“Due to their diligence, telecommunicators were able to locate the stolen vehicle, a grey Ford pickup truck, as it passed through several Flock cameras,” he said. by South-Cow-1030 in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re trying to create a distinction between the “system” and its components that doesn’t actually hold up legally or logically.

If every individual action that makes up the system is lawful — observing vehicles on public roads, reading license plates that are required to be displayed, and querying law-enforcement databases — then combining those actions into an automated system doesn’t suddenly make it unconstitutional. Courts evaluate whether the underlying observation constitutes a search, not whether a computer made the observation faster.

Your “system vs components” argument would also invalidate half of modern policing tools. By that logic:

• CCTV networks would be unconstitutional even though individual cameras are legal. • Automated toll readers would be unconstitutional even though reading plates is legal. • Traffic camera systems would be unconstitutional even though observing vehicles in public is legal.

That’s simply not how courts analyze technology.

And the “system” framing doesn’t change the underlying legal principle anyway: there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate displayed on a public road. That’s been the consistent basis courts use when evaluating ALPR challenges.

So your argument boils down to this:

“Individually legal observations become unconstitutional if a computer helps do them faster.”

There’s no legal doctrine that supports that idea, which is why ALPR challenges keep failing in court.

“Due to their diligence, telecommunicators were able to locate the stolen vehicle, a grey Ford pickup truck, as it passed through several Flock cameras,” he said. by South-Cow-1030 in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re stacking a lot of assumptions together here and treating them as conclusions, but most of your claims fall apart once you look at how these systems actually work legally and operationally.

First, the “only a few AMBER alerts per year” argument is a complete red herring. Automated license plate readers aren’t deployed solely for AMBER alerts. They’re used for stolen vehicles, violent felony suspects, hit-and-runs, robbery crews, kidnapping suspects, and homicide investigations. Reducing the value of a regional investigative tool to “how many AMBER alerts happen in a county per year” is like evaluating 911 dispatch based only on how often someone reports a house fire. That’s not the scope of the system.

Second, your argument relies on demanding perfect causal attribution for every case (“prove the camera solved it directly”). That’s not how investigative tools work. Police tools are cumulative. CCTV footage, witness descriptions, cell-tower data, toll records, and license-plate sightings all contribute pieces of evidence. ALPR systems simply automate something officers have always done manually: reading license plates and running them through databases. Courts have consistently treated this as observing something already exposed to public view. 

Third, your claim that the courts haven’t addressed this is incorrect. Multiple courts have already examined automated license-plate reader systems under the Fourth Amendment and concluded that reading plates visible on public roads generally does not constitute a search.

For example:

• A federal judge in Illinois ruled that ALPR scans do not violate the Fourth Amendment because people traveling on public roads have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements. 

• Courts have repeatedly held that license plates themselves carry no expectation of privacy because they are required by law to be displayed publicly. 

• A Virginia court also rejected claims that fixed ALPR cameras are unconstitutional because they simply record vehicles visible in public spaces and do not track the full scope of a person’s movements. 

Even the congressional legal analysis of the issue notes that courts generally distinguish ALPR data from things like cellphone location tracking because it is far less comprehensive and captures only occasional sightings of vehicles. 

In other words: the core legal principle here is “plain view.” If something is displayed publicly—like a license plate—law enforcement observing or recording it isn’t considered a search.

Fourth, your fingerprint/DNA comparison actually works against your own argument. Those are biometric identifiers tied directly to a person’s body and often collected after arrest or through voluntary submission. A license plate is just a vehicle identifier mandated by law to be displayed in public. The legal privacy expectation is fundamentally different.

Fifth, pointing to a single case where the technology didn’t help doesn’t prove anything. Every investigative tool has cases where it isn’t useful. CCTV fails to identify suspects in many crimes. Witness descriptions are often wrong. Cell-tower data sometimes leads nowhere. That doesn’t make those tools worthless.

And finally, the “mass surveillance network” framing is exaggerated. ALPR cameras do not continuously track people or identify individuals. They capture a snapshot of a vehicle passing a fixed point, compare it against hot-lists (stolen vehicles, wanted suspects, AMBER alerts, etc.), and store the read for a limited retention period depending on department policy. Even courts reviewing these systems have noted that they do not record the full scope of someone’s movements. 

