I could be wrong, but the recent supreme court ruling should end this almost immediately. The in their remarks made it pretty clear to my understanding that phone data collection/tracking without a warrant is a breach of the 4th amendment. That's at least how I understood it.

Valen said:

---

I could be wrong, but the recent supreme court ruling should end this almost immediately. The in their remarks made it pretty clear to my understanding that phone data collection/tracking without a warrant is a breach of the 4th amendment. That's at least how I understood it.

---

Let's hope so. I feel confident the courts will get it right with time. Unfortunately sometimes they work very slowly. In the meantime, nobody should need the courts to tell them what's obvious on this one.

100%


"first they came for the............."

EliteElectric said:

---

100%


"first they came for the............."

---

I regret I have but one blue star for this....

Dude overplayed his hand. Municipalities are dropping like flys and it's just getting started. He's doing nothing more than trying to save his company.

maroon barchetta said:

---

We keep seeing more of these stories. From all over.

https://abc13.com/post/3-deputies-access-flock-cameras-suspended-review-underway-harris-county-sheriffs-office-says/19679725/

---

It's crazy. Like they can't help themselves. And you know 95% of it is never found out or reported.

I have said all along it's only a matter of time that the BCS area will have a scandal of something related to flock cameras. It hasn't happened yet but it will. Misinformation from another area leading to confrontational stop, cop misuse, etc. To many hands in the cookie jar and no accountability. To much temptation for those in charge of it and too easy to cover it up if abused.

Wait until the lawsuits start because a cop erroneously pulled over a vehicle that they got the license plate wrong and didn't check. Who pays then? The taxpayer not the police - where is the justice in that?

On the other side an individual that is stalked by a "rogue" cop will lose a lawsuit against the city because the city isn't responsible for the cop. Or the person has to prove the cop was using the cameras maliciously and then has to sue the cop personally.

Edit to add: that the new seven day data retention rule says it is a flock rule however each municipality can change that up to 30 days still. So that new rule is just a recommended period and is complete smoke and mirrors and didn't change anything.

And to reiterate what was said before, Flock keeps the data as long as they wish to.

This chief of police illustrates the entire point of the opposition with his comment at the end - too much power and willing to use it out of spite………

Police chief is furious that people are criticizing his decision to deploy Flock cameras in their town.

Argues they should turn the town into a mass surveillance police state so he can do his job.

Shows his true authoritarian nature by saying: "I ought to do background checks… pic.twitter.com/NP9KCsneEM

— Orwell Day (@OrwellDay) August 15, 2026

aggies4life said:

---

(snip)

---

Are we allowing just straight X reposts with no commentary now?

https://www.kbtx.com/2026/08/18/kbtx-asked-see-police-body-camera-video-texas-law-allows-it-stay-secret/
If you didn't do anything wrong, why not release the bodycam footage?

Bob Yancy said:

---

I've been unplugged for a while due to a family matter. I'm back now and reading up on these changes Flock has implemented and I'm curious what the citizen bosses think.

Reportedly:

Flock Safety implemented a massive, system-wide overhaul of its privacy and security guardrails, rolled out on August 13, 2026.

********

The New Safeguards (Effective Immediately)

To quell mass surveillance fears and combat user misconduct, Flock CEO Garrett Langley announced several major changes to how their 120,000 nationwide cameras operate:

7-Day Data Purge: Flock is slashing its standard data retention window from 30 days down to 7 days. Data not tied to an active crime will automatically age out and be permanently deleted.

Mandatory Case Numbers: Officers can no longer freely browse the database. Every single search now requires a criminal case number to proceed.

Evidence Mode: If data does need to be kept past 7 days for a real investigation, a valid case number will lock it into a new "Evidence Mode" so it doesn't delete.

Proactive Stalker Lockouts: Flock is making its "Audit Assistance" tool mandatory for all 6,000+ law enforcement clients starting in January. The system uses AI to detect abnormal search patterns and automatically locks out offending officers.

************

(Inside the asterisks above is research, not authored by me.)

