Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

2025-09-263:51398253evanstonroundtable.com

Private surveillance vendor Flock Safety reinstalled all of its stationary license plate cameras in Evanston that had previously been removed, apparently

Private surveillance vendor Flock Safety reinstalled all of its stationary license plate cameras in Evanston that had previously been removed, apparently doing so without authorization from the city, which sent the company a cease-and-desist order Tuesday afternoon demanding that the cams be taken back down.

The city previously ordered Flock to shut down 19 automated license plate readers (18 stationary and one flex camera that can be attached to a squad car) provided by the company and put its contract with Flock on a 30-day termination notice on Aug. 26.

This decision came after Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias discovered that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois cameras in a “pilot program” against state law, and after the RoundTable reported in June that out-of-state law enforcement agencies were able to search Flock’s data for assistance in immigration cases.

Flock had removed 15 of the 18 stationary cameras by Sept. 8, only to reinstall each one at or near its prior location by Tuesday. City spokesperson Cynthia Vargas said in a written statement that the city has not deviated from or made any changes to its policies “since the earlier contract termination, meaning Flock reinstalled the cameras without the city’s permission.”

“Recently, we became aware that Flock has reinstalled the physical cameras that they had previously taken down,” Vargas wrote. “We immediately issued a cease-and-desist order to Flock. Earlier this afternoon, Flock committed to promptly removing the cameras.”

Flock did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the RoundTable on Tuesday night.

The city first installed Flock cameras in late 2022 and early 2023 as part of two separate one-year contracts, and City Council later approved a single five-year contract extension in January 2024.

The city has paid the first two years of that extension but would still owe $145,500 for the final three years if the contract is upheld. The city intends to terminate the contract on Sept. 26 under its notice to Flock, but the company is challenging that termination, and the dispute could escalate to litigation.

The RoundTable mapped and photographed each of the 18 stationary cameras in June, and site visits on Sept. 8 confirmed that all but three had been removed by Flock. The last three, which appear to have never been removed, are the north-facing cameras at Howard Street’s intersections with Chicago, Ridge and Dodge avenues.

Further site visits Tuesday confirmed that the 15 removed cameras had been replaced at the same locations. Most of them were banded back onto public streetlight fixtures where they were placed before, while five located on east-west streets along McCormick Boulevard had individual poles reinstalled into the ground. Near three of these pole mounts were freshly spray painted lines, the word “FLOCK” and numbers appearing to designate the cameras individually.

A Reddit user posted a photo to the r/Evanston subreddit on Monday evening showing a worker installing one of these pole mounts and its camera earlier that morning at the corner of McCormick and Main Street.

The worker is seen on a ladder holding the camera’s solar panel in front of the pole mount, and behind them is an Enterprise-branded rental van parked on the sidewalk in front of the sign for the Skokie Northshore Channel Park. Although this camera and the one at McCormick and Oakton Street are installed outside of Evanston’s city limits, they both fall under Evanston’s contract with Flock, rather than Skokie’s.

Click on the images in the gallery above to see them full screen.

Additionally, not all of the reinstalled cameras were “Falcon” models — the long, oval-shaped camera with a solar panel and battery packs that was previously used in every location.

At five locations, there was instead a stubbier camera that looks similar to the “Standard” model currently advertised on Flock’s website, except with an extra attachment under the main body. These five also appear to lack solar panels, instead attaching to several previously unseen boxes, and at least one camera is attached to a wire connected to the city-owned light post it’s mounted to, suggesting it may draw power from the city’s grid.

Click on the images in the gallery above to see them full screen.

Even before any cameras were initially removed, none of them were supposed to be collecting any data. The city wrote in its Aug. 26 announcement that the 19 cameras were “no longer collecting or providing license plate reader data to the Flock network,” and EPD Cmdr. Scott Sophier reconfirmed this to the RoundTable on Sept. 8.

“The last read on an Evanston Flock camera was logged shortly before 1:00 p.m. on August 26th, which is consistent with the City’s request for de-activation,” Sophier said at the time.

However, Flock’s own publicly available data suggests that may not be the case.

The company maintains a “transparency portal” webpage for Evanston that updates daily with basic data on the cameras’ operations, including “Number of LPR [license plate readers] and other cameras” and “Vehicles detected in the last 30 days.” The RoundTable has tracked this page since shortly after the city’s shutdown order, logging the data and archiving updates on most days.

A screenshot shows the data listed on Flock’s transparency portal for Evanston on Sept. 23, 2025. Credit: Flock Safety

The “Number of LPR and other cameras” figure was at 19 when the shutdown was ordered, matching Evanston’s 19 cameras, but it later dropped to 10 on Aug. 30. Rather than falling to zero, however, the figure stayed at 10 until Sept. 16, when it increased to 12, eventually returning to 19 on Sept. 23, matching the reinstallation of all the cameras.

