Do you need flock to do this for you, though? I have cameras around my property, and they catch everyone entering and leaving my subdivision. If the police need access to the recordings, they can get a court order or ask nicely. What I don't do, is share the feeds with everyone willy-nilly so the police can cast wide dragnets and do god-knows-what-else with the data.

There is a difference between this situation, a targeted install in a problem situation, and hundreds of thousands of these cameras at every intersection in the country

Also, Flock cameras are not just on roads. Many institutions use them for surveillance inside buildings. There is a community center in Atlanta that has them and there is evidence that random people with access to all Atlanta area cameras, including Flock employees and police officers in other jurisdictions, were watching juveniles at the pool. More than one deputy at a suburban Atlanta sheriff's department has been fired for abusing Flock cameras to track romantic interests

Like everything else in this country we've taken something that has a useful purpose when used in a limited, controlled fashion and pushed it to the maximum extreme. We can't do anything based on nuance anymore

Why couldn't the police, who you pay taxes to, do their jobs? Apparently a sophisticated robbery ring was operating with a well understood MO in a predictable location and the police couldn't figure out how to use those facts to effect an arrest?

Instead of "protecting" one neighborhood by installing privately owned surveillance devices, seems like the police could have just sat there, waited for a BMW full of Tren de Araugua gangsters to show up and arrest them.

In what world is this the reasonable course of action that was arrived at with the police.

Something of consideration: Flock cameras were installed after discussions across the HOA and local police department, after a multiple crimes happened in an area. So long as a discussion about the lifetime of the cameras is raised eventually, this sounds like a measured and reasonable use of surveillance.

There is still something to be said about the lack of alignment between Flock the company and the HOA as to how that data is used, but the compromise was explicit, and there was at least some coordination within the community. At the heart of the issue with automatic surveillance is the lack of accountability over those who retain the data and the lack of consent of those surveilled, and measures were taken to address one of those two within your community.

There is a lot of middle ground between ">100k cameras tracking the movement of every vehicle in the country and retaining those data indefinitely" and "cameras in a private neighborhood in response to a specific crime wave".

trade security for civil liberties and you wil lose both.

Did the HOA Flock cams provide evidence for arrests? How did they help?

Or was this a case where a fake camera to scare people off may have been equivalent, Wile E Coyote style?

This is such a bizarre story, each detail more absurd and ridiculous than the last, that I can't believe HN is falling for it.

Honestly there are a number of incredibly weird comments like this throughout the discussion. Is Flock astroturfing every discussion about the company?

This doesnt make sense.

Your neoghborhood cameras did not stop the thieves but the Flock cameras did? Is Tren De Iguana that up to speed on camera company specifics?