Do these changes address any of yalls concerns and if not, why not? I'm asking. I'm not preordaining an outcome. I want to know what you objectively think. Please advise…

Respectfully yours

Yancy '95 Place 5

---

what I have read about the following rule changes

1. 7 day rule was that they were changing the default setting to that but local jurisdictions could still keep it at 30 days if they wanted. I am reading some jurisdictions have it for longer than 30 days but I haven't verified. So nothing changes and this is fluff.
2. The case number field relies entirely on manual text entry by the operator.
Because Flock's frontend interface only requires text to be typed into the box to validate the search, it does not automatically verify the typed number against an active records management system in real-time- again fluff
3. One of the many things wrong with this new rule is there is no oversight - No Judicial Review: Unlike a traditional search warrantwhere a judge sets strict limits on what can be searched and for how longEvidence Mode is controlled entirely by the police department itself, with no outside oversight to force them to delete old data.
4. If the AI constantly locks out legitimate officers during high-stakes investigations, departments will inevitably demand a bypass switch or a way to easily override the lockouts, completely defeating the purpose of the security guardrail.If a department lacks strict accountability, a locked-out officer might simply be handed a warning, have a supervisor unlock their account, or face no legal consequences for using a government tool to stalk a citizen. Also the crime has already been committed and it will take time for possibly no consequences to the officer to happen or be discovered.

There is more to add on each of these but thought I would hit the major points.

These are feel good rules, typical corporate speak, and the system would still be operating as designed with no safeguards in place even though perceived safeguards in place.

b0ridi said:

---

https://www.kbtx.com/2026/08/18/kbtx-asked-see-police-body-camera-video-texas-law-allows-it-stay-secret/
If you didn't do anything wrong, why not release the bodycam footage?

---

Weird I thought the law applied to everyone……….

Illustrates a perfect example of why nothing will happen if police abuse the flock system or anything else.

Another thing that bugs me about this license plate reader thing and most people don't know this and nobody has asked but the cameras on the police cars keep the data for 30 days and they are allowed to drive on private property to record like a Home Depot parking lot. If I were to stand in a Home Depot parking lot and record I would be escorted off property to the curb to record. Privileges for thee but not for me. There is something wrong with this and government cant have it both ways.

They are not just recording data on public roads but on private property as well like in your driveway which is private but can be seen from the street. Since your car is parked on your property and let's say it's registration is out of date it cant be ticketed but put it into a flock camera at a later hour and they can then pinpoint your whereabouts and then catch up with you and write you a ticket.

The police don't like being recorded

He should have told him if he isn't doing anything wrong he doesn't have anything to worry about.

source: https://t.co/uRnWOBS7yL pic.twitter.com/KZSDsshApD

— Orwell Day (@OrwellDay) August 18, 2026

whoop1995 said:

---

b0ridi said:

---

https://www.kbtx.com/2026/08/18/kbtx-asked-see-police-body-camera-video-texas-law-allows-it-stay-secret/
If you didn't do anything wrong, why not release the bodycam footage?

---

Weird I thought the law applied to everyone……….

Illustrates a perfect example of why nothing will happen if police abuse the flock system or anything else.

---

Yep. The city will just do what they have done with body cam footage:

We don't want to so we aren't going to do anything

A debilitating and hamstrung capital budget could have invasion of privacy and unlawful surveillance issues? Because Flock can.

Not having the budget to pay raises for city employees who make bad deals with taxpayer Monopoly money is not a bigger deal than what can go wrong with Flock.

Not having money to make more real estate deals is also not a bigger deal than what could go wrong with Flock.

At this point, about all I can say is, read the room. The majority of voters do not want this. Probably somewhere in the area of 70+%. One of very few issues agreed upon by many different types of voters too.

CS78 said:

---

At this point, about all I can say is, read the room. The majority of voters do not want this. Probably somewhere in the area of 70+%. One of very few issues agreed upon by many different types of voters too.

---

Just this point alone should carry a lot more weight. If we are truly 'Citizen Bosses' and people from every political party are in agreement - What's the hesitation if the majority of 'Bosses' are in agreement to DeFlock?

