A handful of cities have replaced Flock with Axon (404media.co)
103 points by cdrnsf 25 days ago | 41 comments



Cider9986 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Also Flock, in the past week:

All of Winona Police Department's Flock cameras cut down and stolen

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49171656

257 comments

Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49184190

202 comments

How Cops Are Trying to Hide Their Use of Flock

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49172076

10 comments

Flock's CEO Faced Me After Its Cameras Led to My Wrongful Stop

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49156650

118 comments

Flock – Chilling Effects: Long Island's Emerging Open-Air Prison

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49148541

40 comments

Leaked Flock Guide Shows How It Teaches Cops to Promote Its Tech

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49158837

17 comments

wxw 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

> One key feature of Flock is its national lookup tool.

> Axon, simply, does not have a national network. Meaning that it would not be possible for cops in one jurisdiction to search cameras across the country. [...] Police departments using Axon can enter into data sharing agreements with each other, though.

> Denver, just like the City of Ferndale, explicitly mentioned this lack of this national network as part of its decision to ditch Flock for Axon.

This (probably alongside all the bad press Flock has gotten) appears to be the crux of the switching. Ultimately, the tech actually being deployed seems similar.

Also interesting:

> One reason why journalists, activists, and residents have been able to learn so much about what police use Flock for is that the company has built auditing tools that the public can access through records requests.

dave78 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Vendor doesn't matter. The same issues will exist. Public safety is all about aggregating data to "operationalize" it now, so all vendors will be collecting data and sharing it with all customers just like Flock. The only benefit is that for the moment, other vendors' networks are small compared to Flock.

> One reason why journalists, activists, and residents have been able to learn so much about what police use Flock for is that the company has built auditing tools that the public can access through records requests. ... It is not clear if the same granularity of data can be learned about Axon systems, although it does allow agencies to generate audit reports.

> Axon’s documentation for its ALPR product, a “shared data” option “extends the query to partner-agency detections once a sharing relationship is active.”

Axon develops a data marketplace to streamline so-called lawful sharing of data, or acquires it via Flock and rebrands the network name. Audit capabilities are removed to streamline operational efficiency and reduce political risk. The public is no better off than before.

neura 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Worse off, if anything.
anvil24 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

At least Flock's audit trail let you prove it. Axon just gets to be worse in the dark.
ewolfe 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Same story as CALEA audit trails in the 90s. Compliance logging only exists when regulator or FOIA forces vendor's hand. Flock got burned by transparency, so agencies just picked vendor with less paper trail. Feature, not bug, for buyer.
mirmor23 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

> Axon, for example, advertises AI-powered cameras that attach to an existing streetlamp and are designed to completely blend in with their surroundings, and also collects license plate data with cameras installed inside police officers’ patrol vehicles

If anything this will make it go from bad to worse along all axes -- decentralized sharing, making it harder to track data request/usage, hide surveillance in an infrastructure that is considered essential, and host of other things..

inigyou 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Axon is also known as Taser, the company that popularised these sometimes-lethal weapons but promises they are completely safe and never lethal, and now supplies most of America's electronic police equipment.

Mass surveillance under any brand name is horrible, and would be illegal in any sane universe.

Out of the frying pan...
crest 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

They really want people to get e-ink license plates don't they?
gruez 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

The ones that are illegal to use and stick out like a sore thumb?
seth79 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Illegal doesn't mean rare though. Anyone actually pulled stats on how often plate covers or reflective sprays show up in citations vs just get waved off by cops as not worth the hassle? Enforcement gap probably bigger than the legality gap.

Prediction: Flock acquires Axon.

Axon is a public company with market cap of $50B. It is an incumbent with a huge business in bodycams and tasers with a huge number of US police departments. Flock has a $7.5B valuation at it's last funding round, and is the new comer.

More likely for Axon to acquire flock than the other way around.

eth0up 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Prediction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49053193

Axon just replaces Flock in some places. But I forgot to say that it probably doesn't matter much, and that whatever anyone resents about the whole thing, will just get worse.

echelon 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

They're a public company with a $50B market cap. That's not going to happen.

The direction would be the other way around. Axon is showing that they want the market, that they can build the tech themselves, and that they can leverage their extensive existing relationships with law enforcement and municipal governments as sales channels.

cdrnsf 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Soon: Flock branded tasers.
pbauer 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Antitrust math doesn't favor that direction. Axon's already fighting DOJ scrutiny over its TASER/bodycam dominance; absorbing the other major LPR vendor would be a much harder Hart-Scott-Rodino review than the reverse. Historically it's the larger incumbent that acquires the disruptor, not the other way round.
jck49 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

We swapped vendors at a small municipal client last year expecting the data-sharing problem to go away. It didn't, just moved to a different dashboard. If you actually want less surveillance, push for a retention/audit policy in the contract, not a vendor switch.