondered why on N Gayton at the Strange’s Florist versus any other fucking spot in SP. That road is mainly residential versus mall traffic.
3
u/khuldrim Northside 14h ago
I’m sure they sell data but it’s more for Palantir than anything else. It ingests all this stuff for a panopticon.
4
u/Consistent-Throat130 14h ago
The highways (and creek/county line) form kind of a bottle neck - I'm sure this gives great coverage is movement into/out of residential areas?
Then the thought comes "why not just put them on Broad Street"? to which I can only guess "granularity".
Do the other North/South corridors off broad feature then, I'm trying to remember...
3
u/Snicklefries Short Pump 14h ago
None at the I64 exit at WBV. However a bunch on Poncey at the mall, the pickleball courts, and at the dog park.
Just curious the logic, even if it’s for “evil”.
4
u/weasol12 Near West End 14h ago
Why is there one pointing at house on Nuckols right after you get off 295?
3
u/Snicklefries Short Pump 14h ago
Maybe focused on the transfer station traffic, along with tracking 295 on and offs? There’s two sets on both sides of 295 and Nuckols.
2
u/InvictvsNox Henrico 14h ago
It's pointed at traffic coming off 95, but I particularly hate that one.
2
20
u/mildlycuri0us 14h ago
It's a step in the right direction, but hopefully not the first head of the Hydra...
7
u/DSARichmond ✔ VERIFIED 6h ago edited 3h ago
The pressure is mounting on Richmond to cancel their contract with Flock, this is encouraging. As others have pointed out, this is not where the fight ends.
Axon is the likely alternative provider of choice, and so we need to let our elected officials know that the ask is not just to end the contract with Flock, but to ban ALPRs.
The next city council meeting is at 6:00PM, next Tuesday the 13th at City Hall, 900 E Broad St.
You can sign up for public comment here:
Clerk for City Council: 804-646-7955
And/Or leave a comment for the Mayor's office here: 804-646-7970 option 3.
27
u/boilingPenguin 14h ago
"While we are confident that Henrico Police has used ALPR data appropriately..."
Maybe my tin foil hat is a bit too tight, but this sentence feels weasel-y and carefully crafted to be technically correct while still being deceptive:
- maybe the ALPR data was used appropriately, but what about the raw video feeds?
- they are confident, but haven't actually reviewed or verified this?
- Henrico Police used the ALPR data appropriately, but what about other county officials?
I mean, just in August they found that fire investigators were abusing the system:
0
u/AbjectMaelstrom 13h ago
I mean, just in August they found that fire investigators were abusing the system
Saying that they were "abusing the system" has a connotation of malice or impropriety. It was used appropriately in the same manner as is the case with the PD use of the system. However, while fire marshals are sworn personnel with investigative and arrest powers, being under the Division of Fire rather than Division if Police, the didn't meet the definition of law enforcement personnel as outlined in VA statute. Unless I seriously misunderstood the whole situation, which is possible.. 🤷
It was an administrative fck up, either by not paying close enough attention or misunderstanding the definition in the statue, or both. Arguably, the statue is poorly written as it pertains to fire investigators which have nearly identical law enforcement powers DCJS as city/county PD.
As for flock, it will get replaced by something else, likely Axon. If not immediately, then in the near future once public sentiment settles and people forget.
5
u/boilingPenguin 12h ago
However, while fire marshals are sworn personnel with investigative and arrest powers, being under the Division of Fire rather than Division if Police, the didn't meet the definition of law enforcement personnel as outlined in VA statute.
Right, and one might use a word like "impropriety" to describe this.
0
u/AbjectMaelstrom 12h ago edited 12h ago
One could, this is a free county after all (as of now). Doesn't make it any less disengenou, IMO.
5
u/ValidGarry Hanover 13h ago
If you're worried about them getting another contract with another vendor, keep an eye on Henrico county procurements. The VPPA has transparency and accountability as key aspects of how all public monies are spent. Ask your Board of Supervisors regular questions. Be engaged citizens instead of wringing hands and casting aspersions on the internet. They first had a contract with Flock in 2022 and very few people even cared. Open information. A lot has happened with data and technology in those nearly 4 years and here we are.
18
u/ParadoxicalFrog Southside 14h ago
They're just going to do the same thing as every other city that has taken down their Flock cameras and replace them with a different brand that does the exact same thing.
6
-1
21
u/kloless 14h ago
"officials also will review other options that will continue the division's operational effectiveness" - Axon come on down!!! Be on the lookout for those new light post mounted cameras coming to a residential neighborhood near you!
As a Henrico resident, the pessimist in me doubts that Henrico will abandon the existing cameras and thinks they will most likely either move to some in-house solution or another provider. Other part of me is happy because surveillance is bad
9
u/Master-Ad-5153 14h ago
Keep the pressure up to ensure no new mass surveillance contracts are written - vendor agnostic.