It shouldn't really matter if the exact words "right to privacy" is not in the constitution, or that no CSPD officer has been disciplined. The voters or bosses not wanting it should be enough - but its not.

Even countless violations and flat out misuse is not enough. It is not just individual officers; its departments that get in on the power trip. One classic example the Case of Alek Shott.

Alek Schott an oil & gas worker who drove from Houston to close to the border and back home for work. Bexar county would use Flock (and other) cameras to identify any vehicle that had traveled from outside of Bexar County to close to the border and returned within 24 hours then pull them over. The border patrol and law enforcement agencies had a WhatsApp group chat that shared license plate numbers. Even if they were not breaking any laws, they would make up a reason to stop them.

https://reason.com/2025/11/24/mass-surveillance-is-powering-a-new-era-of-pretextual-traffic-stops/



There is also mistaken identity because of Flock cameras.


There is so much more. But the real issue is that we shouldn't have to present evidence to the city council like we are trying to sue them. Especially when politically divided groups are in agreement on something - that should be more than enough.

MidRatsAg said:

---

Bob, this may not be the correct thread, but can you briefly elaborate on some of the immediate impact the budget constraints are likely to have?

---

The budget is silent on Terafab, SpaceX, semiconductors and any impacts from growth it may have and resources it may require.

It more than doubles capital spending and completely eliminates any new debt capacity through fiscal year 2034.

It requires a tax increase to meet budget on O&M this year, and requires approximately 12 cents of increase over the next handful of years to satisfy debt obligations on the capital side. With retiring debt as we go, that obligation falls to between 4 cents and 5, but that still constitutes an approximate 10% required increase in property taxes for this future council to contend with.

This budget maxes out the credit card with no contemplation of the largest economic development project in our region's history.

It has my primary attention at this time.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Bob Yancy said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Bob, this may not be the correct thread, but can you briefly elaborate on some of the immediate impact the budget constraints are likely to have?

---

It more than doubles capital spending and completely eliminates any new debt capacity through fiscal year 2034.

.....

It has my primary attention at this time.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

I think this needs its own thread.

Has anyone dug into the budget yet enough to start a thoughtful OP? I haven't found the time, but this is troubling.

Koko Chingo said:

---

CS78 said:

---

At this point, about all I can say is, read the room. The majority of voters do not want this. Probably somewhere in the area of 70+%. One of very few issues agreed upon by many different types of voters too.

---

Just this point alone should carry a lot more weight. If we are truly 'Citizen Bosses' and people from every political party are in agreement - What's the hesitation if the majority of 'Bosses' are in agreement to DeFlock?

It shouldn't really matter if the exact words "right to privacy" is not in the constitution, or that no CSPD officer has been disciplined. The voters or bosses not wanting it should be enough - but its not.

Even countless violations and flat out misuse is not enough. It is not just individual officers; its departments that get in on the power trip. One classic example the Case of Alek Shott.

Alek Schott an oil & gas worker who drove from Houston to close to the border and back home for work. Bexar county would use Flock (and other) cameras to identify any vehicle that had traveled from outside of Bexar County to close to the border and returned within 24 hours then pull them over. The border patrol and law enforcement agencies had a WhatsApp group chat that shared license plate numbers. Even if they were not breaking any laws, they would make up a reason to stop them.



There is also mistaken identity because of Flock cameras.


There is so much more. But the real issue is that we shouldn't have to present evidence to the city council like we are trying to sue them. Especially when politically divided groups are in agreement on something - that should be more than enough.

---

The old guilty until proven innocent trick

I've read through it. And it is indeed troubling.

The fact that the mayor said, and I'm paraphrasing, "That's a problem for a later council", troubled me even more.

I'll start a thread tomorrow morning when I have some time.

Hornbeck said:

---

The fact that the mayor said, and I'm paraphrasing, "That's a problem for a later council", troubled me even more.

---

When councilman White was asking about the capital expenses, the director of fiscal services' response sounded a lot like "This is what we already decided on and it's too late to change now."