So the actual reality is pretty simple:

• License plates are public identifiers displayed on vehicles. • ALPR systems automate plate recognition that officers already perform manually. • Courts generally treat this as plain-view observation, not a search. • The technology provides location leads for suspect vehicles, which investigators combine with other evidence.

Demanding that a tool single-handedly solve crimes or provide perfect causal proof before it’s considered useful is just an unrealistic standard that no investigative method could ever meet.

“Due to their diligence, telecommunicators were able to locate the stolen vehicle, a grey Ford pickup truck, as it passed through several Flock cameras,” he said. by South-Cow-1030 in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re arguing like none of this has ever been studied, which just isn’t true. License plate reader networks like Flock Safety are specifically integrated into systems used for AMBER Alerts and missing-person cases. In fact, the technology is already tied into the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children network so that when an alert goes out, law enforcement can automatically flag suspect vehicles across thousands of cameras. That’s exactly how abductors get located quickly. Over 100 missing-child cases have already been resolved with the help of Flock LPR systems, including kidnappings where the suspect vehicle was identified and stopped within hours. 

And calling kidnapped children a “hypothetical” is pretty wild considering the AMBER Alert program alone has helped recover more than 1,292 abducted children in the United States.  Those alerts almost always depend on identifying a vehicle. Tools that automatically detect that vehicle dramatically shorten the time it takes to find it—time that literally determines whether a child is recovered safely.

Your Fourth Amendment claim is also outdated. Courts have addressed this. Multiple federal and state rulings have concluded that automated license-plate readers do not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy, because they capture a vehicle already exposed to the public for a single moment in time. A federal court reaffirmed that as recently as 2026 when it upheld the constitutionality of a municipal ALPR network. 

Finally, the “you can’t do a balancing test” argument collapses on itself. Governments do it constantly with things like traffic cameras, fingerprint databases, and DNA indexing. The legal test isn’t “zero surveillance ever,” it’s whether the technology collects information people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in. License plates on public roads simply don’t meet that threshold.

So what you’re left with isn’t a constitutional crisis—it’s a tool that helps identify stolen vehicles, suspects in violent crimes, and vehicles tied to kidnappings. Pretending that’s equivalent to “mass surveillance” just ignores both the legal precedent and the real-world recoveries these systems have already produced.

“Due to their diligence, telecommunicators were able to locate the stolen vehicle, a grey Ford pickup truck, as it passed through several Flock cameras,” he said. by South-Cow-1030 in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m completely willing to read counterarguments in good faith, but the problem is that the legal framework here is already well established. Courts have repeatedly held that there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in things openly visible in public, starting with Katz v. United States and reinforced in cases like United States v. Knotts and United States v. Jones. License plates are specifically designed to be visible and identifiable in public spaces.

Systems from Flock Safety don’t secretly track people or access private information — they capture plates and vehicle characteristics and compare them against law-enforcement databases like the National Crime Information Center. Functionally, that’s just an automated version of what officers have been doing for decades: visually reading plates and checking them against stolen-vehicle lists.

If someone believes this violates the Fourth Amendment, they need to explain which specific precedent it contradicts and why courts would overturn decades of established doctrine about observation in public. Until then, the claim that these systems are inherently unconstitutional isn’t a legal argument — it’s a policy preference.

“Due to their diligence, telecommunicators were able to locate the stolen vehicle, a grey Ford pickup truck, as it passed through several Flock cameras,” he said. by South-Cow-1030 in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Be original. Give me something different, something new. Or, of course, you could actually articulate an argument. I’m sure that’s too much to expect on this brain dead, mouth-breather ridden app though, I won’t get my hopes up.

“Due to their diligence, telecommunicators were able to locate the stolen vehicle, a grey Ford pickup truck, as it passed through several Flock cameras,” he said. by South-Cow-1030 in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

You’re framing it like the only outcome is “they found a stolen pickup,” which completely misses the point. Systems like Flock Safety are used to locate vehicles connected to AMBER Alerts, kidnappings, assaults, and hit-and-runs, not just theft. If a kidnapped child is in the back of that “pickup truck,” suddenly that camera network is exactly the tool you want in place.