Meanwhile, the “Vehicles detected in the last 30 days” number has steadily decreased since the shutdown order, with each passing update rolling off another day when the cameras were known to be active. However, the figure has not decreased enough over time to actually reach zero once 30 days have passed.

When the RoundTable began tracking this figure on Aug. 28, it stood at 439,542 vehicles detected over approximately 28 days of active cameras. To reach zero by 30 days post-shutdown, the figure would need to drop by an average of around 15,700 each day, because every new day added to the data should have included zero new vehicles detected.

Based on the city’s Aug. 26 termination notice, there should only be two full days’ worth of vehicle detections left on Flock’s data portal as of late Tuesday, Sept. 23. But the page still reports 155,507 vehicles detected in the last 30 days, yielding a reduction of 284,035 vehicles over 26 days, or around 10,924 per day — well below the reduction rate needed to reach zero.

This trend means that on Friday, Sept. 26, when more than 30 days will have passed since the city’s cameras were supposed to be shut down, Flock will still report some number of vehicles as being detected in the prior 30 days. That suggests some number of cameras may have remained active and logging vehicles after Aug. 26, in violation of the city’s order and without the city’s knowledge, as indicated by Sophier’s response to the RoundTable on Sept. 8.

“Flock has not indicated to the City in direct communications that any ALPR’s are active or have been re-activated,” Sophier wrote. “There is no indication that Flock did not honor/fulfill the City’s request and also no indication on the City’s end to show any plate reads since the aforementioned date/time.”

Flock did not answer questions about this data sent by the RoundTable on Sept. 8. Site visits by the RoundTable that day confirmed that the 15 aforementioned cameras had been removed by that time.

Update: The City of Evanston has covered up the Flock cameras while waiting for their removal.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By donmcronald 2025-09-265:2414 reply

    Even though it's become commonplace in the last 20 years, I'm still shocked to see how companies can pretty much ignore the law, do whatever they want, and have everyone involved shielded from any kind of significant consequences.

    In situations like this, I think the person at the top of the chain that told employees to perform the illegal installations should be arrested and charged. On top of that, the company should be fined into bankruptcy. If the directors knew about it any companies they're involved with shouldn't be allowed to conduct future business in the municipality (or state).

    • By mothballed 2025-09-265:384 reply

      They were co-operating/conspiring with CBP as an extension of the federal government.

      Most likely the feds said they will tie up whoever challenges them in federal court. They can play jurisdiction fuck fuck games and then flip between it being a search, it being necessary for safety, that the city/county was obstruction a federal investigation, and all other nonsense.

      Don't think your company could just put up cameras and post the location of LEO and they'd let you get away with something like that.

      • By euroderf 2025-09-266:125 reply

        > Most likely the feds said they will tie up whoever challenges them in federal court. They can play jurisdiction fuck fuck games and then flip between it being a search, it being necessary for safety, that the city/county was obstruction a federal investigation, and all other nonsense.

        This sounds like some sort of legal procedures adopted from the USSR.

        • By grafmax 2025-09-2612:321 reply

          It turns out capitalism devolves into authoritarianism too when money gets concentrated enough. Basically any extreme concentration of power (wealth concentration or Stalinism) is going to tend toward this kind of outcome.

          • By conception 2025-09-272:26

            Slight correction, capitalism has no political ideology and craves monopoly. Corporate feudalism and capitalism are totally compatible.

        • By MangoToupe 2025-09-275:53

          No need to look abroad; companies have gotten away with this kind of stuff for most of the history of the US. Union busting is a particular flashpoint for engaging in illegal activity with the blessing of the government.

        • By trhway 2025-09-269:044 reply

          It isn't just USSR, it is the core Russian principle of "oprichnina" - you can violate any laws, human or God's, as long as you're serving the tzar, Secretary General or President Putin. We start to see a hint of it here with ICE, and i'm sure we'll see a bit more of it with the newly formed Domestic Terrorism Task Force.

          • By Wololooo 2025-09-269:253 reply

            And if I'd have to wager anyone that dare speaking out would be labelled antifa, therefore a terrorist, therefore free for all from a law enforcement perspective...

            Things are going downhill at an impressive pace... Not going to lie watching the Trainwreck in slow motion is entertaining in a sort of morbid way. Though I wished that it wouldn't go that way...

            • By wartywhoa23 2025-09-269:512 reply

              Trainwreck spotting is best conducted from outside of the train.

              I think that most cases of seemingly unwarranted depression and apathy in people today in fact stem from their subconscious acknowledgement of this trainwreck in progress, and failure of consciousness to accept that and/or do anything about it.

              In other words, mass cognitive dissonance.

              • By jrs235 2025-09-2612:04

                >I think that most cases of seemingly unwarranted depression and apathy in people today in fact stem from their subconscious acknowledgement of this trainwreck in progress, and failure of consciousness to accept that and/or do anything about it

                I think many sense this, want to get off the train, and away from the tracks but can't figure out how to do it. To pull off it seems overwhelming.

