Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras

https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/23/americans-are-destroying-flock-surveillance-cameras/
This breakdown in rule of law is unfortunate. Ideally, this would be handled by, in order of desirability:

  - Flock decision-makers and customers holding ethics as a priority, and not taking the actions they are due to sense of duty, community, morals etc
  - Peer pressure resulting in ostracization of Flock execs and decision makers until they stop the unethical behavior
  - Governments using legislation and law enforcement to prevent the cameras being used in the way they are
Below this, is citizens breaking the law to address the situation, e.g. through this destruction. It is not ideal, but it is necessary when the higher-desirability options are not working.
> It is not ideal, but it is necessary when the higher-desirability options are not working.

What has worried me for years is that Americans would not resort to this level. That things are just too comfortable at home to take that brave step into the firing lines of being on the right side of justice but the wrong side of the law.

I'm relieved to see more and more Americans causing necessary trouble. I still think that overall, Americans are deeply underreacting to the times. But that only goes as far as to be my opinion. I can't speak for them and I'm not their current king.

loading story #47128404
loading story #47128567
loading story #47136456
loading story #47131132
loading story #47130524
loading story #47128601
loading story #47131551
loading story #47129035
loading story #47131321
loading story #47128405
loading story #47130808
loading story #47129513
loading story #47128606
loading story #47130400
While points 1 and 2 are indeed desirable, point 3 should be moot given we have a constitutional right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizures.

The combination of ubiquitous scanners, poor data controls on commercially owned date, and law enforcement access without proper warrants compounds to a situation that for many rational people would fail the test of being fair play under the Fourth Amendment. For similar reasons, for example, it has been held by the Supreme Court that installing a GPS tracker on a vehicle and monitoring it long-term without a warrant is a 4A violation (US v Jones). Similar cases have held that warrants are needed for cellphone location tracking.

So far, however, courts have not held Flock to the same standard -- or have at least held that Flock's data does not rise to the same standard.

I personally think this is a mistake and is a first-order reason we have this problem, and would prefer the matter to stop there rather than rely on ethics. (Relying on ethics brought us pollution in rivers, PFAS and Perc in the ground, and so on.)

Given the state of politics and the recent behavior of the Supreme Court, however, I would not hold my breath for this to change soon.

> This breakdown in rule of law is unfortunate.

Yearly reminder to read:

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/kurz-the-discourse-of-vol...

loading story #47129452
i'm not a fan of lawlessness but on the other hand, i'm 100% ok with the government living in fear of the governed.
loading story #47129115
loading story #47129356
loading story #47131275
loading story #47129107
You are unfortunately, for whatever your reasons you have, barking up the wrong tree. The people already made a law, the supreme law in fact, called the Constitution.

In fact the capital criminals in this matter are the people violating and betraying that supreme law; the politicians, sheriffs, city councils, and even the YC funders behind Flock, etc.

It is in fact not even just violating the supreme law, but though that betrayal, it is in fact also treason.

loading story #47129316
All of this presumes that residents in municipalities with ALPRs don't want them used the way they are. That's not true! These things are broadly pretty popular among a broad set of residents.
loading story #47130327
loading story #47130827
People who rape, murder, and eat children run the country and face no hint of repurcussion. There never was rule of law. Only the appearance of it.
loading story #47129197
How is flock cameras existing, a breakdown in the rule of law? As far as I know they are not technically breaking any laws, even though I disagree with their use in principle.

Some might think it is somehow a Fourth Amendment violation, but I'm pretty sure it has already been ruled on enough times now that there is no expectation of privacy on government-owned roads, except for what's inside your car.

loading story #47132715
Flock would not exist if they held ethics as a priority. It's The Panopticon from the well known book The Panopticon is Unethical
If I were American I don't think the above mechanism would have any chance of still working to be honest.

And I don't think respecting the law still matters when the lawmakers are so evil.

I applaud the people destroying these cameras. It's not violence against people, it's just property.

Dan Carlin, on his Common Sense podcast several years ago, said something that really stuck with me (and he probably was paraphrasing it from someone else).