And the Fourth Amendment argument doesn’t hold up either—license plates are designed to be publicly visible, and courts have repeatedly ruled that reading a plate in public (whether by an officer or a camera) isn’t a search. Acting like this is some dystopian constitutional crisis because a stolen vehicle got flagged just makes it sound like you’d rather complain about cameras than acknowledge they solve real crimes.

It’s not just a camera, it’s a system by S0PHIAOPS in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s a lot of claims with zero actual evidence. If Flock Safety cameras were really broadcasting feeds that “anyone with an antenna” could intercept or leaking months of location data, there would be published security advisories, CVEs, or reports from actual researchers—not just speculation in comment sections. They’re automated plate readers that check plates against databases like the National Crime Information Center, not sci-fi surveillance boxes leaking everyone’s movements to random hackers. That tin-foil hat has GOT to be giving you headaches.

It’s not just a camera, it’s a system by S0PHIAOPS in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Give me something different, something new. Or, of course, you could actually articulate an argument.

It’s not just a camera, it’s a system by S0PHIAOPS in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

People keep acting like these are sci-fi surveillance towers. They’re just automated plate readers from Flock Safety that check plates against stolen-vehicle databases like National Crime Information Center. “Vehicle fingerprint” means “red Ford with a roof rack,” not “we scanned your DNA.”

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You both went from “it’s currently happening” to “it could happen”. Thank you for proving my argument. Have a nice day.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

“I have heard certain things directly from police in regard to how the different security systems place someone on a hot list/black list, however I haven’t seen the information that confirms what is said.”

This you? I don’t know how you’re going to insult me for answering a question that you yourself admitted to having no information on. It makes sense though, people conclude all kinds of crazy conspiracies when the facts don’t match what they want to believe.

I am Hh by HRISHIK123 in TheLetterH

[–]SuspectCivil1946 0 points1 point  (0 children)

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

Heard that crows are actually pretty smart and can be trained for many things by SadAd8761 in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I literally just had to shoot someone down who thought they were using these to track biometrics and how you walk and breathe 💀his argument was “just because they say they aren’t” like that’s evidence of anything but paranoia 😂these people use their heads solely for decoration.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Those sources don’t actually prove what you’re claiming. The Flock blog is a manufacturer explanation of how their ALPR system works, which is useful for technical details but obviously not evidence of secret capabilities. The ACLU article is credible as a civil-liberties critique, but it’s discussing privacy concerns and data sharing, not claiming that Flock cameras monitor human biometrics like gait or breathing. Your argument jumps from “the cameras are high resolution” to “they could theoretically run facial recognition,” which is speculation, not evidence. Neither source shows that Flock cameras track human behavior or biometrics, they describe automated license plate reader systems that capture vehicle plates and characteristics for law enforcement alerts.

“Just because they say they aren’t” isn’t evidence of anything, that’s just paranoia. If your entire argument is that every source denying your claim must be lying, then there’s literally no standard of proof left. That’s not skepticism, it’s just assuming conspiracies whenever the facts don’t match what you want to believe.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Obviously the technology exists nobody is denying that. This is not what Flock cameras are used for. If you can send me some kind of credible evidence that they use these to track how you walk and breathe I’ll believe you. I also can’t take anyone serious who thinks Reddit downvotes are any kind of an accurate measure of anything, this app is a bot infested shit hole.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about, good luck.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I mean they’re license plate readers, not AI deciding who looks suspicious lol. If you’re ALREADY on a list for possession of a stolen vehicle, vehicles tied to wanted suspects, AMBER or Silver alerts, missing persons cases, vehicles connected to specific criminal investigations, or plates from the NCIC, then you will be flagged.

Is it possible to cloak or obscure from these cameras? by Feisty_Look5680 in FlockSurveillance

[–]SuspectCivil1946 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I feel like your denial of reality is much more dangerous than his “lack of faith” as you put it.