              • By saubeidl 2025-09-2613:28

                First articulated in 2005 by scholar Alexei Yurchak to describe the civilian experience in Soviet Russia, hypernormalization describes life in a society where two main things are happening.

                The first is people seeing that governing systems and institutions are broken. And the second is that, for reasons including a lack of effective leadership and an inability to imagine how to disrupt the status quo, people carry on with their lives as normal despite systemic dysfunction – give or take a heavy load of fear, dread, denial and dissociation.

            • By blooalien 2025-09-2611:47

              > "watching the Trainwreck in slow motion"

              I only wish the train-wreck were in "slow motion" so there'd be a bit more time to take some meaningful actions as opposed to piling manufactured crises atop one another (and another, and another) in rapid succession as is currently happening.

            • By SlightlyLeftPad 2025-09-269:37

              Send help.

          • By throw0101c 2025-09-2611:54

            > It isn't just USSR, it is the core Russian principle of "oprichnina" - you can violate any laws, human or God's, as long as you're serving the tzar, Secretary General or President Putin.

            “For my friends everything, for my enemies the law.” — Oscar R. Benavides, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Óscar_R._Benavides

          • By saubeidl 2025-09-269:191 reply

            > Domestic Terrorism Task Force

            That is ... a surprisingly honest name for a force that'll terrorize any domestic opposition, gotta give them that at least.

            • By FireBeyond 2025-09-2623:27

              It's not hard to draw potential dots:

              Designate Venezuelan boats as "likely terrorists" (drug dealers). Authorize use of extrajudicial military lethal force (blow up boats with dealers aboard).

              Justify the above due to "terrorism".

              Designate "Antifa" as a "domestic terrorism group".

              Not hard to see the next step of "deploy military force against individuals suspected of being Antifa". No need for pesky trials. They're terrorists. This is a war...

          • By Yeul 2025-09-2611:164 reply

            This mode of operation is completely the reverse of my country the Netherlands.

            In Dutch society it doesn't really matter who the current ruling party is the big machine keeps rolling on. The names change frequently- governments keep tumbling down- but every day like clockwork people get up in the morning, go to work and follow their programming. Prime minister A is replaced by prime minister B.

            In some ways having a personality cult is less scary. You can kill a man but how do you destroy a collective?

            • By ambicapter 2025-09-2620:00

              You sound like someone who's never experienced a personality cult.

            • By blooalien 2025-09-2611:53

              > "In some ways having a personality cult is less scary. You can kill a man but how do you destroy a collective?"

              In some ways it's far more terrifying, because of the operative word "cult" there. Sometimes the object of such a "personality cult" can attract the mindset of an actual cult to form around them and create a highly destructive and dangerous "collective". It's happened many times already throughout recorded history, and it never really seems to go all that well for anyone involved.

            • By Terr_ 2025-09-2621:401 reply

              That's actually comparing two collectives:

              1. A collective where there is a belief (however slow or stodgy) in the consistent application of known rules.

              2. A collective where the only real rule is to make the cult leader happy even if it means a forest of contradictions and rewriting history.

              While (2) can easily change on a whim... it's not your whim.

              Which leads us to the practical question: Which collective do you think you and your community could best fight against when it starts hurting you? I think a majority of the time I'd rather be opposed to (1).

              • By kergonath 2025-09-276:551 reply

                > I think a majority of the time I'd rather be opposed to (1)

                This sounds terrible. Any political system can be good or bad, but some of them are much more prone to autocratic drift than others. There should be absolutely no hesitation: rule of law is much better than personal dictatorship. It is not sufficient because the law can be oppressive, but it is absolutely necessary.

                • By Terr_ 2025-09-277:14

                  Perhaps I wasn't clear. The phrase "I'd rather be opposed to" refers to choosing between two mutually-exclusive scenarios where I'm tasked to confront two different kinds of opponents.

                  If someone says: "Between catching Tuberculosis or AIDS, I'd rather be fighting Tuberculosis", that does not mean they have a favorable opinion towards AIDS.

            • By mindslight 2025-09-2617:31

              This is one of the exact frustrations that has led the US to our current open fascism, so try not to take your state of affairs for granted. It's much easier to resist and avoid a bureaucracy (as it mostly operates on predictable rules), than a cult of personality autocrat who chooses new targets by the week.

        • By oblio 2025-09-267:46

          Well, you're probably right for some types of procedures.

          But this type of thing (surveillance cameras) would actually fall under state security and be ordered by the Central Committee and done top down without any comments anywhere along the line (because everyone understood what was good for them).

          You're probably thinking of the "we're making the wrong type of tractor ball bearings"/"we're making broken consumer radios" type of issue where yeah, they'd give you the runaround.

      • By snowwrestler 2025-09-2613:10

        A bunch of companies seem to be relying on similar federal cover. To me it seems dumb because whatever legal exposure they create will outlast the current administration. It’s impossible to predict who will be running the federal government 3 years from now, and liability does not evaporate much in that time frame.

