Redmond, WA, turns off Flock Safety cameras after ICE arrests

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/redmond-turns-off-flock-safety-cameras-after-ice-arrests/

by dredmorbius • 8 months ago

372 233 8 months ago

NB: Title edited to add "WA" for clarity. I.e., this is the city of, not a toponym for another entity.

pton_xd• 8 months ago

What did they think would happen? Installing surveillance systems to monitor people is acceptable, as long as they're only used against the majority? I don't understand the logic here.

estearum3• 8 months ago

You don't understand the logic of "there are some crime problems we're willing to accept more intrusions to solve than other crime problems?"

Seems like something virtually everyone believes, and all that changes is where they draw the line of balance between intrusion and safety.

karmakaze• 8 months ago

The point is that there is no actual line. There's the premise which then collects the data.

Then the data can be used for other purposes--no line prevents this.

QuantumFunnel• 8 months ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

gmueckl• 8 months ago

The problem here is that the law and order politicians world wide pretty consistently follow a pattern that starts by demanding surveillance tools to fight very serious crimes and those crimes only. Once they get that, they eventually start another campaign to allow use of the tools that they now have access to for less serious crimes. After a few cycles of this, you get a massive erosion of citizen rights.

This is called "Salamitaktik" in Germany.

hitarpetar• 8 months ago

you don't understand it or you don't agree with it?

Tadpole91814• 8 months ago

You don't understand why they may want surveillance to curb or investigate violent crime, but not why they oppose surveillance used by the Gestapo to kidnap members of their community? Seriously?

It's like saying I'm hypocritical for loving to write with pencils but being offended when someone else stabs me with one.

Bro, you said you liked pencils, make up your mind!

brookst3• 8 months ago

If stabbing people is so wrong, why don’t we lock up all the surgeons?

Of all the poor thinking and rhetorical skills out there, the one that drives me the craziest is this insistence that ignoring context is not just acceptable but essential.

potato373284210• 8 months ago

No. I'm calling them idiots for giving a bunch of 3rd graders piles of newspapers and matches and expecting the eventual end result to be anything other than a fire.

This shit was wholly foreseeable but they flew right into the sun, not too close to it, right the fuck into it, because they just couldn't stop lusting after the idea of sending the jackboot after someone for a crime that amounts to petty deviance (I'd like to say they were using it to go after petty thieves, but we all know they weren't doing that).

duped• 8 months ago

Flock is a bad actor and untrustworthy (misleading departments and officials about how data is shared/accessed, literally reinstalling cameras that cities have demanded to be taken down). Regardless of whether the local municipality wants surveillance or not, Flock is not a trustworthy company to buy it from.

mschuster912• 8 months ago

Regardless of whether the local municipality wants surveillance or not, Flock is not a trustworthy company to buy it from.

That's because the local authorities aren't the final customer. The final customer is the federal government, they want allllll the data.

FireBeyond6• 8 months ago

misleading departments and officials about how data is shared/accessed

Many times this isn't misleading, per se, but nudge nudge wink wink. "We trust you to follow your own data privacy policy. It's not our job to police how access to your data is configured." In Washington, for example, there is data that LE cannot collect, and LE cannot pay someone to collect directly for them to bypass that...

... but if someone just so happens to ALREADY be collecting it, they can pay to access it.

jajuuka2• 8 months ago

I think this is a case of, tools used to fight one type of crime are being used to fight another type of crime that disrupting the community. Kind of an unforeseen consequences situation.

giantg22• 8 months ago

"Kind of an unforeseen consequences situation."

This type of use and expansion of scope was totally foreseeable by anyone paying attention to history. It always starts as some targeted thing, then it becomes the path of least resistance for similar subsequent things as the barrier to entry is extremely low.

antonvs2• 8 months ago

You have to be covering your eyes, plugging your ears, and shutting down your brain to not be able to foresee these consequences.

vkou• 8 months ago

They are being used to perform another kind of crime. Much of ICE behaviour this past year has been highly criminal.

Redmond is under no obligation to assist them.

mulmen4• 8 months ago

Kind of an unforeseen consequences situation.

This is the most foreseeable consequence I can imagine. It’s up there with “When I throw this baseball where will it land?”. It shouldn’t even require conscious thought.

expedition324• 8 months ago

In my country you'd have to get a warrant. You'll get pretty much carte blanche for an Amber Alert but the judge isn't going to let you hunt down brown people.

