As Wisconsin cities flee Flock, its shared camera network loses value
[...] Over the past few months, a spate of Wisconsin towns and cities have withdrawn from Flock deals over privacy and trust concerns. As they did so, another issue revealed itself: With each city that leaves, the Flock network becomes less useful to the cities that remain. And cities are starting to notice.
Consider Dane County, which includes the city of Madison. It's one of the most populous counties in Wisconsin. It was also a significant Flock user, with a contract for 24 license plate cameras. But after complaints from citizens and privacy experts, the Dane County Board of Supervisors on April 16 voted to cut the $80,000 in county funding for Flock cameras and banned "further expenditures on the system."
"There are well-documented concerns about how this company operates and uses its technology to violate people's Fourth Amendment rights [against unreasonable searches]," said County Board Chair Patrick Miles. "The board's action supports protecting our community from a proven bad actor. We have full confidence in our Sheriff and deputies, and we are open to considering other companies that have stronger safeguards in place."
[...] Because much of Flock's value comes from access to cameras in other jurisdictions, the loss of Dane County and Monona meant Flock was suddenly less useful to nearby police departments. The town of McFarland, which neighbors Monona, announced on May 15 that it would not move forward with its plan to deploy Flock cameras "in light of a shrinking database in Dane County and input from residents."
"Once Dane County lost their funding for Flock, we lost about half of the potential camera network within Dane County," said McFarland Chief of Police Brian Redman in a statement. "I had to ask, 'Were we still going to get the return on our investment with that loss?' With the network being chipped away, that wasn't going to be the case."
[...] Public resistance was crucial to many of these decisions to de-Flock. Indeed, the broad backlash against Flock has grown so strong that the surveillance company last week announced mandatory new audit controls and lower default data retention periods for US users.
Flock now knows what Kaukauna and McFarland realized: The same "network effect" that helps build a business can also work in the other direction once customers start to flee.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DadaDoofy on Monday August 24, @11:54PM (1 child)
"We have full confidence in our Sheriff and deputies, and we are open to considering other companies"
Never mind the window dressing, they just said the quiet part out loud. Make no mistake, they have no intention of abandoning the practice of using surveillance cameras. They'll just abandon the ones made by the company currently being crucified in the media, call it a huge victory for the fourth amendment, privacy, the citizens, blan, blah, blah - and roll right along with a company that's better at flying under the radar.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25, @04:52AM
Can confirm.
No police officer has ever said, "That's too much power for us to have."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25, @12:23AM (1 child)
A company like Flock needs the network effect to succeed. This points right at venture capital, which Flock used for big funding to build their network quickly. Now customers all over the country are starting to back out and/or re-negotiate contracts. While Flock's business is still growing faster than the rate of lost contracts, if the reverse-network effect continues (as seems likely to me when summer legislative recesses end) my guess is that the VCs will think twice about further funding of Flock. Staking another player in the license plate reader (and general surveillance) space seems less likely as well. At least I hope so...
The business perspective is given nicely by https://fortune.com/2026/08/24/flock-safety-has-been-a-venture-darling-will-data-privacy-controversies-halt-its-rise/ [fortune.com] Paywall? https://archive.ph/gOi2H [archive.ph]
(Score: 5, Touché) by mcgrew on Tuesday August 25, @12:37AM
You misspelled "vulture capital".
Donald Trump is a mixture of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, multiplied by ten.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mcgrew on Tuesday August 25, @12:23AM (2 children)
I'm vehemently against license plate readers of all makes and models, but FLOCK is what they use here in Springfield, the capitol of Illinois, apparently in violation of state law, along with the constitution.
I printed this [nooze.org] out and taped it to the "plate reader" that reads far more than plates, on Oak Street by Iles Park that points to the skateboard playground!
I also made this image [nooze.org] but haven't yet used it.
Of course our fascist president has a hand in this, reportedly owning a stake in Blackrock, who has their own brand of ALPRs and is rumored to have started the anti-Flock backlash. In stumbling Trump fashion it will bite them in their own asses when people find that a camera doesn't have to be FLOCK to be networked and have facial recognition.
If you're a veteran, they already have your fingerprints. They don't need anything more from me!
DeFLOCK [deflock.org]
Donald Trump is a mixture of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, multiplied by ten.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25, @11:43AM (1 child)
Trump? The camera network silently expanded under biden with minimal backlash. The surveillance state isn't partisan beyond selective application. The dems only object because it will hurt muh heckin immigants. They were perfectly fine when it spied on YOU. Facial recognition and geofence warrants were used for J6. But that's [d]ifferent tho.
Axon is the flock competitor, you know, the body camera people. When you are consistent in your principles you reject both. Likewise, the internet "age" verification is supported by both ends of the spectrum.
(Score: 3, Touché) by mcgrew on Wednesday August 26, @05:18PM
The dems only object because it will hurt muh heckin immigants.[sic]
Either you are employed by an ALPR company, employed by Trump, or are a Russian or a Russian bot. Perhaps you might want to read the The Declaration of Independance and the Constitution, [mcgrewbooks.com] as well as George Orwell's 1984 [barnesandnoble.com] as well if you think the Democrats are only against ALPRs because of "immigants". I give you these links in case your post was from ignorance.
The ALPR companies aren't hired by the feds, they're hired by local cities and counties, many of them illegally (ignoring the 4th amendment) because some states have specifically outlawed many of the things ALPRs do.
Trump's booking photo is there because of his want to be emperor. You know good and goddamn well Trump is 100% for this horror show.
Donald Trump is a mixture of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, multiplied by ten.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 25, @04:52AM
From stories, videos, and news articles, I have gathered that termination of a contract DOES NOT uninstall, or disable a Flock camera. In fact, the local police department and/or the city councils have no authority to turn off, or to remove a Flock camera. When the city of Madison, and Dane County terminated that contract, the ONLY THING that happened was, the city and the county lost access to the data captured by the Flock network.
Other cities, counties, and states with current contracts can still access those very same cameras.
Stated somewhat differently, if a Dane County deputy signed in to the Flock network using credentials from another police or sheriff's department, he could still access the entire network.
In this article we are being asked to believe that at the end of a contract, the cameras are no longer operational. I call BS on that idea. Put yourself in Flock's position. You've made the investment to run surveillance on the city/county. You're not going to stop harvesting valuable data, just because that city/county has stopped paying their bills. You will continue harvesting data, and selling it to the highest bidders. Any police department in the WORLD with an active contract can access the data from those cameras.
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Username on Tuesday August 25, @07:58PM
I noticed most of the anti-flock thing is coming through the anti-tesla/nokings/georgeflyod propaganda channels. Did the flock ceo try to audit the fed and defund their employer too? Why is it just flock and not one of the other companies that are using ai with their cameras? Which camera company do they want? What happens if they get what they want? How can letting criminals get away benefit me?
I have a feeling flock played a key role in disrupting the narrative of their last psyop. Remember renee goodman who was just driving her two kids to school when the evil ice shot and killed her? Then all the body cam and securitycam footage came out and proved it was all a lie. Tried it with some other guy, and the footage comes out again. They need to get rid of cameras or their propaganda fails.