Flock cameras.

[southernhybrid]

The NYT had an interesting article about Flock cameras and how people on the right and the left are opposing them. I'll share the article so anyone can read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/10/...e_code=1.4VA.2LD1.PBTiJypw_WMT&smid=url-share

it's a long article, but quite interesting, imo.

Plus, I don't know if this is why my nice neighbor was stopped and given a ticket a few days ago because he had his cell phone on his lap, although he wasn't using it. But, somehow, this was detected and the cop told him it was against the law in Georgia to have your cell phone anywhere on your body. So, this One Nation Under Surveillance thing is getting totally out of control. Orwellian much!

In Texas, there’s one thing liberals and conservatives agree on: They don’t want cameras trained on their cars.


By Fernando Alfonso III and Kashmir Hill



Driving down a road lined with strip malls outside Dallas, Philip, a 27-year-old cellphone tower repairman, was describing the exquisite piquancy of his homegrown hot peppers when he stopped midsentence.

“Flock!” he said, pointing to a traffic light pole at an intersection. Attached to it was a small black box with a camera that takes photos as cars drive by. It was a license plate reader made by Flock Safety, based in Atlanta, that alerts law enforcement when it spots wanted cars and allows officers to see where cars of interest have been.

Philip pulled into a strip mall, parked outside a dentist’s office and opened an app on his phone. The app, DeFlock, invites people to “view and contribute to an open map of public mass surveillance devices.” He zoomed in on the intersection on the digital map and plotted the location of the camera. Philip asked that his full name be withheld, because Flock’s chief executive, Garrett Langley, once called DeFlock “terroristic.”

To Philip, DeFlock is about pushing against the proliferation of cameras that capture the ordinary moments of ordinary people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Right-wing: Back the Blue! ...unless I'm somehow surveilled in the process.

Flock cameras are a powerful tool that can be used to help find people that are wanted. The trouble is, there are apparently no limits in their live or recorded use. It also seems to be a bit of a reach that the 4th Amendment would be hunky dory with the Government using a private third party to invade the privacy of people, and yes, I would say there is a sense of public privacy. The Government isn't allowed to put a tracking device on your car without a court involved.

Legislation would likely be necessary however. It seems about 20 years over due, but Americans need to get an established set of Digital Civil Rights.

 

[unapologetic]

Florida Orders Removal of Flock Cameras

 

[unapologetic]

scofflaws who think they are innocent until caught.

No. We think we are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers.
Accusations are are too easy to throw around.
Rump is a prime example of that.

LD says that someone in his town stole/took down all the FLOCK cameras.....

RESPECT

the cop told him it was against the law in Georgia to have your cell phone anywhere on your body.

WTF? How can that be illegal?

 

[Elixir]

the cop told him it was against the law in Georgia to have your cell phone anywhere on your body.

WTF? How can that be illegal?

Further, what can such a law do?
I mean … I use my phone while driving sometimes, but I never look at it. Cars have Bluetooth lately. The phone doesn’t care if it’s in my pocket, on the floor, on my lap or in the glove box.

 

[unapologetic]

I have been contributing to a website that tracks ALPR cameras (Automatic License Plate Readers), not just FLOCK. https://deflock.org/
It's got a map of 140k cameras reported by people. It shows ALPRs all over the world. including about 300 in Australia and 4 in NZ. If you visit or report cameras, the 'legacy' map is the best one.
I would have named the site 'Flock Off' or 'Flock You'.
In my small town of 1500 people (less than a square mile) I found 9 ALPRs on the North side alone.
They went up last summer. These have 180^o coverage. Sees traffic in both directions at once.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

In ~2007 I got a ticket for a very questionable light that turned red halfway through the intersection. Whatever the case, I was caught by a camera that took a pic through the windshield and it blurred out all our faces.

The problem here seems to be that it's being done by private enterprise. I suppose that's not ideal but how is that substantively different from the countless cameras being used to watch us nearly everywhere we go in public? And why the alarm over this when our data is sold at every opportunity? I find it a lot creepier to see a YouTube video pop up on my feed after looking for something similar on Google that day than yet another inevitable step towards a surveillance state.

 

[bilby]

In ~2007 I got a ticket for a very questionable light that turned red halfway through the intersection.

A red light doesn't apply to an intersection, it applies to a stop bar painted across the road on the approach to the intersection.

If the light turns red before the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must stop.

If the light turns red after the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must NOT stop; You must proceeed* in order to clear the intersection.

If the light turns yellow before the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must stop unless it is unsafe to do so.

Traffic lights do not apply to vehicles already in the intersection, ie those that crossed the stop bar on the green phase.