But I guess if you elect judges pretty much all bets are off, no? Just find yourself a card carrying MAGA judge willing to sign off.

reaperducer3• 8 months ago

Kind of an unforeseen consequences situation.

According to the article, it was foreseen. But the people who brought it up were ignored.

potato373284210• 8 months ago

They had never picked up a history book so they didn't realize that the systems they envisioned being used to stop the jackboot upon people they don't like would eventually be used to stomp people they do.

miohtama• 8 months ago

If you don't want to read a book, here is a Wikipedia article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

Back in a day, you did not have cameras yet, so one had to hire snitches. Luckily this is not the case anymore, as demonstrated by Chinese leading by an example:

https://t.co/Q1xOiQMmZT

wmf• 8 months ago

When history is racist, only racists will read history books.

s3p2• 8 months ago

Who? I don't understand your logic either. I don't think anyone said this "is fine as long as it's used against the majority". Virtually every large city uses Flock. This is the norm.

straydusk• 8 months ago

What kind of innane logic are you using here?! Yes, if the systems are installed for a reason approved by the public, and then they're used for a different reason, people don't like that.

hopelite2• 8 months ago

That is rarely the case that they are “approved by the public” in anything even remotely close to a legitimate process. In cases like, was it Denver, where the city council voted against the approval of the $250,000 contract to surveil everyone’s movements, for the mayor to only immediately use his discretionary spending limit of up to $150,000 (or so) to approve a presumably smaller scope of surveillance.

In several other cities it has also led to all kinds of resistance by city councils and mayors in what can only be called an odd resistance against its own populace and constituents.

At least it seems that maybe something good will come of it when local people get more engaged and pay more attention and maybe even run for office against the corrupt narcissists of society that usually hold offices in local politics because people have not paid attention for a very long time.

Do you know your sheriff? Your city/county council members? The city manager? The mayor?

When you look at the deflock.me map and are astonished at how many cameras there are, you can thank people not paying attention in local politics and who their sheriff is, and you can thank the traitors at YC leadership who brought about this Orwellian system.

uoaei• 8 months ago

Did you get to vote on whether Flock could operate in your area?

The police chiefs are usually the ones pushing the initiative. Have you ever voted for a police chief in your life?

stonogo• 8 months ago

It's apparently against Washington state law for local law enforcement to assist immigration enforcement: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.93.160

Specifically interesting is the section "State and local law enforcement agencies may not provide nonpublicly available personal information about an individual..." which puts police in a bind with Flock data: if the data is public, anyone can request it (including ICE) and they have to provide it to all comers. If they declare it not to be subject to public records request, then they also can't share it with ICE -- which is outside their control in practice, since Flock independently sells access to AI summaries of the data. In the face of this contradiction, turning the things off seems to be the only way to stay legal until the courts get done chewing on this.

SilverElfin4• 8 months ago

That law isn’t really enforceable since it would violate a local government’s first amendment rights.

spamizbad• 8 months ago

It's pretty simple: People will tolerate surveillance technology if it promises to promote order and justice. People imagine them being instrumental in convicting murders, rapists, etc. ICE raids have been shown to be (I'm being generous here) sloppy and chaotic and seemingly targeting towards working people to grind towards a government-mandated quota - not the "bad guys" that plague our streets. Few are interested in a massive surveillance network to clamp down on what are essentially civil infraction of otherwise law-abiding and productive members of the community.

cipehr5• 8 months ago

A little annoyed, this seems like is has nothing to do with the ICE arrests...

The city suspended its Flock system because city officials could not guarantee they wouldn’t be forced to release data collected by those devices someday, she said.

Key part is "someday". Seems like the article is implying that flock may have shared this data with ICE which led to the arrests... but there is no proof supporting this...

On Thursday, a Skagit County Superior Court judge ruled that pictures taken by Flock cameras in the cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood qualify as public records, and therefore must be released as required by the state’s Public Records Act, court records show.

This is the more likely reason. What do folks here think about this ruling?

IMO it seems obvious that this should be public records/data, but would love to hear alternative positions to this.

Eisenstein2• 8 months ago

I think we need to revise our understanding of expectation of privacy. The 'you have no expectation of privacy when you are outside' bit was formed before we had everything recording us and before face recognition could track us.

