Yes, they're not the same. Otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. However, they do indicate how the court would probably lean. SCOTUS did not approve of the surveillance aspect in Jones. It landed on the GPS tracker being trespassory, but there were concurring arguments the reached their conclusion based on the surveillance aspect. In Carpenter, the court narrowly tailored their ruling to third party data, but the kind of data that Flock collects, how they collect it, and what can be done with it are very similar to Carpenter and the court could easily arrive at the same conclusion with similar reasoning.

Some also stream without any security or encryption

Yeah, that's not making me feel real good about a surveillance company that keeps plate scan and tracking data on everyone.

I don't have a problem with these if citizens vote to determine whether they are used in their communities. Otherwise it's a abuse of power.

Problem is that it's a private company putting them up on, mostly, private property. That's not something citizens necessarily vote on unless they pass an ordinance forbidding them.

ts5641 said:

---

You have no expectation to privacy in public spaces.

---

From my government using photographic surveillance of me whenever I drive? I have that expectation. But thanks to people who just don't care (i.e., "it makes me feel safe"), I don't get it.

We might as well just live in communist China at this point the way many of you think. Public (i.e. government) cameras on every street corner monitoring who's coming and going 24/7. We'll be safe!!!

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Problem is that it's a private company putting them up on, mostly, private property. That's not something citizens necessarily vote on unless they pass an ordinance forbidding them.

---

My city has them on public roadways and paid for with my tax dollars so my issue is with that. Private entities on their private property can do as they please.

Pinochet said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

TheAggieWalrus said:

---

can allow them to bypass the 4th amendment and gather information that they would otherwise need a warrant for.

---

What makes you think you have a right to privacy on a public road??

You don't have a 4th amendment right in public.
Had you paid attention in civics you would have known that

---

And had you been paying attention to the SCOTUS opinions in the last few years, there are a number of problems with this, not least of which is that the court said you can't be tracked in public without a warrant. You also would have realized that the public information created by the police departments has been kept from public inspection and that more cops have been caught stalking people than crimes have been solved from Flock data.

---

Source? Because I haven't seen a blanket SCOTUS opinion on surveillance, only some state laws passed.

---

Carpenter v US
US v Jones

You probably didn't see it because you're too busy chasing rage bait about CEOs.

---

Oh, I thought you had some actual rulings that said you can't be tracked; Like you stated. I thought your cases were rulings related to surveillance that Flock cameras may be doing, my mistake.

In Jones, the officers had a warrant. They exceeded the scope of the warrant.

Carpenter has a different set of facts also. Cell towers pick up electronic signals that are not visible to the human eye. They are not in common usage by the public (Kylo V US). Cameras are in common usage.

What's wrong with CEOs???

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Problem is that it's a private company putting them up on, mostly, private property. That's not something citizens necessarily vote on unless they pass an ordinance forbidding them.

---

There's a problem with property owners putting them on their private property?

InfantryAg said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

You probably didn't see it because you're too busy chasing rage bait about CEOs.

---

What's wrong with CEOs???

---

He's got you and infinity mixed up.

The data from privately owned Flock cameras, belong to whoever owns the camera. They don't have to share that info.

Neighborhood Flock cameras for example, only go to the police if the HOA chooses to share it. They can choose to not share it as a general rule, and then share when a crime has occurred in the neighborhood, then not share anymore. The same as you can do with your house security cameras.

Flock data is generally only stored for 30 days.

LE, or anyone one else, doesn't have the capability to begin to look at all this data. AI is the only thing capable of doing that.Rules should be in place to restrict AI from basically conducting an investigation on a car, or person, when there hasn't been a crime committed.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

TheAggieWalrus said:

---

can allow them to bypass the 4th amendment and gather information that they would otherwise need a warrant for.

---

What makes you think you have a right to privacy on a public road??

You don't have a 4th amendment right in public.
Had you paid attention in civics you would have known that

---

Comrade, we have noticed your strong efforts online and you have earned an extra potato ration.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Yeah, that's not making me feel real good about a surveillance company that keeps plate scan and tracking data on everyone.