Society is like a pressure cooker, with built-in safety release valves to prevent the pressure from getting too high. If your solution to the safety release is to block off the valves, with authoritarian surveillance, draconian laws, and lack of justice for the elites committing crimes, it just moves it somewhere else. Block off too many, and it explodes.

loading story #47129315
When laws no longer serve the people and you have a lawless government doing whatever it wants, they are merely strongly worded suggestions. We give laws their power so I don't think this government realizes just how poorly things look with the DOJ now and how little trust there is for anything coming out of the federal government.
One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
The higher-desirability options are practically only theoretical in many contexts. See also the United Healthcare CEO killing.
I mean, that's excellent wishcasting, but the reality is that current economic incentives combined with a lack of social ("cancel culture" got cancelled because "uwu too mean"), regulatory ("uwu can't hurt Capital or the rich people won't make jobs no more"), and criminal ("uwu can't hold Capital accountable for their actions when they do crimes or people will lose jobs") accountability means that this was always going to be the outcome.

More people need to understand that the system is working as designed, and the elimination of peaceful, incremental reform based on popular demand, along with mass manipulation of human emotions through media and advertising, means that this sort of resistance is the sole outcome left before devolving into naked sectarian violence.

Say what you will, but the anti-Flock camera smashers are at least doing something beyond wishcasting from a philosophical armchair in comment sections or social media threads.

Guess Flock cameras don't solve quite as many crimes as they claim. Surveillance heal they self.
Would someone please think of the rule of law?! :'((((
{"deleted":true,"id":47127992,"parent":47127923,"time":1771877137,"type":"comment"}
My guess is the vast majority of the 80,000 or whatever cameras are uncontested politically. Local board meetings for most towns are boring and quiet affairs, and those are also the most effective venue for these concerns.

If you are a taxpayer in a local jurisdiction with Flock cameras and you want them removed, show up to every single meeting and maximize use of public comment time.

Local government is a place individuals can actually be extremely effective but also almost nobody ever actually does.

> It is not ideal, but it is necessary when the higher-desirability options are not working.

You are simply imposing your own views on others. Just because you disagree with Flock doesn't give you the right to destroy license plate readers that my tax dollars paid for. Who appointed you king?

loading story #47130842
loading story #47129940
I think you already jumped to far. You can't break the law when the law is broken by every other tier of society.

Sorry, try again!

I view this breakdown in law similar to the marijuana situation. It’s kind of a villainous administration, green lighting villainous things. The law doesn’t hold water in this case. The people have to do something drastic to get that across.
All those behaviours are consequences of direct civil disobedience, unrest and rebellion - not alternatives.
loading story #47128723
We either have out of control govt or civil unrest and only people who don’t know what the latter looks like cheer it on. We’re screwed unless someone unlocks the economy. Right now it’s not happening.
Peer pressure is apparently not even effective in getting billionaires who could easily hire whatever variety of escort they want from having sex with trafficked children, so I'm not sure in what world it's supposed to stop the billionaires from installing cameras.
> This breakdown in rule of law is unfortunate.

Doesn't breakdown in rule of law happened when a corporation (surely) bribed local officials to install insecure surveillance devices with zero concern for the community living near them?

loading story #47128108
loading story #47128271
Yes unfortunate, but sometimes necessary

Wait until the governance fails to the point data centers start getting burned down

What other social issues should be solved with vigilante justice?

I don't like all this surveillance stuff, but Flock is just the tip of the iceberg and "direct action" against Flock is just as likely to backfire as it is to lead to changes. More importantly, once you give folks moral license to do this stuff it's hard to contain the scope of their activity.

loading story #47128437
loading story #47128243
loading story #47128991
loading story #47129347
loading story #47129070
loading story #47128394
Rule of law is long gone, neither party has any interest in it, it's more of a guideline of law now.
loading story #47128828
loading story #47128790
loading story #47128777
loading story #47128058
loading story #47128605
loading story #47130659
loading story #47127763
loading story #47128364
loading story #47130866
loading story #47128251
loading story #47127755
loading story #47136153
loading story #47127813
loading story #47130673
loading story #47130290
loading story #47129997
loading story #47129609
loading story #47129757
loading story #47130328
loading story #47128381
loading story #47131553
loading story #47130518
loading story #47129842
loading story #47128962
loading story #47128729
loading story #47127764
loading story #47129976
loading story #47128122
loading story #47129374
loading story #47128456
loading story #47127723
loading story #47131860
loading story #47130299
loading story #47130181
loading story #47129212
loading story #47128362
loading story #47127823
loading story #47131768
loading story #47130983
loading story #47128757
loading story #47129754
loading story #47128099
loading story #47129127
loading story #47129674
loading story #47128273