At the very least I think any kind of face recognition should require probable cause.

cipehr5• 8 months ago

Its an interesting question indeed. You're saying there might be some expectation of privacy even in public?

The line here is a little different. I could point a camera out my window and record every license plate that drives by my house, and that would be allowed because its recording public activities, and the data I collect would be private—its mine from my camera.

The question here is if a public/government agency pays a private company to setup cameras in public, for the benefit of the public, then should that data collected by those cameras not also be public?

The courts seem to agree that it should be public, and I fail to see why it shouldn't be. Maybe I should read the opposition briefs on it.

Terr_5• 8 months ago

I think it's less of a revision and more a return to a core meaning.

Privacy isn't a mechanic, it's a capability, and most reasonable people DO expect, implicitly, that that they can travel unremarked under most circumstances.

I think most people would agree that a government drone swarm specifically tasked to follow you everywhere in public (loitering outside buildings) would be an invasion of privacy. Especially when it is illegal not to be wearing some equivalent of license plates.

cipehr5• 8 months ago

I can't stand this type of "journalism"/sensationalism.

Redmond’s Police Department was not among those listed in the report, and has never allowed external agencies to access their Flock data without requesting and receiving permission from the police chief first, according to an Oct. 24 statement by Lowe.

So because the arrests were near a Flock Camera the "journalist" is connecting the two? Even with the statements an information to the contrary?

jajuuka2• 8 months ago

This wouldn't be the first time Flock was used by ICE and would not be the first time Flock allowed ICE backdoor access against the wishes of the local government or police department in Washington. https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-t...

So making the connection isn't a leap and seems like a pretty pragmatic action taken to reduce ICE's ability to surveil communities.

FireBeyond6• 8 months ago

Yes. Because Flock literally cannot be trusted.

As an ex-Flock employee in my county alone, Flock's "Transparency Report" only lists -half- of the agencies using Flock.

pavon• 8 months ago

The journalists didn't make this connection, it was a topic of discussion at the city council meeting. And the result of that discussion was to suspend the cameras anyway, out of concern that ICE could end up with the the Flock data, even if they hadn't already. It would have been odd for the journalist to report on the outcome and leave out the event that prompted it.

SilverElfin4• 8 months ago

From what I read, the pressure from activist groups on Redmond’s city leadership began before the Skagit County ruling. So it is probably unrelated. But I think it’s still a bad outcome for Redmond. Why wouldn’t you want law enforcement to be able to observe public spaces (which these cameras are monitoring) and identify or track suspects? We want our city services (like policing) to be efficient, right? We want criminals to be arrested and face consequences, right? We all want safe cities and neighborhoods, right?

I think the Skagit county ruling is likely to be appealed. There is a lot of information that governments can redact for a variety of reasons, despite FOIA or state/local transparency laws. It seems obvious that there’s a case for law enforcement to be able to access footage but to avoid handing over that kind of intelligence to the general public, where criminals could also abuse the same data. And I just don’t buy the argument that surveillance through cameras is automatically dystopian - we can pass laws that make it so that data is only accessible with a warrant or in a situation with immediate public risk. There are all sorts of powers the government has that we bring under control with the right laws - why would this be any different?

As for Redmond turning off its cameras - this is just fear-mongering about ICE. In reality, it’s just sanctuary city/state resistance to enforcing immigration laws. Redmond’s police department confirmed they’ve never shared this camera data with federal agencies, but that doesn’t stop activist types from making unhinged claims or exerting pressure. In reality, it’s activists of the same ideological bias as the soft on crime types that have caused crimes to go up dramatically in the Pacific Northwest in the last 20 years. They’re happy to see law enforcement hampered and the public put at risk - the ICE thing is just the new tactic to push it.

ThePowerOfFuet• 8 months ago

You sound like great fun at a party.

FireBeyond6• 8 months ago

Why wouldn’t you want law enforcement to be able to observe public spaces (which these cameras are monitoring) and identify or track suspects?

Yeah, why wouldn't I want that? Or Flock "helpfully" proactively flagging AI-generated "suspicious vehicle movements" to LE for investigation? What could wrong there?

We all want safe cities and neighborhoods, right?

Was it hard not to end that paragraph with a "Won't somebody think of our children?"?

mikestew• 8 months ago

Your first paragraph doesn’t just beg the question, it outright harasses it.

…and identify or track suspects?