If the light turned red when you were halfway through the intersection, a ticket for running a red light is not questionable, it is wrong. You may have been (correctly) ticketed for failing to stop on yellow when it would have been safe for you to do so, but such tickets are rarely issued because they are easy to contest - the driver is the ultimate arbiter of whether they feel it is unsafe to stop.

You must not cross a stop bar (ie enter an intersection) unless your exit from the intersection is unobstructed*; Having entered the intersection, you must exit it without undue delay, regardless of the phase of the lights, unless it becomes unsafe to do so.

Of course, the above is a statement of the design intent of signal controlled intersections, that is, it is how they are supposed and designed to operate. The law in any given jurisdiction might well deviate from this design intent, and to the extent that it does, it is bad law that urgently needs to be amended.

Of course, the above should be universally known to all holders of drivers licences, and to all traffic cops. As a professional driver, I am sad to observe on an almost hourly basis that it is not.





* Proceed. Do NOT reverse back across the stop bar. If you ever select reverse gear, other than to park (or to depart from a parking spot), you are doing it wrong. Do not reverse. Reverse gear is for parking. That's what it is for. That's ALL it is for.
** Unless the only obstruction is oncoming through traffic when you are turning across that traffic stream, ie making a left turn in countries that drive on the right; Or a right turn in countries that drive on the left.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

In ~2007 I got a ticket for a very questionable light that turned red halfway through the intersection.

A red light doesn't apply to an intersection, it applies to a stop bar painted across the road on the approach to the intersection.

If the light turns red before the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must stop.

If the light turns red after the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must NOT stop; You must proceeed* in order to clear the intersection.

If the light turns yellow before the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must stop unless it is unsafe to do so.

Traffic lights do not apply to vehicles already in the intersection, ie those that crossed the stop bar on the green phase.

If the light turned red when you were halfway through the intersection, a ticket for running a red light is not questionable, it is wrong. You may have been (correctly) ticketed for failing to stop on yellow when it would have been safe for you to do so, but such tickets are rarely issued because they are easy to contest - the driver is the ultimate arbiter of whether they feel it is unsafe to stop.

You must not cross a stop bar (ie enter an intersection) unless your exit from the intersection is unobstructed*; Having entered the intersection, you must exit it without undue delay, regardless of the phase of the lights, unless it becomes unsafe to do so.

Of course, the above is a statement of the design intent of signal controlled intersections, that is, it is how they are supposed and designed to operate. The law in any given jurisdiction might well deviate from this design intent, and to the extent that it does, it is bad law that urgently needs to be amended.

Of course, the above should be universally known to all holders of drivers licences, and to all traffic cops. As a professional driver, I am sad to observe on an almost hourly basis that it is not.





* Proceed. Do NOT reverse back across the stop bar. If you ever select reverse gear, other than to park (or to depart from a parking spot), you are doing it wrong. Do not reverse. Reverse gear is for parking. That's what it is for. That's ALL it is for.
** Unless the only obstruction is oncoming through traffic when you are turning across that traffic stream, ie making a left turn in countries that drive on the right; Or a right turn in countries that drive on the left.

I was well into the intersection before the light turned red. Unfortunately, I would've had to have proven that the light was yellow before I entered the intersection, which means I would've had to have a dash cam and probably some kind of traffic expert with knowledge of speed and momentum. Like everyone else, I just paid the damn thing and moved on.

In the same city I once got a parking ticket when the machines that you use to pay weren't working. I didn't know about that until it came time to renew my registration, which was well past the date I had to contest the ticket--the cost of which had doubled by then.

 

[bilby]

Unfortunately, I would've had to have proven that the light was yellow before I entered the intersection

Sane legal systems include a presumption of innocence. The cops need to prove you broke the law; You do not need to prove that you did not.

It sounds like your legal system is totally fucked up.

 

[unapologetic]

It sounds like your legal system is totally fucked up.

And getting worse every day.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Unfortunately, I would've had to have proven that the light was yellow before I entered the intersection

Sane legal systems include a presumption of innocence. The cops need to prove you broke the law; You do not need to prove that you did not.

It sounds like your legal system is totally fucked up.

You can't extrapolate ticket shenanigans to an entire legal system.

I don't practice anymore, but I'm still a lawyer, so I've been through the burden of proof wringer countless times. The great majority of judges get it right, but sometimes you run across ones who have zero business being on the bench, but that's rare.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

It sounds like your legal system is totally fucked up.

And getting worse every day.

You can look at major SCOTUS decisions and take something from that e.g. abortion, but the day to day grind is the same as it's ever been. That's not to say that we shouldn't be concerned; we absolutely should be, but the vast, vast majority of outcomes happen at the superior court level, and that's where nearly all cases stay.

 

[Elixir]

the vast, vast majority of outcomes happen at the superior court level, and that's where nearly all cases stay.

… unless it’s something Trump wants SCROTUS to take care of for him.

