Interesting. I just ran a similar search for « ANPR » which I think is the UK equivalent, in UK local government meetings and it’s mentioned about 80 times a month, which from a cursory glance looks like it’s more than are being shown here. I didn’t look through them yet to see how many were discussions about adding new installations vs referencing existing ones.
Is the argument that Flock cameras are used for mass surveillance defensible, or just paranoia, and if it is real, does anyone have a good idea of whether the same argument would apply in the UK?
There are quite a few new camera types rolling out in the UK, summary:
4D AI speed/behaviour cameras (Redspeed Centio): multi-lane radar + high-res imaging; flags speeding, phone use, no seatbelt, and can check plates against DVLA/insurance databases.
AI “Heads-Up” camera units (Acusensus): elevated/overhead infrared cameras (often on trailers/vans) to spot phone use and seatbelt/non-restrained occupants.
New digital fixed cameras (Vector SR): slimmer, more discreet spot-speed cameras (sometimes with potential add-on behaviour detection, depending on setup).
Smart motorway gantry cameras (HADECS): enforce variable speed limits on motorways from gantries.
AI-assisted litter cameras: council enforcement for objects/litter thrown from vehicles
Really interesting, thank you! They do seem very rare in comparison to ANPR, although maybe I'm not looking for the right thing. Durham, Plymouth and Wokingham are talking about Red Speed and Acusensus but given basically all 300 odd councils have discussed ANPR at some point in the last year, that's a tiny percentage.
No, I think you are right- they are not common in any way yet and hopefully will stay that way. Although with the fly-tipping issues here, if it could be done in an anonymous way, I would actually welcome the camera's that detect people dropping rubbish!
On the topic of tricking the automated phone usage detection cameras this youtuber had an entertaining video where he built a car phone holder by molding his hand and making a replica.
https://youtu.be/Ud8kFCmalgg
ANPR have been widely used in the UK for at least 25 years. It was first used 32 years ago in 1993 around the City of London.
They were initially deployed without discussion as it would have tipped their hand. The coverage back then was on the main roads around major cities, criminals with enough knowledge could have used minor roads, or used fake plates.
Discussions in the UK in meetings would be about the benefits of them, what arrests the use of ANPR have enabled. Councils have regular scheduled meetings about crime. There would be no real in depth discussion about new ones; that either never happened or happened before many of us (and many of the politicians discussing them!) were born.
There's been increased attention on it here when (from memory), it was found that police departments on the other side of the country were handing over data from completely different jurisdictions' cameras, without any kind of warrant or official order, to third parties.
Mass deployment of CCTV and traffic cameras have a much, much longer history in the UK than in the US. Tires burning around Gatsos were a meme 20+ years ago.
> Is the argument that Flock cameras are used for mass surveillance defensible, or just paranoia
Our definitions of mass surveillance must differ for you to ask this. Flock cameras are marketed and purchases for mass surveillance expressly.
That's true if you define modern policing as a form of mass surveillance, but doing so stretches the dilutes the usefulness of the term. People see a difference between automatically flagging cars on a stolen car hotlist, and monitoring the comings and goings of every resident in their town. And they're right to see that difference, and to roll their eyes at people who don't.
That doesn't mean the cameras are good; I think they aren't, or rather, at least in my metro, I know they aren't.
These cameras may have been originally sold to municipalities as a way to find stolen cars, but from one year to the next, federal agencies have (1) decided that their main goal is finding arbitrary noncitizens to deport, and (2) that they're entitled to the ALPR data collected by municipalities in order to accomplish this goal. The technology isn't any different, but as a result of the way it was deployed (on Flock's centralized platform), it was trivial to flip a switch and turn it into a mass surveillance network.
> decided that their main goal is finding arbitrary noncitizens to deport
In the vast majority of cases this means: "enforcing immigration law." A presidential administration deeming it politically expedient to import illegal immigrants via turning a blind eye doesn't change the law of the land.
> that they're entitled to the ALPR data collected by municipalities in order to accomplish this goal
"Entitled" to purchase something that is being sold on the market for a fair price? Why wouldn't they be entitled to purchase this info if a vendor wishes to sell it to them?
Maybe, but I don't think there's much evidence that cameras with sharing disabled were getting pulled by DHS, and I think, because of how the cameras work, it would be a big deal if they had. Flock also has extreme incentives not to let that happen. We'll see, I guess: contra the takes on threads like this, I don't think the cameras are going anywhere any time soon. I think small progressive and libertarian enclaves will get rid of their cameras while remaining landlocked in a sea of municipalities expanding theirs.
> I think small progressive and libertarian enclaves will get rid of their cameras while remaining landlocked in a sea of municipalities expanding theirs.
Flock will just start putting cameras up on private property and selling the data to the Federal government. Municipalities can do very little to stop this, and local governments are pretty poor at keeping their true reasons out of public forum deliberation. Loophole methods of prohibition ("Can't put up camera masts") are easily thwarted in court.
> Is the argument that Flock cameras are used for mass surveillance defensible
Its always defensible - think of the children!/terrorists! - and always in the same dystopian direction. Just believing yourself to be being tracked, changes behaviour. Just as in large cities, people moderate their behaviour.
> Just as in large cities, people moderate their behaviour.
Given that crime rates are generally higher the more densely populated an area is (in the US, at least), I'm not sure this is true