        The next administration could decide to side with localities, and assist prosecutions of the companies and executives involved. Or even pursue their own federal prosecutions.

      • By nielsbot 2025-09-2621:101 reply

        Do you have a source for their cooperation with CBP? I think that would make this an even bigger story.

        • By mothballed 2025-09-2621:561 reply

          Yes the posted article

            This decision came after Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias discovered that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois cameras in a “pilot program” against state law,

          • By FireBeyond 2025-09-2623:35

            Flock promises all sorts of safeguards and ethics around, y'know, the law, but the reality is their perspective is "it's not our job to tell you that you can or can't do something, even if we know for a fact that you can't".

            Reminds me when I build health insurance claims management software (pre-ACA). "We want to mine the database for familial history of conditions, based on familial claims and ICD codes".

            "We can't do that."

            "Why not? It's all in the database."

            "It is. And we are legally forbidden from running such queries."

            "..."

      • By JumpCrisscross 2025-09-267:18

        > Most likely the feds said they will tie up whoever challenges them in federal court

        The keep saying this and losing in court. I don’t have much respect left for these bootlickers who won’t fight.

    • By hdgvhicv 2025-09-267:102 reply

      Confiscate the shares. No compensation. Effectively nationalisation as punishment.

      Solves the “too big to fail” problem as the company continues to exist, the ceo ends up in jail and the owners end up broke, but the work still gets done.

      • By JumpCrisscross 2025-09-267:172 reply

        > Confiscate the shares. No compensation

        This is better than corporate death penalties but still more complicated than fines. Massive fines are the answer.

        > Solves the “too big to fail” problem as the company continues to exist, the ceo ends up in jail and the owners end up broke

        So do fines and bankruptcy. CEO won’t go to jail, but they’ll spend the rest of their lives fighting shareholder lawsuits. Feed them to the wolves.

        • By forgotoldacc 2025-09-267:401 reply

          > CEO won’t go to jail, but they’ll spend the rest of their lives fighting shareholder lawsuits.

          One important lesson to be learned from the past 20 years: if you're sued, don't go to court. If you're dragged to court, say "fuck you, I'm not going and I'm not paying." If you have enough money, they literally will not do anything. They'll just have endless sham court cases that you're free to ignore and there will never be any consequences.

          Alex Jones is up to a few billion dollars in settlements against him. He's had court cases against him for, what, over 10 years now? He's still running his show, still getting money, and he's openly mocking the courts. Judges don't care. Whatever people work in the frameworks that allegedly exist to enforce judgments don't care. They're getting their salary either way.

          • By close04 2025-09-268:281 reply

            I think you're reading the wrong lesson from this. If someone cares enough to take you down, your strategy isn't just useless, it's actively harming you. It's a "for my friends everything, for my enemies the law" situation.

            A better lesson is that you can be "on the radar" but far enough from the central hotspot that you are not a priority. Alternatively you need someone to have your back and be your heatshield while you keep trudging along.

            • By SlightlyLeftPad 2025-09-269:412 reply

              The actual takeaway here is the newly formed Soviet United States of America.

              • By close04 2025-09-2612:39

                The issue mentioned above around how justice works has always been a problem in the US. Justice isn't blind, or fair. Best justice money can buy. The current administration just went all out for this.

              • By MangoToupe 2025-09-275:55

                The soviets had better healthcare funding and lower rates of homelessness. We may be collectively richer than the soviets, but our state hates us more, and the people who run most of this privatized country (ie, capitalists—board members, executives, and rich shareholders) have more contempt for us than soviet politicians and apparatchiks ever could muster.

        • By ljm 2025-09-269:34

          I personally don't understand what makes executives so special that they are exempted from the same sort of criminal proceeding the average Joe is faced with. By all accounts they hold these lofty positions precisely because they can (and should) be held responsible for their company's dirty deeds.

          A fine is low stakes because the company more likely than not will have a way to recoup that loss. There is an obvious calculus to that which is practically a cliché to mention. A lawsuit just puts it on the people to succeed in civil proceedings at their own expense, over a potentially lengthy period of time.

          Western countries like the UK and US tend to be quite soft on businesses engaging in practices that would land an unremarkable working class person in prison if they were caught doing the same.

      • By hamdingers 2025-09-2620:55

        If corporations are people then they can be taken into custody.

    • By pjdesno 2025-09-2614:161 reply

      If you click through to the follow up article, you’ll find that the city covered the cameras with black plastic.

      Sometimes low tech solutions work pretty well. And since the cameras are under contract to the city, on city poles, I doubt there’s anything the feds can do.

    • By HiPhish 2025-09-278:56

      > On top of that, the company should be fined into bankruptcy.

      Fines need to increase with subsequent offenses, otherwise they become just a number in the cost of running business. If the fine is 100k, but the profit from breaking the law is 1M, then it makes more sense to keep breaking the law and keep paying the fine.