 

[thebeave]

In ~2007 I got a ticket for a very questionable light that turned red halfway through the intersection.

A red light doesn't apply to an intersection, it applies to a stop bar painted across the road on the approach to the intersection.

If the light turns red before the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must stop.

If the light turns red after the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must NOT stop; You must proceeed* in order to clear the intersection.

If the light turns yellow before the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must stop unless it is unsafe to do so.

Traffic lights do not apply to vehicles already in the intersection, ie those that crossed the stop bar on the green phase.

If the light turned red when you were halfway through the intersection, a ticket for running a red light is not questionable, it is wrong. You may have been (correctly) ticketed for failing to stop on yellow when it would have been safe for you to do so, but such tickets are rarely issued because they are easy to contest - the driver is the ultimate arbiter of whether they feel it is unsafe to stop.

You must not cross a stop bar (ie enter an intersection) unless your exit from the intersection is unobstructed*; Having entered the intersection, you must exit it without undue delay, regardless of the phase of the lights, unless it becomes unsafe to do so.

Of course, the above is a statement of the design intent of signal controlled intersections, that is, it is how they are supposed and designed to operate. The law in any given jurisdiction might well deviate from this design intent, and to the extent that it does, it is bad law that urgently needs to be amended.

Of course, the above should be universally known to all holders of drivers licences, and to all traffic cops. As a professional driver, I am sad to observe on an almost hourly basis that it is not.





* Proceed. Do NOT reverse back across the stop bar. If you ever select reverse gear, other than to park (or to depart from a parking spot), you are doing it wrong. Do not reverse. Reverse gear is for parking. That's what it is for. That's ALL it is for.
** Unless the only obstruction is oncoming through traffic when you are turning across that traffic stream, ie making a left turn in countries that drive on the right; Or a right turn in countries that drive on the left.

This is way too complicated. You could learn a thing or two about simplicity from this guy:

 

[bilby]

Unfortunately, I would've had to have proven that the light was yellow before I entered the intersection

Sane legal systems include a presumption of innocence. The cops need to prove you broke the law; You do not need to prove that you did not.

It sounds like your legal system is totally fucked up.

You can't extrapolate ticket shenanigans to an entire legal system.

Sure I can.

I don't practice anymore, but I'm still a lawyer, so I've been through the burden of proof wringer countless times. The great majority of judges get it right, but sometimes you run across ones who have zero business being on the bench, but that's rare.

The idea that traffic offences should be treated as completely different from other antisocial rule-breaking behaviours, with weaker sentences and a weaker burden of proof is unreasonable, stupid, and corrosive to society.

The reason they are treated this way is because of who commits these offences - in the early days, it was wealthy people, and then middle class people, with poor people only being included much more recently. Like with white collar crime, the system is configured to avoid ruining offender's lives, rather than to deter offending - a courtesy not extended to offences commited by poor people.

And of course, any offence for which the punishment is a fine, is an offence only for poor people.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Unfortunately, I would've had to have proven that the light was yellow before I entered the intersection

Sane legal systems include a presumption of innocence. The cops need to prove you broke the law; You do not need to prove that you did not.

It sounds like your legal system is totally fucked up.

You can't extrapolate ticket shenanigans to an entire legal system.

Sure I can.

I don't practice anymore, but I'm still a lawyer, so I've been through the burden of proof wringer countless times. The great majority of judges get it right, but sometimes you run across ones who have zero business being on the bench, but that's rare.

The idea that traffic offences should be treated as completely different from other antisocial rule-breaking behaviours, with weaker sentences and a weaker burden of proof is unreasonable, stupid, and corrosive to society.

The reason they are treated this way is because of who commits these offences - in the early days, it was wealthy people, and then middle class people, with poor people only being included much more recently. Like with white collar crime, the system is configured to avoid ruining offender's lives, rather than to deter offending - a courtesy not extended to offences commited by poor people.

And of course, any offence for which the punishment is a fine, is an offence only for poor people.

Look, saying something like, "Okay, I didn't know that" is quite acceptable. Doubling down on a clearly incorrect statement is the stuff of Trump supporters.

The legal system is complex, and breaking it down into simple categories like "The Wealthy" isn't worth taking seriously. You think that only people in the lower classes get fined for X offenses? Come on, that's provably untrue and you don't need a law degree to understand that.

I'll end it with that. If I want to bang my head against the wall with the willfully uninformed, I'll head over to a Trump website and get the professional treatment.

 

[Elixir]

You think that only people in the lower classes get fined for X offenses? Come on, that's provably untrue and you don't need a law degree to understand that.

