Our city council loves big government. I dont see them giving this up without very heavy opposition. They get to spend tax money, surveilling the tax payers, all while saving the children at the same time.

Meeting tonight 6pm.

[img][/img]

Map of local flock cameras, for those unaware...

DeFlock Maps | ALPR Camera Map & Privacy Routes https://share.google/6Uuan1aIxdyQR8Abl

That map is crazy. They got out of hand really quickly. Have to wonder how much that has cost too.

I remember the red light cameras fight. Be interesting to see if this one is successful too.

Admittedly I have not done any research or know the issues regarding these cameras, so can someone tell me what the concern is?

I am just trying to understand the real issue, outside of people not wanting to be tracked.

Some will say you have no expectation of privacy when in public places, and this is true. On the other hand, mass surveillance, mass data collection, and using computers to basically have a database of where everyone goes and when isn't exactly the same as "no expectation of privacy." If police can't legally put a GPS tracker on my car without a warrant, why can they use other technology to keep tabs on literally everyone?

aggie-1997 said:

---

Admittedly I have not done any research or know the issues regarding these cameras, so can someone tell me what the concern is?

I am just trying to understand the real issue, outside of people not wanting to be tracked.

---

Outside of the conspiracy theories, the main issue people have is many consider it to be an invasion of privacy. They consider it to be the next step toward a "dystopian surveillance state." Some don't even bring up those issues and instead just focus on the random cases of people misusing the data such as a cop who used the cameras to stalk his ex-girlfriend.

The counter argument is that there is no expectation of privacy when you're in a public space (more than a few court rulings take that position); which roads/streets are considered to be.

Since these cameras do not result in tickets being issued like the red light cameras, it is an entirely different issue. Also, these cameras are not run or owned by the local governments. They are owned by Flock who then licenses the data to whichever law enforcement agencies want to use them.

Also, some private businesses like Lowes have them to help track the regular shoplifters who visit the stores. The cities/county could not remove those as that is private property and the owner has ever right to put in whatever surveillance system they want. If one doesn't like it, then simply shop elsewhere.

That said, I see both sides of the issue. They are a great tool for law enforcement and have helped catch a lot of bad people and rescue kidnap victims. On the other hand, because the cameras are owned by a business and not the government, there are no 4th amendment protections.

Its a tangled mess that I can't see an answer for where all sides would be happy. The anti-Flock side have already started destroying cameras in various places around the country so they're dug in and not going to budge.

Agreed. Theres a massive difference with me understanding the privacy risks of going out in public vs. having my behavior tracked, analyzed, and sold.

The cost can be found in meeting records fairly easily. They are largely funded in CS due to grant funding through the state. This is also why they all popped up so sudden. The grant was for a certain amount of cameras.

Rapier108 said:

---

aggie-1997 said:

---

Admittedly I have not done any research or know the issues regarding these cameras, so can someone tell me what the concern is?

I am just trying to understand the real issue, outside of people not wanting to be tracked.

---

Outside of the conspiracy theories, the main issue people have is many consider it to be an invasion of privacy. They consider it to be the next step toward a "dystopian surveillance state." Some don't even bring up those issues and instead just focus on the random cases of people misusing the data such as a cop who used the cameras to stalk his ex-girlfriend.

The counter argument is that there is no expectation of privacy when you're in a public space (more than a few court rulings take that position); which roads/streets are considered to be.

Since these cameras do not result in tickets being issued like the red light cameras, it is an entirely different issue. Also, these cameras are not run or owned by the local governments. They are owned by Flock who then licenses the data to whichever law enforcement agencies want to use them.

Also, some private businesses like Lowes have them to help track the regular shoplifters who visit the stores. The cities/county could not remove those as that is private property and the owner has ever right to put in whatever surveillance system they want. If one doesn't like it, then simply shop elsewhere.

That said, I see both sides of the issue. They are a great tool for law enforcement and have helped catch a lot of bad people and rescue kidnap victims. On the other hand, because the cameras are owned by a business and not the government, there are no 4th amendment protections.

Its a tangled mess that I can't see an answer for where all sides would be happy. The anti-Flock side have already started destroying cameras in various places around the country so they're dug in and not going to budge.

---

Thanks for the explanation. Very helpful.

Based on that explanation, I am not sure I see a huge concern. I guess since I have no intentions of committing crimes, then I don't really care if I am being watched. Everything else in my life is being tracked, etc. And, if these things help with crime then it seems like a positive.