      Instead the fine should increase every time. The first time it's easy to pay the 100k, but then it rises to 200k (still worth), 400k (not so much worth it), 800k (barely profitable), 1.6M (actual loss) and so on. Of course this only works if the fine keeps increasing faster than the profitability of the crime.

    • By sli 2025-09-2618:32

      I've always maintained that if a corporation breaks the law, the entire C-suite should be individually charged as if they personally committed the crime. It's their company and their responsibility.

    • By ActionHank 2025-09-2611:29

      It was a mistake to treat corporations as the legal person responsible for these things. The officers of the corporations should be held legally responsible for breaking the law.

    • By FireBeyond 2025-09-2623:241 reply

      As an ex-employee of Flock, I can guarantee that this most likely came from the top down. The founder has a vision that isn't just aspirational, but literal, in his eyes, "Flock should help eliminate all crime." Very much Minority Report. He sees Flock as the unsung heroes of the community, and any collateral damage is an acceptable price to pay, despite lip service being paid to ethics:

      For example, their "suspicious behavior". Cameras reporting to HOAs and to LE of vehicle behavior that is suspicious or aberrant to their AI (changes in parking behavior and times, for example).

      Sharing of data between entities that aren't meant to be sharing (HOAs sending data to LE, for example, when prohibited by the state. Flock's position is "not our job to stop you, even if we know that your state says not to").

      A very ... opaque ... "transparency report". In my county alone, there are at least four agencies using Flock that are not listed in their "Agencies using Flock" data.

      • By qmr 2025-09-274:442 reply

        Why would you work for such a fucked up dystopian Orwellian corporation?

        Appreciate any other insider details you have to share.

        • By HiPhish 2025-09-278:521 reply

          > Why would you work for such a fucked up dystopian Orwellian corporation?

          I never understood how someone can ask such a question. It's not like you can just change jobs like you can change clothes. Some people have a family to feed so they can't just decide to be jobless for a few months. Finding a new job takes time you might not have if you still have to show up to your existing job and keep up the mask as if you have no intention of quitting. Sometimes the shittiest jobs pay the most and you cannot afford the pay cut. And sometimes all options are equally bad, e.g. if you don't want to participate in planned obsolescence, but every company out there is making products designed to break. What's the alternative? Make your own company?

          • By qmr 2025-09-279:24

            "Because of the broken socio-economic hellscape we are forced to exist in" is certainly a valid-ish answer.

            > What's the alternative? Make your own company?

            Check address bar? :)

        • By dcow 2025-09-276:271 reply

          Ex-employee.

          • By qmr 2025-09-278:30

            Yes, I read that, thank you.

    • By atoav 2025-09-267:473 reply

      It is pretty clear to me that many of the things companies do get away with would land regular Joe in jail with high reliability. I think we have to start making CEOs more liable for such things, especially when done on their explicit command.

      • By CM30 2025-09-271:281 reply

        Not even just regular Joe, a lot of the things large companies get away with would lead to far harsher consequences for small or medium sized ones. Any normal company spying on people's devices at the scale of Facebook, selling dodgy goods on the level Amazon does or ignoring guidelines in general like Uber and AirBnB used to would get absolutely wrecked by the legal system.

        The system needs to be way more even when it comes to dealing with individuals and companies of every size possible.

        • By atoav 2025-09-277:58

          Yeah good point. The question is how can we effectively change incentives in such way the decision-makers in big corporations will feel they are taking a personal risk that can ruin their lives instead of a situation where the worst that can happen is a (compared to revenue) tiny symbolic fine made by the company and not by them?

          For me the important thing is that the buck needs to stop somewhere human in certain cases. And in doubt that should be the CEO, potentially even multiple people at once.

          If we want a free market where new players can enter and compete, big corporations needs to fear harsher punishment not lighter ones.

      • By t-3 2025-09-275:01

        Not just CEOs, make employees liable. Going after the soft targets first will reduce the resources and influence of the harder targets at the executive level.

      • By FpUser 2025-09-2621:54

        And who is gonna lobby/s the government to do so? Same companies / CEOs that buy the government in a first place

    • By serbuvlad 2025-09-267:084 reply

      First of all, I think that this instinct to fine-'em, screw-'em, etc. is profoundly authoritarian. It is extremely important for a civil society not only that predictable laws are put into place, but also that predictable enforcement of those laws exist. I jaywalk almost every day. I understand that if a cop sees me jaywalk, he will fine me. I also understand that if the cop wants to put me in jail for jaywalking, he cannot do that, and the law would be on my side. On my side, me, the offender.

      The reason is that the law not only specifies what people should do what is allowed and isn't allowed, but also what the penalties are for breaking the law. A law stating "People are required to do X" or "People are forbidden from doing Y", without any penalties specified is not worth the paper it is written on and cannot be enforced in any way (at least that's how it works in my jurisdiction, Romania).

