It used to be that we had systems such as Palantir who went out of their way to design these systems with ACLs and audit review. That was their trade off to get these powerful systems approved by respecting civil liberties
Well that seems to have been lost in today’s surveillance ecosystem. Who has access to Flock amd what are they allowed to search for? The answer seems to be any LEO for any reason
...No it isn't. It's the heart of the matter. The license plate, combined with cross border surveillance data providers, is enabling dragnet surveillance and enforcement of unconscionable law.
Stop trying to play down how tech is enabling authoritarianism. We can't have databases of beneficial ownership to facilitate investigation of white collar crime, but we can run after random women getting abortions enabled by networked cameras?
Society can't be trusted with half the tech we've given them.
>The license plate, combined with cross border surveillance data providers, is enabling dragnet surveillance and enforcement of unconscionable law. [snip] Stop trying to play down how tech is enabling authoritarianism.
Yes, that's the whole point of tech used by law enforcement: to enable the enforcement of law. If we don't like the law (and I don't), we should change it!
But focusing on the ALPR here is just silly, as a quick glance of this partial list of other technologies used by law enforcement officers in the course of enforcing the law will show:
* cars
* guns
* phones
* handcuffs
* computers
* the internet
* notebook and pen
All of these can be used to "enable authoritarianism", and indeed, any authoritarian regime would be hard pressed to run without them. Some of them are more important than others, and ALPRs are definitely a major improvement in the "who is going where" part of law enforcement -- but the problem is the bad law, not the enforcement thereof.
Your argument reduces to "some laws are bad, so we should have weak enforcement mechanisms, because otherwise people will be unable to evade prosecution for breaking bad laws, and that is bad, because the laws are bad and therefore those who break them should not be subject to prosecution." This is not as helpful a move as it might seem, since it just sends us back to the original question, which is "ok, what laws should we have?"
For better or worse, we have a setup in which we have one branch charged with answering that question, and another charged with enforcing whatever laws we happen to have. Trying to undermine one branch in order to compensate for the stupidity of another is unlikely to help.
The State of Illinois forced Flock to tighten its data sharing controls after this was reported by 404media, as Flock was violating state law. If your state is not heavily regulating ALPRs, consider calling your state reps and secretary of state.
Flock's PR response was, and continues to be as of this comment, factually inaccurate based on reporting that has been done, as mentioned in this piece by the EFF.
tl;dr A wife used medicine to kill her fetus at 9 months, her husband reported a homicide, the wife retaliated trying to get him arrested by claiming he held her at gunpoint. If it's considered homicide in TX, then they're allowed to use ALPR; if it's not homicide, then using ALPR is COMPLETELY POINTLESS because they can't arrest her or charge her with anything.
So essentially the point of the article is to prove that not being able to murder your 9 month-old baby in TX means we're living in a Handmaid's Tale.
Seems like the problem is the abortion law. ALPR boogeyman is a distraction.
No the problem is zero accountability
It used to be that we had systems such as Palantir who went out of their way to design these systems with ACLs and audit review. That was their trade off to get these powerful systems approved by respecting civil liberties
Well that seems to have been lost in today’s surveillance ecosystem. Who has access to Flock amd what are they allowed to search for? The answer seems to be any LEO for any reason
...No it isn't. It's the heart of the matter. The license plate, combined with cross border surveillance data providers, is enabling dragnet surveillance and enforcement of unconscionable law.
Stop trying to play down how tech is enabling authoritarianism. We can't have databases of beneficial ownership to facilitate investigation of white collar crime, but we can run after random women getting abortions enabled by networked cameras?
Society can't be trusted with half the tech we've given them.
>The license plate, combined with cross border surveillance data providers, is enabling dragnet surveillance and enforcement of unconscionable law. [snip] Stop trying to play down how tech is enabling authoritarianism.
Yes, that's the whole point of tech used by law enforcement: to enable the enforcement of law. If we don't like the law (and I don't), we should change it!
But focusing on the ALPR here is just silly, as a quick glance of this partial list of other technologies used by law enforcement officers in the course of enforcing the law will show: * cars * guns * phones * handcuffs * computers * the internet * notebook and pen
All of these can be used to "enable authoritarianism", and indeed, any authoritarian regime would be hard pressed to run without them. Some of them are more important than others, and ALPRs are definitely a major improvement in the "who is going where" part of law enforcement -- but the problem is the bad law, not the enforcement thereof.
Your argument reduces to "some laws are bad, so we should have weak enforcement mechanisms, because otherwise people will be unable to evade prosecution for breaking bad laws, and that is bad, because the laws are bad and therefore those who break them should not be subject to prosecution." This is not as helpful a move as it might seem, since it just sends us back to the original question, which is "ok, what laws should we have?"
For better or worse, we have a setup in which we have one branch charged with answering that question, and another charged with enforcing whatever laws we happen to have. Trying to undermine one branch in order to compensate for the stupidity of another is unlikely to help.
ALPR - Automatic License Plate Recognition
At least the sheriff was arrested, albeit for other abuse.
This seems like it should be illegal.
The State of Illinois forced Flock to tighten its data sharing controls after this was reported by 404media, as Flock was violating state law. If your state is not heavily regulating ALPRs, consider calling your state reps and secretary of state.
https://www.ilsos.gov/content/dam/news/2025/august/250825d1....
https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/state/2025/06/12/texas-law-e...
Flock's PR response was, and continues to be as of this comment, factually inaccurate based on reporting that has been done, as mentioned in this piece by the EFF.
https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/statement-network-sharing-u...
It would be great if Gary Tan, as YC's primary partner for Flock, could reach out to have Flock's PR misinformation corrected.
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety
oooh crimey
tl;dr A wife used medicine to kill her fetus at 9 months, her husband reported a homicide, the wife retaliated trying to get him arrested by claiming he held her at gunpoint. If it's considered homicide in TX, then they're allowed to use ALPR; if it's not homicide, then using ALPR is COMPLETELY POINTLESS because they can't arrest her or charge her with anything.
So essentially the point of the article is to prove that not being able to murder your 9 month-old baby in TX means we're living in a Handmaid's Tale.