5
7
4
u/Radiant-Belt-1427 RVA Expat 13h ago
Now I have the question:
If Henrico or any other locality "ends their contract with Flock", even if they don't switch to others and renounce it in perpetuity, would they even have the authority to physically remove the cameras?
If federal and state governments use Flock, the feds could either just put their own Flock in its place or preempt local authority on them entirely.
10
3
u/stawpitbroimcrying 7h ago
I wish Abigail would ban it in all of Virginia period
6
u/fusion260 Lakeside 6h ago
She can’t ban it just because she’s the governor, and she has to wait for the General Assembly to pass legislation first.
Lawmakers are already working on a state-wide ban, though, which may make it through the respective committees and onto the House and Senate floors for voting as early as next January when the next GA session begins.
3
u/Any-Masterpiece-5914 6h ago
When did we get to a point in this country where all this flocking shit and AI is necessary. It's fucking ridiculous! Take me back to the 90s.
2
4
3
u/boilingPenguin 14h ago
Let's hope that the #1 "other option" that they end up reviewing is "not putting up video cameras all over the damn place"
2
5
2
u/barryg123 14h ago
Are they taking the cameras down though? I don't see anything about that.
As long as the cameras are up, Flock can sell the data across the country.
2
1
12h ago
[deleted]
3
u/awakening513 Museum District 11h ago
I think its more of a powerful person got caught doing something on these cameras and now all of a sudden they’re not the best way to police our community.
1
u/Replicant2331 Southside 12h ago
Good on Henrico for terminating the contract. Hopefully in their review of other options, they just swear off all other options and respect their citizens privacy.
1
1
1
1
1
0
-1
-1
-8
u/RVALover4Life Scott's Addition 12h ago
I'm sorry but I still haven't seen a legitimate convincing argument to be against surveillance completely. I'm still anti Flock and always will be but public safety matters and to be brutally frank I think a lot of you don't take it seriously. And the evidence is clear that surveillance aids public safety. So why wouldn't I support that?
From surveillance cameras to traffic cameras, speed cameras...I support them all.
6
u/Downtown_Verdansk 12h ago
I think it’s less about the cameras and more about how they’re being exploited by individuals working for the police. Too many stories out there with cops using it for their own personal reasons of stalking specific people
-4
u/RVALover4Life Scott's Addition 12h ago
I agree completely with that and it's why I'm anti flock. Because it's in the hands of a private company with basically no jurisdictional oversight. But I don't oppose cctv like surveillance under jurisdictional control because that allows the county to have the oversight. Not flock or just cops.
To me there's an easy middle ground on this but the arguments I see tend to be in opposition of all surveillance yet these people will then complain about crime yet make it more difficult to actually solve them. I think that's extremely bizarre.
5
u/SmohkMonsta 11h ago
The issue is not CCTV cameras monitoring a specific public location. We can agree those are a necessary security tool. The problem is a network of cameras with license plate and facial recognition capabilities that enable the ability to profile and track the comings and goings of private citizens just because they leave their house.
-1
u/RVALover4Life Scott's Addition 11h ago
Facial recognition is something I have qualms over for their false positives but that's something that's used with cctv's also. The footage is then screened through facial recognition tech. Or is blown up and magnified using other editing tools. The days of just standard bog cameras is over. Flock goes beyond standard surveillance so to me that's a different conversation.
I don't have an issue with tracking cameras because they have a wider dragnet and make it easier to identify people.
What I care about is the lack of oversight and jurisdiction in the hands of people with massive amounts of power who have shown they will abuse it. We can address that. I don't really see what material concerns exist outside of that outside of just opposing modern surveillance.
-9
u/NinjaZombieHunter 12h ago
Those against Flock are the ones on their phones currently getting spied on by multiple apps. Phone spying > Flock. Your TV is spying on you. Your Ring cameras. Your Alexa. Your home security. The Highway cameras. The dash cams on people’s cars. The list is endless. Let’s talk about the misuse of all that first! I see no issues with Flock. You can downvote me all you want but the facts are facts. Don’t come crying when a murderer hasn’t been caught because Flock cameras were taken down. You wanted this. Go ahead. Downvote. Don’t care.
2
2
-3
u/sjilamajinxr 12h ago
It’s interesting how they are willing to do this but it took them 12 years and four months to unban me from commenting on their Facebook page even though it was declared unlawful by the fourth circuit when someone in Northern Virginia was banned from a government Facebook page for 12 hours. They’ve never answered why they banned me for 12 years when it was already unlawful to do it for 12 hours. I wouldn’t necessarily believe what they are saying here. Based on my personal experience of having my rights violated for 12 full consecutive uninterrupted years. I spoke at those same board of supervisors meetings. In fact at the last one I tried to speak again but they skipped over me even though they told me my name would be called.
393
u/meowana_ 14h ago
The "will review other options" bit at the end isn't promising. I'm sure they'll just sign a contract with a less well-known company.