Item — HN Reader

Forgive me for writing this, but this whole story possibly reeks of somewhat questionable journalism...

This whole story reads like:

"Something bad happened to Person A. They were accused by Person B of something they didn't do. They were the victim. The victim. Flock doorbell cameras were nearby. They're sort of similar to Ring doorbell cameras but they're Flock. Flock. Did we mention Flock? Person A was a victim, and Flock cameras were nearby. Flock. Flock. Did we mention Flock? Flock cameras were nearby..."

But maybe some people don't see the pattern, so (again, forgive me for writing this!) let me write another story using that same "journalistic" pattern:

"A group of people tortured, raped and killed (or allegedly tortured, raped and killed) a second group of people. The first group of people we'll call a "gang" or a "junta" or a "militia" (as opposed to "a group of people"), the second group of people we'll call "The Victims" (as opposed to "a group of people" -- which was probably another gang, junta or militia!). The second group were Victims! Victims! And during the time of their victimization, their intense victimization, a bunch of Oreo Cookies(tm) sat on the table near where the atrocities (or alleged atrocities!) took place! Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies! Did we mention that Oreo Cookies were nearby when the victimization occurred? Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies! Oreo Cookies were nearby when the atrocities occured! Did we mention Oreo Cookies? Oreo Cookies were on the table near the victims!"

(Again, forgive me for writing this...)

(AKA: "Guilt By Association")

1 comments

> Flock cameras were nearby

The article explicitly claims that the police officer claimed that they had footage from a Flock camera:

> "The proof, according to Milliman: Footage from Flock surveillance cameras showing Elser’s forest green Rivian driving through the town from 11:52 a.m. to 12:09 p.m. on the day of the theft."

That's exactly what the headline describes. It's not clear why you're trying to downplay the role of the Flock camera, given that this seems to be the central piece of evidence that the police used, incorrectly.

> Forgive me for writing this

You would need to explain yourself first.

Why couldn't the journalist simply have said "Doorbell camera" every time they said "Flock camera"?

(It would have been the same story -- just less biased against a single equipment manufacturer in a product category (Doorbell Cameras)...)

So, why couldn't the journalist simply have said "Doorbell camera" every time they said "Flock camera"?

The Flock camera(s) in question are not doorbell cameras, and Flock Safety is not only outside the doorbell camera product category but very specifically trying to differentiate themselves inside of the AI-enabled dragnet persistent surveillance product category. Given the potential civil rights implications of Flock, I feel it’s exceptionally reasonable to be calling it out in this context. I would suggest reading the full article and googling the positive and negative coverage of the company

When is any public facing video camera a "surveillance product"?

And when isn't any public facing video camera a "surveillance product"?

???

Doesn't any public facing video camera (including camera doorbells, including the public facing video cameras on people's smartphones) -- contain the potential for for civil rights implications (and other problems) if misused?

Is the issue of civil rights implications really with Flock specifically?

Or does the issue exist more broadly with the usage of any public facing video camera where the misusage of that camera results in civil rights implications?

???

Are you expecting us to completely educate you on the topic?

Instead of objecting to the article and what everyone is saying, do you not feel any responsibility to understand what you're talking about first?

The issue here is the Flock business model, which subsidizes the deployment of these cameras and encourages municipalities to use them in these dystopic ways.

Not to mention that you haven't even acknowledged being completely factually wrong in your understanding about the type of camera involved here. Instead of saying "huh, I didn't know that, TIL", you double down. It doesn't reflect well on you.

>The issue here is the Flock business model, which subsidizes the deployment of these cameras and encourages municipalities to use them in these dystopic ways.

It seems that the core issue is identified here...

Do I have that correct -- or do you wish to add something or delete or change something?

Questions:

How is the Flock business model (i.e., trade goods and/or services for money) any different than that of any other business?

How is Apple or Google or any other Smartphone vendor any different in selling public-facing video cameras to the public?

How is any Wireless Service provider (including but not limited to: Verizon, T-Mobile, Boost, Cricket, Wal-Mart, Tracfone, Wal-Mart, AT&T etc., etc.) that subsidizes the purchase (deployment) of Smartphones with public-facing video cameras, different than the Flock business model?

If municipalities are government entities and presumably "for the people by the people" -- then how specifically does Flock "encourage municipalities to use them in these dystopic ways?"

Do municipalities think for themselves?

Or do they have external companies do their thinking for them?

If so, then how is this possible, specifically, and exactly?

Because this not a doorbell camera. It is a public street surveillance camera marketed to police to “end all crime in America” through total surveillance. Unfortunately the way it worked in this case is the cops picked a random car that happened to drive by the scene of the crime at about the right time and decided the driver was guilty. It’s a chilling warning of the dangers of technology misapplied. Technology gives the impression of infallibility, people get falsely accused and lives get ruined.

>It is a public street surveillance camera marketed to police to “end all crime in America” through total surveillance.

When is any public facing video camera (such as those in people's smartphones) not a "public street surveillance camera"?

Can we really change the function of a group of devices (which use the same physics and create the same effect), by labeling them something else?

You're probably thinking of Ring doorbell cameras. Flock doesn't make doorbell cameras - they sell surveillance equipment like license plate readers and lightpost cameras to cities.

That's about to be more confusing, because Ring is partnering with Flock. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/ring-cameras-are-abo...

I see a few people have pointed out to you that the Flock cameras in question are not doorbell cameras.

To bring you up to speed, Flock cameras are typically mounted on poles throughout cities and towns, in partnership with local government and law enforcement.

There's a whole Silicon Valley techbro business model behind this, in which Flock charges the municipalities for access to the data and AI analyses, which tell them nonsensical things such as how this woman in her $70k Rivian is driving around the neighborhood as a porch pirate.

Perhaps now, you might have a bit more understanding of why the fact this was a Flock camera is relevant here.

Are you aware that in cities like L.A., vast areas are constantly being video recorded by helicopters flying overhead?

Or that drones with video cameras might be used for that purpose in the future, in other cities?

Is your issue really with Flock cameras on light or utility poles -- or might there be drones (and other higher flying objects) that perform this same function, either now or in the future?

Also -- since you bring up AI analyses -- then whose fault for the alleged issue is it, really?

Was it the company's fault?

Or was it the AI's fault?

Or was it the Officer's fault -- for not performing prior due dilligence, and rushing to act on flaky data?

Who shall we blame, and why, specifically?