No, the rich are persecuted. I was in traffic court once ... the case prior to mine was a guy in a suit, in the summer, in Boulder Colorado. With a fancy Lawyer. After the cop who had stopped him described the offense (speeding: limit +40mph iirc) incident to the judge, he called the accused suit, and the hired suit questioned him.
"What kind of car were you driving?"
"How much did it cost?"
... long story short, it was a new Mercedes coupe ($75k ca 1979) with new tires that could handle some number of lateral g's and blah blah ... basically, the accused saying "I'm rich and stupid".
The judge bit the lawyer's head off for wasting his time, scolded the offender, gave him the max fine plus points ...
I was pissed, because I had planned to give the court some guff, and felt innocent in my case, but I wasn't going to tell that to a guy whose hair was still on fire.

 

[bilby]

Unfortunately, I would've had to have proven that the light was yellow before I entered the intersection

Sane legal systems include a presumption of innocence. The cops need to prove you broke the law; You do not need to prove that you did not.

It sounds like your legal system is totally fucked up.

You can't extrapolate ticket shenanigans to an entire legal system.

Sure I can.

I don't practice anymore, but I'm still a lawyer, so I've been through the burden of proof wringer countless times. The great majority of judges get it right, but sometimes you run across ones who have zero business being on the bench, but that's rare.

The idea that traffic offences should be treated as completely different from other antisocial rule-breaking behaviours, with weaker sentences and a weaker burden of proof is unreasonable, stupid, and corrosive to society.

The reason they are treated this way is because of who commits these offences - in the early days, it was wealthy people, and then middle class people, with poor people only being included much more recently. Like with white collar crime, the system is configured to avoid ruining offender's lives, rather than to deter offending - a courtesy not extended to offences commited by poor people.

And of course, any offence for which the punishment is a fine, is an offence only for poor people.

Look, saying something like, "Okay, I didn't know that" is quite acceptable.

And had you said something I didn't know, I would happily have done that.

Doubling down on a clearly incorrect statement is the stuff of Trump supporters.

Indeed. However, I didn't make a clearly incorrect statement. It does appear that you have misinterpreted what I said, and that you believe (incorrectly) that I did that, though:

The legal system is complex, and breaking it down into simple categories like "The Wealthy" isn't worth taking seriously.

Sure it is. Legislators are far more lenient when they can imagine their own families and friends, or even themselves, in the frame.

You think that only people in the lower classes get fined for X offenses?

No, I don't. That's your misinterpretation.

I think that only poor people care about being fined. If a $100 fine means you won't make rent this week, it's a massive penalty. If it just means that your savings account grows by 0.1% less this week than you anticipated, it's no penalty at all.

Come on, that's provably untrue and you don't need a law degree to understand that.

Though apparently a law degree is of little aid in avoiding misunderstanding at all.

I'll end it with that. If I want to bang my head against the wall with the willfully uninformed, I'll head over to a Trump website and get the professional treatment.

I would be cautious about throwing the "willfully uninformed" stone too forcefully, if I were living in your glass house.

 

[ZiprHead]

In ~2007 I got a ticket for a very questionable light that turned red halfway through the intersection.

A red light doesn't apply to an intersection, it applies to a stop bar painted across the road on the approach to the intersection.

If the light turns red before the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must stop.

If the light turns red after the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must NOT stop; You must proceeed* in order to clear the intersection.

If the light turns yellow before the front of your vehicle crosses the stop bar, you must stop unless it is unsafe to do so.

Traffic lights do not apply to vehicles already in the intersection, ie those that crossed the stop bar on the green phase.

If the light turned red when you were halfway through the intersection, a ticket for running a red light is not questionable, it is wrong. You may have been (correctly) ticketed for failing to stop on yellow when it would have been safe for you to do so, but such tickets are rarely issued because they are easy to contest - the driver is the ultimate arbiter of whether they feel it is unsafe to stop.

You must not cross a stop bar (ie enter an intersection) unless your exit from the intersection is unobstructed*; Having entered the intersection, you must exit it without undue delay, regardless of the phase of the lights, unless it becomes unsafe to do so.

Of course, the above is a statement of the design intent of signal controlled intersections, that is, it is how they are supposed and designed to operate. The law in any given jurisdiction might well deviate from this design intent, and to the extent that it does, it is bad law that urgently needs to be amended.

Of course, the above should be universally known to all holders of drivers licences, and to all traffic cops. As a professional driver, I am sad to observe on an almost hourly basis that it is not.





* Proceed. Do NOT reverse back across the stop bar. If you ever select reverse gear, other than to park (or to depart from a parking spot), you are doing it wrong. Do not reverse. Reverse gear is for parking. That's what it is for. That's ALL it is for.
** Unless the only obstruction is oncoming through traffic when you are turning across that traffic stream, ie making a left turn in countries that drive on the right; Or a right turn in countries that drive on the left.

This is way too complicated. You could learn a thing or two about simplicity from this guy:

Literally the only scene I remember from that movie.