Tracking Vehicles on the Road (Flock)

VaughanJB

VaughanJB

Scrappy VIP
As an addendum to my post on Repo's, I wondered how aware people are of a company called Flock.

Flock is a network of camera's mounted in public spaces that read license numbers from vehicles as they pass. We had a variation of this in the UK known as "Speed Cameras", which will take a picture of a vehicle and its driver if they are exceeding a speed limit.

With Flock though, it's not looking for illegal acts - instead it's just constantly scanning plates. This data is then sold on to third-parties. You can imagine how repo companies can use this data (as I noted elsewhere) but it's also widely accessed by law enforcement who can access it without need for a warrant.

It is estimated that Flock is scanning 20bn license plates per month in the US, by using 80,000 cameras around the country. Over 5000 companies are paying for access to the data.

And now, just to explain how things get interconnected..... Flock is using data from the likes of Ring Doorball Cameras. For example - Flock might record the presence of a vehicle in a particular place. Through data gathered from Amazon, they can get a list of Ring Video Doorball cameras in the area. Through a "Community Request" law enforcement is able to get the Ring Video Camera footage from those devices. This allows individuals to be followed (if someone exists a vehicle, they can be tracked other cameras, all feeding into the same system.

Personal privacy? No problem? What we need in the world we live in? You decide.
 

Rakaia said:
Thankfully my age will limit my exposure to this...
Click to expand...

The world, and our societies, are going to go through seismic changes over the next decade, let alone in terms of a century or three. There is no stopping these practices. Tech will overrun legislation with its pace of change.
 

Last edited:
I have not heard of this, but even if the intention started out as somehow beneficial for the society there, it has the potential to really screw people over. It sounds like anyone can gain access to finding out where you are at any given time, and low life's who make a living at breaking and entering could certainly make use of those tidbits of information.

If it was in high crime areas and only used to document illegal activity and only used for law enforcement, that's one thing, but to monitor the daily lives and locations of the general public, and then to market that information, that is an overreach and just shouldn't be allowed IMO.
 
I feel like I could be on camera anywhere I go, including my own property, since I have cameras, and my neighbor's properties since many of them have cameras. I don't believe my City has the kind of cameras described in the OP at this time. If my license plate is being scanned just to gather information on where I go, I can't think of a way that could be used against me. Texas passed a statewide law in 2019 prohibiting citations based on photographic enforcement systems, including red-light and speed cameras.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
Texas passed a statewide law in 2019 prohibiting citations based on photographic enforcement systems, including red-light and speed cameras.
Click to expand...

Huh, that's interesting. I need to look into the thinking there. I mean, if you have photographic evidence, isn't that GOOD - even VERY good - evidence?

EDIT: Okay, I just read this explanation: "Though the cameras were demonstrated to reduce T-bone accidents at intersections, and also generated substantial revenue from traffic fines, they were unpopular with most of the public. Legal scholars questioned whether they constituted a violation of the right to due process under the U.S. Constitution, as they did not afford the person cited with the opportunity to confront their accuser. Even more problematic, though, was evidence that the presence of the cameras caused many motorists to brake hard as the light turned, leading to an increase in rear-end accidents."
 
Last edited:
VaughanJB said:
Huh, that's interesting. I need to look into the thinking there. I mean, if you have photographic evidence, isn't that GOOD - even VERY good - evidence?
Click to expand...
The cameras can capture the license plate and car model, but how can the cameras prove who was driving - it could be either the husband or the wife - or even a "look-alike" friend who borrowed the car and broke the law. I'm just speculating as to whether or not those reasons influenced the legislature, but they do matter if it goes to court.

[Edited to correct spelling error.]
 
Neighbhood associations or block groups have been using them around here saying they want to turn over photos and list of speeding drivers to police. But they're not law enforcement and to nab someone for speeding in many communities there needs to be engineering surveys to determine the average speed at the part of the road they were supposedly speeding.

It is troubling because it's more data that doesn't have to be in another data base that can be abused, hacked etc.
 