      And that is all very well, and how it should be, in a law-based state.

      Secondly, in this case, this is an act of the executive branch. Specifically it is an executive branch attempting to terminate a contract with the company. It is not a company attempting to spy on private citizens by installing cameras against the law. It is a company attempting not to be ousted out of a contract with the government.

      "The law", in spite of what cop movies might have you believe, is not the executive branch, but the legislature. And private citizens and private corporations are simply not required to follow the orders of the executive, unless the executive has a piece of paper signed off by the legislature which states that the executive has a right to issue the order. In much simpler terms, citizens and corporations are only required to follow legal orders and are not required to follow illegal orders, given by the executive. Who decides what is legal? The judiciary.

      This is what it means to live in a society with a separation of powers.

      > The city intends to terminate the contract on Sept. 26 under its notice to Flock, but the company is challenging that termination, and the dispute could escalate to litigation.

      A cease-and-desist by the executive is not a law. The corporation's opinion is that the contract termination is illegal. And therefore that the cease-and-desist is illegal. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps they're wrong. But they have the right to bring the thing to trail.

      "Well maybe they have the right to bring the thing to trail, but until the trail is ruled in their case, they should follow the orders of the executive.", I hear the objection.

      Not at all. If they are wrong, they will be punished for not following the orders, including every extra day that the cameras stay up. But if they are right, they cannot be made to follow an illegal order, at any point.

      "So the executive cannot do anything to get those cameras down until the trail is solved?"

      Not at all. They can get, either as part of the trail, or outside of it, a court order, to get those cameras down. Not following a court order is actually something that can get you arrested, etc. and I doubt any business would risk that. But that means the judge must decide that it is in the community's best interest for those cameras to be down, instead of up, during the trail proceedings. And he may not decide that. He may decide the opposite, or that it doesn't matter.

      Again, the system being fair and working as intended. Not the executive doing whatever it wants.

      • By ____mr____ 2025-09-267:242 reply

        > “Flock unlawfully made data collected within Evanston and the State of Illinois available to federal agencies,” Ruggie wrote, referencing the findings of Giannoulias’ audit. “This is not a procedural error; it is an intentional and unauthorized disclosure of protected data… Let it be absolutely clear: this breach is material, intentional, and cannot be cured. The City will not entertain remediation efforts or renegotiation.” [0]

        I can't seem to access the audit in question [1] and there are connected articles that seem to also be talking about forest park police using camera readers. Whatever the case, there seems to be reasonable doubt in the trust in Flock Safety. I don't understand how an illegal termination of contract would result in anything other than Evanston having to pay out the remaining fees and maybe a cancellation fee.

        [0] https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/08/28/flock-challenges-c...

        [1] https://www.ilsos.gov/news/2025/august-25-2025-giannoulias-a...

        • By serbuvlad 2025-09-2610:41

          While all that may be very true, and you may be right, that is all for the judge to decide, is it not?

          I am not taking the side of the company, I am taking the side of rule of law and due process.

        • By sidewndr46 2025-09-2614:444 reply

          This is so abundantly hilarious to read. Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States. It'd be like if I was sentenced to a Federal pentitiary, reported in to serve my sentence and was then found guilty of collaboration with the Federal government in some state court.

          Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena, or other document. Given that Flock themselves is not being investigated, there isn't really any incentive for them to go that route.

          Now the state may be abundantly pissed that the Feds are in their backyard, but they have the right to regulate interstate commerce. They are entirely within their rights to also terminate the contract of course.

          • By Terr_ 2025-09-2621:191 reply

            Suppose a private entity commits a state crime, and their defense is "the feds made us do it"... except it's not true, and the feds merely offered a negotiated cash deal, and never took any of the required steps to prove a legitimate need and actually compel action.

            Even if I have sympathy for the person/company caught between competing jurisdictions, "they have reputation and I like money" simply isn't a credible defense against the state-crime charges.

            > Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena, or other document.

            Not necessarily, their ability to get a warrant/ subpoena is not a foregone conclusion... If it were, we wouldn't even have the test/authorization system in the first place!

            A prediction is not a substitute for the process. Imagine the same equivalence being used to kill a suspected murderer: "Well I was really sure sure the guy would get the death penalty in a trial anyway, so... No problem, right?"

            > Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States.

            Quibble: I'm pretty sure you intended to include it, but this is missing an important "legal under federal law" piece. If a real government agent shows up at your door telling you to do something heinous like strangle a baby, there is no plausible way that's legal just because you "cooperated with" the agent.

            • By sidewndr46 2025-09-2623:411 reply

              While I can see your point about "strangle a baby", I don't think there are any events that unfolded like that. If someone shows up and asks me for something they technically aren't supposed to have, how am I supposed to know that?

              • By Terr_ 2025-09-270:39

                > If someone shows up and asks me for something they technically aren't supposed to have, how am I supposed to know

                Well, in this case, you know because "you" happen to be a ~$3.5b company with a legal department that already works regularly on negotiations and compliance to state/local rules, and likely months to calmly investigate and decide on a policy.