For starters, we’re all suspects when those cameras are running. Granted, AI-driven facial recognition is 100% accurate, so if you have nothing to hide…

wobfan• 8 months ago

Redmond’s police department confirmed they’ve never shared this camera data with federal agencies

The problem with this is, that in the age of put-as-much-data-as-we-have-in-some-us-megacorp-managed-cloud this does not mean anything anymore. I may sound paranoid but it's just the truth. There is an abundance of general evidence for this, but even more, there is evidence that Flock data has been shared with parties in the US government who weren't "allowed" to access them.

Your sentence makes it sound like they have a document somewhere in their office that has not shared with anyone else. But that's wrong. They have a document on servers ran by a shady company (prob. AWS, Azure, Google), managed by another even shadier company (Flock). The police department has no idea who can see it, and who can't.

I can only speak for myself, but I do not have a problem with enforcement of immigration laws at all. What I do have a problem with is how it is enforced [1,2] and how the general surveillance is handled, especially by Flock [3,4] and the US Government [5], but, to be honest, in the whole US.

[1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/07/21/you-feel-like-your-lif...

[2] https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/ice-power-abuse-cas...

[3] https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-pushback

[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/larsdaniel/2024/10/22/warrantle...

[5] https://www.aclunc.org/blog/mass-surveillance-trump-era

seltzered_• 8 months ago

"On Thursday, a Skagit County Superior Court judge ruled that pictures taken by Flock cameras in the cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood qualify as public records, and therefore must be released as required by the state’s Public Records Act, court records show."

This video by Tom Lehto talks more about that court case that illustrates citizens can legally do FOIA requests for traffic cameras (e.g. Flock): https://youtu.be/1vQn4MWBln0

wrs• 8 months ago

The example of Seattle Police dashcam and body camera footage may be interesting. When those things were relatively new, ten years ago or so, someone started filing daily public records requests for footage from all 911 dispatches (among other things). They wanted to build their own database of the theoretically public footage. The SPD complained that the overhead of redacting all that footage would be impossible. Eventually the legislature clarified the status and tightened the request rules, so now you have to request footage for a specific incident, and you may have to pay a redaction fee. [0]

[0] https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/public-records/law-enforceme...

mulmen4• 8 months ago

I think someone even tried automating the redactions then posting to YouTube.

It’s an interesting case that pits privacy against transparency.

I absolutely want the cops to wear bodycams and I’d prefer they can’t even turn them off. But they also need to protect the privacy of victims, suspects, and witnesses. So they can’t just live stream to the Internet either.

How much is the redaction fee? How much would it cost to just pay it for everything?

mikkupikku3• 8 months ago

Redactions are necessary to protect innocent members of the public. Going through all the footage from every officer every single day to perform these redactions would require a huge amount of manpower. That may change with new technology, but until it can be automated reliably, the WA legislature got this right.

With shit like traffic cameras, I don't think redactions are necessary, although it would be nice if all license plates were automatically redacted and only accessible with a warrant. Turning the cameras off is an even better idea.

reaperducer3• 8 months ago

ten years ago or so, someone started filing daily public records requests for footage from all 911 dispatches (among other things).

I know someone who until very recently worked for a major city's police department. He said there were people who would request every video they could think of, and it was his team's job to scrub through the video and blur/block out faces of children and things like that.

He said his team was absolutely overwhelmed with requests from randos all over the country requesting things in bulk. Even if his team (~10 people, full-time) didn't take the extra step to redact some images, they simply couldn't keep up with it. Essentially, a FOIA DDOS.

The stress was too much, and he left for a different career.

(Before anyone asks if the PD imposed a fee for video, I don't know. It's possible the fee wasn't high enough, or maybe there's a state law regulating the fee. But I'm not sure it matters since there are plenty of cranks in the world with very deep pockets.)

soupfordummies• 8 months ago

Someone should use AI to request such a large amount of data that it DDoSes the whole system. Unfortunately I feel like that would result in traffic camera data just being removed from FOIA rather than removed from use.

ranger_danger• 8 months ago

I don't think that would be legal... you'd have to get a judge to reverse the previous decision that established the cameras are public record. They would probably just turn them off instead.