---

Your EV has been deactivated. Please return to your designated life comfort zone immediately.

InfantryAg said:

---

The data from privately owned Flock cameras, belong to whoever owns the camera. They don't have to share that info.

Neighborhood Flock cameras for example, only go to the police if the HOA chooses to share it. They can choose to not share it as a general rule, and then share when a crime has occurred in the neighborhood, then not share anymore. The same as you can do with your house security cameras.

Flock data is generally only stored for 30 days.

LE, or anyone one else, doesn't have the capability to begin to look at all this data. AI is the only thing capable of doing that.Rules should be in place to restrict AI from basically conducting an investigation on a car, or person, when there hasn't been a crime committed.

---

This has been proven false. The photos are kept longer than 30 days and are not even encrypted. They are transmitted to the Flock servers right away. Even where people take the cameras down or cancel, Flock continues to run them. Look at the contracts - the devices are owned by Flock. They even threaten security researchers who have acquired the devices.

global surveillance state. Its coming.

Pinochet said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

The data from privately owned Flock cameras, belong to whoever owns the camera. They don't have to share that info.

Neighborhood Flock cameras for example, only go to the police if the HOA chooses to share it. They can choose to not share it as a general rule, and then share when a crime has occurred in the neighborhood, then not share anymore. The same as you can do with your house security cameras.

Flock data is generally only stored for 30 days.

LE, or anyone one else, doesn't have the capability to begin to look at all this data. AI is the only thing capable of doing that.Rules should be in place to restrict AI from basically conducting an investigation on a car, or person, when there hasn't been a crime committed.

---

This has been proven false. The photos are kept longer than 30 days and are not even encrypted. They are transmitted to the Flock servers right away. Even where people take the cameras down or cancel, Flock continues to run them. Look at the contracts - the devices are owned by Flock. They even threaten security researchers who have acquired the devices.

---

30 days is the standard. State laws may shorten the time. If the owner wants more than 30 days storage, they have to pay more and Flock ensures it is within compliance of the law.

Lack of encryption seems like a tech error that should probably be fixed.

You're missing the point. They say they keep it for 30 days but that has been proven false. They keep the data forever and it's kept even longer on the devices than 30 days. The data is absolutely shared. That's the only way they will put the cameras up. They're liars. They had most of their cameras open to the public on the internet for a period.

And sorry for mistaking you for Infinity Ag earlier.

TheAggieWalrus said:

---

You all heard of the red light cameras, well Flock Cameras are the big brother to redlight cameras. I hope you understand that was a 1984 reference based on the following information. Flock Safety is a singular, Billion dollar company that owns the servers to host all the data from their cameras. Id encourage you to look into their investors on your own but this post is not about that. These cameras use AI to sort vehicles based on license plates, but they do more than just LPs, they sort based on identifying marks like scratches, dents and so on. The scary part is that Law Enforcement has access to these databases and can allow them to bypass the 4th amendment and gather information that they would otherwise need a warrant for. The current use case for flock is amazing and it works extremely well at catching bad guys. that is not the fear, the fear is that its effectiveness is used later, on well meaning Americans as a surveillance tool. Not to mention Flock can do whatever they want with the data. if they wanted to run it through a secondary facial recognition algorithm they could do so all without our knowledge. They are building Big Brother right under our noses, and they are already here in BCS. https://deflock.org/ to find the cameras near you.

---

You don't need a warrant to take pictures of something, in a public place, where the public is allowed to be.

From my experience with them, they are only pointed towards public roads and film vehicles only.

If they were to start facial recognition, that would be an issue.

InfantryAg said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Problem is that it's a private company putting them up on, mostly, private property. That's not something citizens necessarily vote on unless they pass an ordinance forbidding them.

---

There's a problem with property owners putting them on their private property?

---

You should do this thing called, "Reading the thread." You might see that that post was in response to another one, and if you read them in order, you'll actually understand what they mean.

LPR's are everywhere. Most towns have a contract and use them for data and looking for specific bad guys. Wish they had them on red lights because people
Run them like they are green.