I do find it interesting that some of those that are against the cameras are the ones committing crimes by destroying them. A bit of irony in that situation.

Flock is a private, for-profit corporation making money off both our tax dollars and our daily movements. Because they're a private company, they aren't bound by government overreach limits, like warrants, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. History shows that when private data brokers hold massive troves of personal information, corporate promises don't last. Companies pivot to new revenue streams, get bought out, or end up hacked (just look at 23andMe or Ancestry).

Here is why this tech should concern anyone who values limited government:

• Mass Dragnet & Reverse Lookups: Instead of investigating a specific crime, users can run reverse lookups across cameras during a specific window to compile lists of every single car that passed through an area. This turns everyday citizens into automatic suspects just for going to work, church, or the store.
• Feature Creep Beyond Plates: While originally pitched as simple license plate readers, the system catalogs make, model, color, and unique features like bumper stickers. Newer AI capabilities even allow users to run broad searches on physical descriptions, clothing, and tattoos.
• False Matches Put Citizens at Risk: There are documented cases of everyday drivers getting pulled over, sometimes at gunpoint, due to misreads, typos, or outdated records. It's a bad use of police resources and creates unnecessary danger for innocent people.
• System Misuse: Audit trails in multiple towns have shown instances of officers abusing access for unauthorized personal reasons, like tracking exes or running searches for PIs.

When you build a permanent surveillance dragnet, you can't guarantee who will ultimately control it or how it will be used down the road.

Sure, there are lots of success stories with flock. It just crosses a bridge too far for me.

I cannot recall the last time I went to a city council meeting of any sorts. However, like the poster above said, this is a bridge too far. I do not know about the rest of you, but I do not want to live in a police state. I'll be there.

birdman said:

---

Police chief speaking now is laying on pretty thick.

---

That's no surprise. It makes his job easier. But protecting liberties, getting warrants, etc has never been the easy way.

20 individuals plus 2 groups of 5.

The guy from Flock skillfully dodged every question asked by City Council.

I'm curious about the "guardrails" put in place in Montgomery County, Harris County, Conroe, etc where cops have been busted in last month or two.

Nichols getting testy with his little gavel. He didn't like those facts and people clapping.

He did that with the Midtown folks as well.

He's getting testy again.

That current student gave a great presentation.

When talking about the written comments, Nichols says this:

"Some positive, some [ pause] like what we have heard here tonight"

The word is "NEGATIVE", Nichols. He paused because he didn't want to use that word.

Watching from D/FW. Really wanted to be there to cheer and make Mr. Mayor angrily bang his cute little gavel.

Mayor reads TexAgs.

Good.

He's not running again. He doesn't care if he makes people mad.

Flock Safety - College Station TX PD Transparency Portal

This portal was shared during the meeting by the chief, and I really appreciate proactive access to this information.

That said, I am stunned by the number of groups (500+) that have proactive, unfettered access to our "local" data. Did we review and do we regularly audit Wichita Falls ISD or UT Southwestern Medical Center TX, or Miami Township OH PD policies or searches in order for them to retain access to "our" data? From my perspective, it is impossible to guarantee only proper and intended use of any system accessible by 500+ distinct organizations, much less maintain an expectation that the data housed in the system remains protected and private.

it won't be long before I am getting mailers from every nail salon, car wash, gym, chain restaurant and oil change place I drive by!

Stucco said:

---

Flock Safety - College Station TX PD Transparency Portal

This portal was shared during the meeting by the chief, and I really appreciate proactive access to this information.

That said, I am stunned by the number of groups (500+) that have proactive, unfettered access to our "local" data. Did we review and do we regularly audit Wichita Falls ISD or UT Southwestern Medical Center TX, or Miami Township OH PD policies or searches in order for them to retain access to "our" data? From my perspective, it is impossible to guarantee only proper and intended use of any system accessible by 500+ distinct organizations, much less maintain an expectation that the data housed in the system remains protected and private.

---

They're not looking at "your" data. I'm not defending Flock, but this is like thinking that every single who logs into Facebook (or X, or TikTok, or whatever your social media platform of choice is) is looking at your profile or content.

Unless you are a fugitive on the run from the law, none of these groups are looking at College Station, much less you. Worrying about what Miami Township, OH would want with you (or the rest of us, for that matter) borders on persecutory delusion behavior.

EliteElectric said:

---

it won't be long before I am getting mailers from every nail salon, car wash, gym, chain restaurant and oil change place I drive by!

---

Which reminds me...if you have a smartphone, you're ALREADY being tracked and spied upon.