CobrastanJorji• 8 months ago

If I recall, the FOIA allows government agencies to charge you for the work of processing your request if you're requesting more than N pages or it takes more than a couple hours of work to fulfill the request. I'd be careful about a maliciously compliant response to such a thing. That said, we live in a boring world where they'd probably just respond by threatening you with a felony hacking prosecution for attempting to take down their system.

outside1234• 8 months ago

We are all speed running our learning on how all of these systems can be used against us.

sleepybrett• 8 months ago

No they turned them off because it turns out those cameras are public records and all their citizens can make requests for ALL THAT DATA.

adrr• 8 months ago

Couldn't they just not log the license plates and only look for license plates on the list like stolen cars, stolen plates, amber alert etc? Why do they a need a list of all cars that the camera saw?

relaxing• 8 months ago

To run fishing expeditions.

segmondy• 8 months ago

They don't just log license, they log everything about the car, dents, location of dents, type of wheels, stickers, etc. If you swap a license plate they would be able to tell the car. One local case I read about, the culprits used their own car with a stolen plate. They were able to identify the car based on the car's "fingerprints" dents, style, color, antenna, scratches etc.

echelon• 8 months ago

I have seen so many of these cameras by intersections recently! I wondered what they were.

helterskelter2• 8 months ago

I'm in the PNW and they put Flock cameras up in my area recently. Nobody likes them (libs or cons), and we've seen some rather creative approaches to uh...disabling them. One person took a pipe cutter to the mount and spirited the whole unit away, another apparently fired a shotgun slug through it, somebody else looks like they used it to relieve their anger problems with a metal pipe.

Flock cameras, America's bipartisan issue?

reactordev5• 8 months ago

And yet they drive away in their GM/Ford/Nissan/Tesla/Any car/truck with its connected media unit and telemetry gathering infotainment systems and think “This is fine”.

helterskelter2• 8 months ago

Hey it's a start. Get people together who don't like Flock cameras and tell them about pulling the modem out of their vehicle and you'll get some bites.

guywithahat• 8 months ago

Well Tesla cameras don't qualify as public record

I do think that's an important distinction though; if I have a camera and record a public space, that's not an issue. If the government sets up a bunch of cameras, that's an issue, whether or not it's ICE, the FBI, or someone else using the cameras. I can't imagine the government will set up cameras and do non-scary things with it.

xboxnolifes• 8 months ago

"And yet, you live in a society. I am very smart."

sixothree2• 8 months ago

Put me on that jury.

afavour• 8 months ago

For most people in the US a car is a daily necessity so it’s very difficult to avoid that telemetry gathering.

asveikau2• 8 months ago

People are probably unaware of the telemetry on their vehicle.

But this is a good point, people get upset when government is perceived to screw them over and not upset enough when the private sector does it. In practice, the private sector screws over the public quite a bit.

pseudalopex10• 8 months ago

Most cars or trucks used in the US are older than you seemed to assume.[1]

[1] https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-truc...

theamk• 8 months ago

Everyone was fine with Flock as well until arrests started.

Once there will be a few high-profile cases around telemetry data being used, there will be much more outcry there.

jancsika• 8 months ago

Same ones who probably will develop fast homomorphic encryption and distribute it to the entire world, completely oblivious to the eventual heat death of the universe.

captainkrtek2• 8 months ago

Is there a way to see where they are located? Or which cities are installing them? Hadn’t heard of them til this week

Buildstarted• 8 months ago

You can find them listed here. https://deflock.me/map#map=5/39.828300/-98.579500

kevin_thibedeau• 8 months ago

The security cameras deployed in Lowe's and Home Depot parking lots are Flock. All the better to track your movements, citizen.

SilverElfin4• 8 months ago

Nobody likes them

This seems like an unsupported assumption. Lots of people like them. Anyone who wants policing to be effective and cares about crime / public safety would like them to have the best tools.

bdangubic4• 8 months ago

Anyone who wants policing to be effective and cares about crime / public safety would like them to have the best tools.

This depends on what the “cost” is for this “safety,” no?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

array_key_first6• 8 months ago

The fallacy here is that giving police access to more tools makes policing better.

It doesn't. Simply giving the police more stuff doesn't garuantee they will be more effective. They might be LESS effective, if they, say, have a culture of abusing their tools.

marssaxman2• 8 months ago

Some guy I once met in a bar told me that he liked to mix a 1:1 solution of elmer's glue and water, put it into a spray bottle, set the nozzle to "stream", then squirt it all over the lens of a traffic camera near his house which he found offensive. His logic was that this made more sense than destroying the camera, because he could do it over and over and over: the company operating it would have to send someone out to clean the lens off each time, which would probably cost them more money than the camera was worth.

throwaway1737382• 8 months ago

This is the best way to handle it because if the company presses charges they just look ridiculous.

jesterson4• 8 months ago

Not only this does good to society in the obvious way, but also creates jobs as someone needs to clean those.

