Talk:Common Questions, Arguments, & Responses when discussing Flock Surveillance

Can this be generalised?

Most of this does not seem to be specific to the Flock brand. We have numerous other and potentionally even more problematic surveillance camera vendors like Hikvision that this applies to.

It also seems like it would require expanding the scope of the Wiki to encompass all forms of surveillance captitalism, which I guess would make sense, since the data from both sources ultimately ends up in the same two places (big-tech/advertising and law enforcement/espionage).

Moreover, this is unfortunately a world-wide issue. Yet the way this article is structured is very US-centric right now.

For instance, London has long been at the forefront of video surveillance, and the heads of German federal states recently also announced their intent to significantly expand AI surveillance in the public space and to increase data retention (web usage data and location data) despite this being ruled illegal by the European court of justice in the past. MrTuttle (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is only here temporarily as Louis sometimes creates an article of info related to the council meetings he goes to. It will be moved/deleted soon. Beanie Bo (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking of if, when King Louis Rossmann does this, he can add it to CRW or his own namespace? It doesn't exactly hurt to be here, but it is a bit unusual being here. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's what Keith did the last time. I guess he hasn't gotten around to it this time yet. Apparently Louis is planning to make a separate smaller wiki specifically for Flock and these types of articles Beanie Bo (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Kyllo v. United States

It may be appropriate to mention Kyllo v. United States on this page. ( https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-8508 )

Like Katz, it's a bedrock case from before the era of ALPRs. It determined that the police couldn't use a thermal imaging camera to surveil inside a home without a warrant. It is frequently cited (including in Carpenter & Jones) as establishing the precedent that police can't use technology to sidestep the Fourth Amendment. The police basically said "we didn't go inside the house, so it wasn't a search" and the Supreme Court wasn't buying it. It was also important to the case that the technology used wasn't in general public use. Jdwx (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

False arrest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F_0iIaXGqA - Arrested falsely on homicide charges for 13 days due flock video. -

https://flaglerlive.com/wp-content/uploads/isaacs-dismissal.pdf

https://flaglerlive.com/wp-content/uploads/isaacs-complaint.pdf

https://flaglerlive.com/wp-content/uploads/motion-to-quash.pdf

https://flaglerlive.com/wp-content/uploads/probable-cause.pdf

97.120.164.149 05:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Cameras filming PIN code entry

Not specific to Flock, but the discussion around these AI surveillance cameras seems to be missing an important point, particularly relevant in context of the recent Graphene OS incident:

Many of these AI cameras are programmed to automatically zoom in to phone screens and expose for them. Resolution is good enough to not only record intimate information on those screens, but whenever someone enters their unlock code in the view of such a camera, now whoever controls the camera system has the PIN code to unlock the device.

Combined with facial recognition, it is theoretically possible for a camera network operator to automate the creation of a database of people and their corresponding device unlock codes.

Using biometric locks can help to an extent, but while this protects the unlock code, it makes it even easier for bad actors to forcefully unlock the phone without the owner's consent. MrTuttle (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Bring up existing Texas law and context

Texas has already banned Red Light Cameras - HB 1631, many sitting representatives have already voted for this.

The intent of existing Texas law is also possibly being violated by the Flock technology:

Sec. 16.06.  UNLAWFUL INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE.

When enough cameras are in use, they can provide data on  individuals vehicle travel to the same fidelity and  responsiveness as a GPS device which was installed & do  not qualify under the course of a criminal  investigation.

Sec. 42.072.  STALKING.

These networks target the entire population  and not "specific other person", but if one person were  to deploy a similar camera network against one other person I believe it would violate this code. A company  (Flock) or local government should not become exempt  simply due to increased scale of deployment and  targeting. ~2026-1680 (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Phone arguments should be added

Cam Higby, has argued that because your phone tracks you, you shouldn't be worried about flock

https://x.com/camhigby/status/2094155396542087515

As this argument is common, it needs to be added. As this page is protected, I do not have edit permissions. Cam Higby was also community noted.