I would be surprised if "Ring" is the only so-called "home security system" that sharing data. Every tech device that I've purchased demands third-party sharing of data in order to use the device. So, I have no doubts that all those folks that have security cameras in their homes and vehicles (including backup cameras and baby cameras) are being, at least loosely monitored.
 
Ted01 said:
I would be surprised if "Ring" is the only so-called "home security system" that sharing data. Every tech device that I've purchased demands third-party sharing of data in order to use the device. So, I have no doubts that all those folks that have security cameras in their homes and vehicles (including backup cameras and baby cameras) are being, at least loosely monitored.
Click to expand...

I saw a video recently of a guy ranting about his new Washing Machine. The display was asking him to connect to the internet to.... well, whatever. Any time you see something called a "Smart device", you know a connection to the internet is wanted.

The Washing Machine apparently allowed the user to run washing cycles remotely, and while I would imagine some people might find a use for such a thing, I wonder if it's really something I'd care about.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
I feel like I could be on camera anywhere I go, including my own property, since I have cameras, and my neighbor's properties since many of them have cameras. I don't believe my City has the kind of cameras described in the OP at this time. If my license plate is being scanned just to gather information on where I go, I can't think of a way that could be used against me. Texas passed a statewide law in 2019 prohibiting citations based on photographic enforcement systems, including red-light and speed cameras.
Click to expand...

We should all be careful how we react when we realise we are on camera. I've seen some get a bit carried away with the whole experience:

 
Car tracking is a whole other rabbit hole. Many new cars allow the driver to be tracked, and that data can be shared with insurance companies, financial institutions, and the like. Not sure how to opt out of that........
 
Flock has now been implemented in all SF Bay Area counties except for parts of Alameda County. For years, the ACLU and privacy organizations managed to block implementation of red light cameras and Flock but that time is long gone. Even liberal San Francisco now has over 400 street cameras that is having a huge impact as criminals driving in from Oakland no longer can remain unnoticed. Part of the reason the cameras had been banned was a lack of clear ways to control use of the data without abuse. That took a few years to legally develop and has now addressed formerly weak areas, though public oversight will always be needed.

In some states the above data safety and control does not yet exist and indeed abuses are possible though states like California are leading the way. Much of the motivation for using ALPR cameras is to reduce crime and for that it has been very effective so cities now have solid evidence for its value and methods to wisely use it. In recent weeks, the ACLU has once again sued in our county over ALPR use, but at this point such is merely desperation.

This person via postings on Nextdoor over several years has obviously been a key voice in argumentation moving to the current direction. Here in Santa Clara County, numbers of criminals driving in from Alameda County preying on our citizens have been nailed so often that their game has had to totally change, even when using stolen vehicles with fake plates.

-----------------------

Google AI Overview:

"Flock" in the San Francisco Bay Area refers to Flock Safety, a company that provides automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and surveillance cameras to law enforcement and homeowners associations. These cameras are used by various agencies, including the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and police in surrounding cities like Oakland, San Mateo, and Concord, to solve crimes by tracking vehicles involved in criminal activity. However, this technology has also drawn criticism from privacy advocates who are concerned about mass surveillance and data sharing.
How Flock is used

Crime solving: Police use the ALPR data to identify vehicles connected to crimes such as carjacking, robbery, and retail theft.
Locating people: Cameras can help find missing persons, witnesses, and suspects.
Investigation assistance: Agencies use the system to look for vehicles associated with criminal investigations.
Broad coverage: The system has been installed across many cities in the Bay Area, including San Francisco, Oakland, San Mateo, Alameda County, Concord, and Palo Alto.

Controversy and concerns

Privacy: Critics argue the system is a form of mass surveillance that infringes on individual privacy rights.
Data sharing: There is concern about data being shared with federal agencies, although California law and current contracts aim to restrict this.
Accuracy and bias: Some worry about the accuracy of AI models and the potential for racial bias.
Legal challenges: Lawsuits have been filed against some Bay Area cities over the use of ALPRs, citing potential constitutional violations.
Public debate: The expansion of this technology has sparked public debate in cities like Oakland, where a council committee recently rejected a proposed contract extension for additional cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top