This is big in the repo business. They have regular vehicles drive around all day with LPR cameras on them to read plates and find delinquent payer's cars.

Our cameras noticed that you have driven through this neighborhood more than a dozen times this month, even though you don't live here. Care to explain yourself?

belongs to who owns the camera and... Flock Safety, a billion dollar company. In the Nancy Guthrie case, they were able to pull the google nest video from her doorbell. Cool right? except she wasnt paying the subscription so they shouldnt have been saving her footage. but they were anyways. the point is the lack of trust in these massive coorperations.

Wheatables02 said:

---

TheAggieWalrus said:

---

You all heard of the red light cameras, well Flock Cameras are the big brother to redlight cameras. I hope you understand that was a 1984 reference based on the following information. Flock Safety is a singular, Billion dollar company that owns the servers to host all the data from their cameras. Id encourage you to look into their investors on your own but this post is not about that. These cameras use AI to sort vehicles based on license plates, but they do more than just LPs, they sort based on identifying marks like scratches, dents and so on. The scary part is that Law Enforcement has access to these databases and can allow them to bypass the 4th amendment and gather information that they would otherwise need a warrant for. The current use case for flock is amazing and it works extremely well at catching bad guys. that is not the fear, the fear is that its effectiveness is used later, on well meaning Americans as a surveillance tool. Not to mention Flock can do whatever they want with the data. if they wanted to run it through a secondary facial recognition algorithm they could do so all without our knowledge. They are building Big Brother right under our noses, and they are already here in BCS. https://deflock.org/ to find the cameras near you.

---

You don't need a warrant to take pictures of something, in a public place, where the public is allowed to be.

From my experience with them, they are only pointed towards public roads and film vehicles only.

If they were to start facial recognition, that would be an issue.

---

who's to say they aren't selling that data already? we would never know because they don't have to disclose that info because they own the data. Look into business reforms video on flock nova. They can tie your MAID, mobile advertising ID that's on your phone to your license plate and then boom, just by searching your license plate they can see plentiful data on your phone. but hey, I'm in a public place so i have no right to privacy right?

TheAggieWalrus said:

---

belongs to who owns the camera and... Flock Safety, a billion dollar company. In the Nancy Guthrie case, they were able to pull the google nest video from her doorbell. Cool right? except she wasnt paying the subscription so they shouldnt have been saving her footage. but they were anyways. the point is the lack of trust in these massive coorperations.

---

It belongs to owner of the camera. It is stored on the company servers and if the owner hasn't given permission for it to be shared, it requires legal process to get access to it.

Admiral Nelson said:

---

Our cameras noticed that you have driven through this neighborhood more than a dozen times this month, even though you don't live here. Care to explain yourself?

---

This is what I'm talking about.

With no crime, this should not be able to trigger an investigation. It may look "suspicious" but obviously not a crime. AI will be able to put this kind of info together with no issues. That is what needs to be addressed.

Much different than looking at cameras after a robbery or other crime has occurred, to identify the suspects.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Problem is that it's a private company putting them up on, mostly, private property. That's not something citizens necessarily vote on unless they pass an ordinance forbidding them.

---

There's a problem with property owners putting them on their private property?

---

You should do this thing called, "Reading the thread." You might see that that post was in response to another one, and if you read them in order, you'll actually understand what they mean.

---

I read it. I inferred that you were telling madagascar that it was a problem that the property owners didn't have to be responsible to the communities. Since you pointed it out, I now see what you were actually saying, but it had enough ambiguity that it was easy to mistake.



Madagascar
5:57p, 2/13/26
I don't have a problem with these if citizens vote to determine whether they are used in their communities. Otherwise it's a abuse of power.

ABATTBQ11
In reply to Madagascar 6:36p, 2/13/26
Problem is that it's a private company putting them up on, mostly, private property. That's not something citizens necessarily vote on unless they pass an ordinance forbidding them.

The way some of you goaltend for big brother type surveillance is frightening.

Liberty over 'safety'