Multiple people pointed out phones are optional, which cam argues that you can't opt out of public services.

https://x.com/TRHLofficial/status/2094161688819798265 Big cheese (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Idk exactly how takes like these should be handled https://x.com/camhigby/status/2094480805510942916https://x.com/camhigby/status/2094479455754526746

As yes, they do solve crime, they don't reduce it. Arguing that they don't reduce crime, and that they don't solve it are different. This is probably more common than the "they reduce crime" argument.

Maybe in an argument against this should mention Thomas Massie's Bill to end the third party doctrine? Big cheese (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Need help noting cam on the following: https://x.com/camhigby/status/2094553520318157016

He says: " Big cheese (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

"solves crime" argument

An extension from https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Talk:Common_Questions,_Arguments,_%26_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance#c-Big_cheese-20260831183300-Big_cheese-20260831181500 which should be a topic of its own

---

Big cheese (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Big cheese (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Idk why my messages are appearing blank, something is bugging out. Maybe 3rd time is the charm?

pied and pasted it below, hopefully it'll work. o

C Big cheese (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Since it's still bugging out, I'll send my message in the form of a proton docs Link. My message was supposed to be in the topic description, but since that failed, and all 3 other times failed, and disabling brave shields failed, I'll do this instead.

https://drive.proton.me/urls/PQR15KTBD8#rYVTcDLfPiOn Big cheese (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what was going on with your previous messages - I looked in the page source and couldn't work out what had happened. did you get any error messages or anything? Keith (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

didn't get any error messages. The text box was visibly bugging out however, moving the cursor around, moving test around, deleting entire sentences. It was weird, if it happens again I'll try to see what was happening Big cheese (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

just happened here as well: https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Talk:Common_Questions,_Arguments,_%26_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance#c-Big_cheese-20260831234600-Big_cheese-20260831183300

Looks to be an issue with copying and pasting text Big cheese (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Why should I care if I have nothing to hide?

The danger of mass surveillance is not limited to catching people doing something illegal. The more important question is what happens when information collected about ordinary people today is interpreted differently tomorrow.

Political power changes. Laws change. Governments change. Public opinion changes.

An activity that is considered normal, legal, or patriotic today may be viewed very differently by a future administration.

A person may attend a protest, participate in a political movement, associate with an unpopular group, or simply be present near an event that later becomes controversial. If comprehensive surveillance systems permanently record where people travel, who they associate with, and what events they attend, those records can later be used to construct suspicion around people who committed no crime.

Surveillance systems can also make mistakes. License plate readers, facial recognition systems, databases, and automated alerts can incorrectly associate innocent people with criminal activity. A person may be stopped or investigated because of a misread plate, incorrect database entry, similar vehicle, false facial match, or other error.

The problem becomes even more serious when surveillance data is combined with political power.

Imagine attending a peaceful protest against government policy. A future government could characterize that movement differently. Imagine protesting discrimination, government corruption, environmental damage, or a large industrial project affecting your community. The right to peacefully oppose those in power is fundamental to a democratic society.

If citizens know that every protest permanently creates a searchable record of their presence, associations, vehicles, and movements, some people may simply choose not to participate.

That is the danger of a surveillance state: it does not always need to arrest people to control them. Sometimes the knowledge that you are being watched is enough to discourage dissent.

This is why the question should not be:

"Do I trust the government with this information today?"

The more important question is:

"Would I want this system to exist if the people I trust were no longer in power?"

A free society should not build its safeguards around the assumption that those currently in charge will always remain in charge or always use their powers responsibly.

History repeatedly demonstrates that governments can expand powers during periods of fear, crisis, or conflict. Surveillance introduced for one purpose can later be expanded to another. Data collected for public safety can become useful for political investigations, protest monitoring, or other purposes that were never anticipated when the system was originally deployed.

Privacy is therefore not merely about hiding wrongdoing.

Privacy is what allows people to think, associate, travel, speak, and peacefully dissent without constantly wondering whether those ordinary activities may someday be used against them.

You do not need to be doing anything wrong to have something worth protecting.

You may simply want to remain free. Matin (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)