                Has Flock Security made any statements claiming they were tricked or rushed by the feds?

          • By grayhatter 2025-09-2616:431 reply

            > Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States.

            Authotrized agents from government show up and demand that I turn over video they call evidence. Then then suggest that I should continue to record video and that I should also enable audio recording too. I comply with all 3 requests.

            Later the court rules that original request was an illegal search and seizure, and that no reasonable agent would suggest that I should continue to record video with audio, and in this case/example, elects to reject a qualified immunity claim from the agency.

            I just participated in an illegal act by cooperating with the federal government.

            > Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena, or other document. Given that Flock themselves is not being investigated, there isn't really any incentive for them to go that route.

            It's a weird take to suggest that the federal governnment themselves shouldn't need to be bothered by following the law they are expected to enforce... If they want data a state law says is private.... they should get a warrant.

            There's a word for the belief that you should do what the executive branch says without demanding they follow the the law... wanna guess what that word is?

            • By sidewndr46 2025-09-2616:562 reply

              The sentence "I should record audio and video in this case and elects to reject a qualified immunity claim." is English but not even comprehensible. I have no idea what you mean.

              Joseph Nacchio certainly would not agree with your opinion here that "they should get a warrant"

              • By grayhatter 2025-09-2616:57

                Yeah, phone artifact, sorry about that. let me try to fix it.

                Edited the original comment, hope that's better?

              • By grayhatter 2025-09-2617:041 reply

                > Joseph Nacchio certainly would not agree with your opinion here that "they should get a warrant"

                Citing Wikipedia

                > He claimed in court, with documentation, that his was the only company to demand legal authority for surreptitious mass surveillance demanded by the NSA

                Sounds like he would agree with me? Or do you mean how he was convicted of insider trading which appears to be unethical retaliation for resisting an illegal request?

                I refuse to advocate that anyone should act unethically because they fear retaliation. whether or not it's the prudent decision, I'm too much of a pedant with low self-preservation instincts to behave in such a despicable way.

                • By Terr_ 2025-09-272:31

                  > I refuse to advocate that anyone should act unethically because they fear retaliation.

                  There are parallels here with other civil rights: It would be a [4th/1st] Amendment rights violation to use the threat of a future [warrant/gag-order] to coerce someone into [disclosing/censoring] something in advance.

          • By Spooky23 2025-09-276:01

            What does the contract or the law say?

            The “Feds asked nicely” doesn’t change the law. I worked for a company that processed state income tax data. Improper disclosure was a felony punishable by 5 years in prison.

            Regulating interstate commerce doesn’t give the content the power to renegotiate state contracts or dismiss state law.

          • By kergonath 2025-09-277:01

            > This is so abundantly hilarious to read. Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States.

            It’s yet another constitutional crisis. There is nothing hilarious in that. On what ground should random federal agents be able to coerce companies to ignore state laws? Or federal law in a bunch of well-known, high profile cases?

      • By mschuster91 2025-09-268:113 reply

        > It is extremely important for a civil society not only that predictable laws are put into place, but also that predictable enforcement of those laws exist.

        At the moment, this doesn't exist either. Particularly on the low end of offenses, selective enforcement and racial profiling run rampant, and not just in the US.

        Any decent developed society takes laws that have gone outdated off the books entirely - the exceptions are the US and the UK, about the only nations in the world that didn't have at least one revolution, war, putsch or peaceful regime change that was used to reboot the entire legal system from scratch and incorporate decades if not centuries of progress.

        • By sokoloff 2025-09-2610:191 reply

          > Particularly on the low end of offenses, selective enforcement and racial profiling run rampant

          I think most people will agree to this. When they do, some will be thinking of disparate enforcement of traffic regulations and others lax enforcement of shoplifting/retail theft.

          • By potato3732842 2025-09-2614:29

            That's only the tip of the iceberg. Literally every enforcement agency targets the bottom of whatever section of the social and economic ladder they deal in.

            If anything dealing with the police is actually way better than any of the civil enforcement agencies because accused criminals have "real rights" whereas all the other agencies have the same sort of kangaroo administrative sort of processes that ICE drew ire for.

        • By serbuvlad 2025-09-2610:42

          What that may all be very true, would it not be better if law enforcement was predictable and in accord with the written law passed by the legislature and settled, in cases of dispute, by the judiciary?

        • By sidewndr46 2025-09-2614:461 reply

          There's never really been any enforcement on the low end that I am aware of. Even as a little kid I asked my dad about things like speeding, jaywalking, driving without insurance, etc. and he pointed that basically no one is actually even investigated for those things.

          • By ab5tract 2025-09-277:47

            TIL that no one has ever been in trouble for driving without insurance.

      • By grayhatter 2025-09-2616:331 reply

        You don't deserve the down votes you're getting for this clearly thoughtful comment.

