Between this and the abortion story [1] (CEO deflected blame and took zero ownership [2]), it looks like Flock leans into enabling this sort of lawlessness. They should be torn out of our cities.
Do we have a list of their clients?
EDIT: Apparently my town installed them in 2023 [3]. Inciting a couple council members over for dinner this week.
What a ridiculous response. Just say "Flock cameras are designed for law enforcement to use however they see fit, even if it's to chase down abortion-getters, even if it's to kidnap people off the street into unmarked vans"
Another example for the whiteboard of "why 'invest in founders not ideas' doesn't work" I suppose.
The more I look back on it, working for a YC-funded company will forever remain the black eye of my resume. I don't feel even a lick of pride "solving" the "problems" that YC perceives to be important. The greatest minds of my generation are looking at China and envying the confidence of their state.
Occasional reminder that YC application required applicants to give an eample of how they cheated a system for personal gain. YC prefers "naughty" founders over honest ones.
That's way too broad to support the previous comment's claim, and seems to be looking for examples of ingenuity. Modifying your dishwasher to use less water would fit that prompt.
Are you suggesting that YC applications contain trick questions? Or that the questions are intentionally drafted in a confusing and/or misleading way? That seems kind of weird.
Between this and the abortion story [1] (CEO deflected blame and took zero ownership [2]), it looks like Flock leans into enabling this sort of lawlessness. They should be torn out of our cities.
Do we have a list of their clients?
EDIT: Apparently my town installed them in 2023 [3]. Inciting a couple council members over for dinner this week.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/she-got-abortion-so-te...
[2] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/statement-network-sharing-u...
[3] https://atlasofsurveillance.org/search?vendor=Flock+Safety
What a ridiculous response. Just say "Flock cameras are designed for law enforcement to use however they see fit, even if it's to chase down abortion-getters, even if it's to kidnap people off the street into unmarked vans"
Another example for the whiteboard of "why 'invest in founders not ideas' doesn't work" I suppose.
The more I look back on it, working for a YC-funded company will forever remain the black eye of my resume. I don't feel even a lick of pride "solving" the "problems" that YC perceives to be important. The greatest minds of my generation are looking at China and envying the confidence of their state.
"The first public safety operating system that eliminates crime."
I've heard of "startup founder hubris" before but this is a new level.
> Our flock of hard-working employees thrive in a positive and inclusive environment
I'm honestly surprised they weren't too woke for them.
Occasional reminder that YC application required applicants to give an eample of how they cheated a system for personal gain. YC prefers "naughty" founders over honest ones.
I was curious about this and found the precise wording of the question:
> Please tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage.
That's way too broad to support the previous comment's claim, and seems to be looking for examples of ingenuity. Modifying your dishwasher to use less water would fit that prompt.
YC prefers potential profit over anything else it seems, otherwise I can't imagine how this would have gone through.
Because VCs are psychopaths by most measures? I mean just look at Andreesen, or Thiel, or any of the ghouls creating a fascist state.
What YC is (actually) asking: For example, When was a time you went the extra mile to get a job interviewers attention
What HN thinks YC I asking: "how they cheated a system for personal gain"
lol.
Source: Me, I got into YC by answering the question that way.
Are you suggesting that YC applications contain trick questions? Or that the questions are intentionally drafted in a confusing and/or misleading way? That seems kind of weird.
No, just that the questions are obvious to most of us except maybe the most cynical (like OP)