Kudos to the guy, who single-handedly doing what almost all politicians miserably fail at.

lacker3• 8 months ago

It makes sense to me that criminals, like this guy you met in a bar, are opposed to Flock cameras.

viraptor• 8 months ago

There's also this spray-on-a-pole diy option https://www.themarginalian.org/index.php/2013/07/31/ai-weiwe...

Gibbon12• 8 months ago

I feel these camera's is a symptom of how anxious the US overclass is.

tiahura3• 8 months ago

I feel worrying about security cameras is primordial mammal fear of being tracked and eaten. Like fear of vaccine poisoning, a vestige of long ago threats.

rconti• 8 months ago

I live in the Bay Area and went to my Nextdoor because I was thinking of seeing if there's much anti-Flock sentiment, and (not surprisingly for Nextdoor), most people seem to think anti-camera people are paranoid, or have something to hide, and wish they were installed in more places to solve the (non-existent) raging crime issues, or speeding, or god knows what.

I shouldn't have expected much more, though, to be fair. There's a reason I don't use nextdoor.

The funny thing is the people calling anti-Flock people "paranoid". Well, I don't believe in dash cams or ringing my house with surveillance cameras and peering at the footage all day and all night. I think _those_ are the paranoid ones. What happened to just living your life and not worrying about everything?

lacker3• 8 months ago

There are a lot of Flock supporters out there. In my neighborhood, homeowners can volunteer to put Flock cameras on their property, and a number of people are doing this.

It's like having a Ring doorbell and sharing the feed with the police, which is also pretty popular in some areas. If you trust your local police to ethically fight crime, why not help them out?

gnarlouse• 8 months ago

Redmond is such an excellent town.

cogogo• 8 months ago

Clearly relevant regardless of opinion.

https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety

snickerbockers2• 8 months ago

So I definitely agree it's a positive development that these cameras are being taken down because they're absolutely orwellian, but I really don't understand why "the line" is being drawn at immigration enforcement? Were people really okay with this until the point where they found out that illegal immigrants can be tracked by the surveillance state too?

o11c• 8 months ago

I'd have no problems enforcing laws about illegal immigrants if they actually bothered to check and not just deport random brown people even if they're citizens.

voidhorse• 8 months ago

This isn't the "people" waking up and not being okay with this, it is one governmental power (the state) realizing that its own power to manage its citizens (the residents of WA) and its sovereignty is being threatened by another power (the fed) in a new way. The system the state previously used to enforce its own power over its constituents is now helping the competing power to have more power over those constituents outside of cooperation with the state power, so they are removing it. There is no sudden awakening of citizen consciousness here. Many of the actions emerging around ICE stuff are about states trying to combat overreaching federal power.

parrellel• 8 months ago

People were okay with it when they assumed, I think naively, that only guilty people had anything to hide.

Now that we've got someone willing to throw all rules and morals to the wayside in charge, they've understandably begun to reassess.

johnnyanmac2• 8 months ago

Sure wish Americans could understand the issues before they happen. Not after it's too late.

thrance• 8 months ago

Masked ICE thugs have been abducting citizens, and refusing their victims their due process. Stop acting like you're still ignorant about that.

tomhow• 8 months ago

Stop acting like you're still ignorant about that.

We've asked you multiple times recently to not post in the flamewar style on HN. It's not what HN is for, and eventually we have to ban accounts that keep doing it.

potato373284210• 8 months ago

I'd like to say that the people who championed them realized that if fedcops can basically arrest their landscaper over what amounts to a civil infraction then it has implications for them. Unfortunately I don't think the people who championed the cameras in the first place have that kind of self awareness and what we're seeing is instead the typically silent majority saying "no, I akshually agree with the privacy people those are bad".

generalizations2• 8 months ago

The UK has their "blade runners" - maybe the US needs them, too.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ulez-cameras-van...

chzblck• 8 months ago

I know there's a massive hate for flock online but it solved a murder that happened in a park behind my house in less than 24 hours which was pretty cool.

Redmond, WA, turns off Flock Safety cameras after ICE arrests

Related Stories