        You're wrong in a number of ways, and to me it reads like an unintentionally shallow take, built up more from cliches over deeper understanding. But it's still well above average or engagement and insight of the average HN comment, thank you for writing it.

        > First of all, I think that this instinct to fine-'em, screw-'em, etc. is profoundly authoritarian.

        It's not authoritarian, simply because when it's the citizens angry about some group acting against their interests, who've elected to ignore a reasonable and lawful order from the operations group of their elected officials. It might be dangerous, or needlessly hostile, or the result of toxic rage. But it's not authoritarian.

        > Secondly, in this case, this is an act of the executive branch. Specifically it is an executive branch attempting to terminate a contract with the company. It is not a company attempting to spy on private citizens by installing cameras against the law. It is a company attempting not to be ousted out of a contract with the government.

        Except, that's exactly what they are doing. Flock is a privatized spy agency, who's been told by a city and it's population to "go away" They did, but then without explaining their actions, they reinstalled spy equipment. If it was as simple as not wanting to be ousted from a contract, there's contract law. They can collect the full amount, plus any damages without reinstalling the spy equipment they were already caught using to violate state law. Given they've already proven they're willing to violate state law, what would you say the operations branch *should* do? Roll over and say, you got us, keep spying on our citizens against their interests!

        > "The law", in spite of what cop movies might have you believe, is not the executive branch, but the legislature. And private citizens and private corporations are simply not required to follow the orders of the executive, unless the executive has a piece of paper signed off by the legislature which states that the executive has a right to issue the order.

        This is technically true as in accurate, but it's not applicable to this story. This private company had a contract with the city, they violated the law to the detriment of the people while exercising the benefits provided by that contract. That's reason enough for the city to terminate the contract and demand the other side to comply and relinquish the previously granted contract benefits.

        While originally they seemed to be complying, but then reversed course and caused more damage to the city. This is clearly (to me) bad faith behavior, and deserving of additional punishment, the other comments you are chastising, with takes that are charitably described as shallow, are only enumerating common punishments they they feel would compell pro-social behavior from CEOs and companies. Two groups that have proven to be very resistant to acting in a pro-social way.

        > Not at all. If they are wrong, they will be punished for not following the orders, including every extra day that the cameras stay up. But if they are right, they cannot be made to follow an illegal order, at any point.

        You're simply wrong here. The only loss this company can show, is the contractual payments. The invasion of privacy and loss of safety felt by the citizens can't be cured by more money as easily as the losses the private spying company might incure. Thus while waiting for the court judgment, the company should be the party to bear the restraint.

        Additionally they can't violate state laws to make money. Which they did and are still doing. Their agreement with the federal government I assume is contract and payment based, and they weren't served with a warrant to reinstall the cameras.

        > Not at all. They can get, either as part of the trail, or outside of it, a court order, to get those cameras down. Not following a court order is actually something that can get you arrested, etc. and I doubt any business would risk that. But that means the judge must decide that it is in the community's best interest for those cameras to be down, instead of up, during the trail proceedings. And he may not decide that. He may decide the opposite, or that it doesn't matter.

        The operations side of the government can also ask and make demands. And if Flock cared about their public image they would comply eagerly. If they cared about protecting what the citizens wanted, they would comply eagerly. If they didn't want to be the bad guys in the story, they would comply eagerly. Contacts can be amended through the agreements of both sides. Flock might have had a chance to pretend they were acting in good faith, but reinstalling the spy cameras they removed without a clear public explanation absolved them of any good faith.

        > Again, the system being fair and working as intended. Not the executive doing whatever it wants.

        The system was built to serve the needs and desires of the people who live within the government and society. No matter what you or Flock feel like contract law should let them get away with, is irrelevant to if the system is working correctly. Flock is acting outside the interest of the society they're spying on. Rules lawyering doesn't mean that the system is working.

        • By serbuvlad 2025-09-2617:221 reply

          Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

          Unfortunately, my comment was simply not a defense of the company, since I know little about the situation, nor was it an attack on the city's actions. It was a reply to the comment I was responding too, which voiced a call to "lock 'em up" and punish them more, which I see all too often.

          I certainly do not support government surveillance for any reason.

          My comment was a defense of the legal proceedings as-we-have-them, in which the city issues a cease-and-desist, the company ignores it, the problem persists for a while, litigation start, the city demand a court order etc. And in the end the company is massively screwed, if they were wrong.

          The alternative is simply that city decides, and the company is forced to follow.

          The problem is procedural and structural, not consequentialist.

          • By grayhatter 2025-09-2620:44

            Sure, with the caveat that thinking exclusively in procedural terms is a mistake. I feel like all my comments still stand. Given the company already removed the cameras, which obviously imply that they agreed that the city had the right or at least the position to demand their removal. What procedural grounds did they have to reinstall them? Their behavior demonstrates they already accepted the modification of the contract. If they were planning to contest it why remove them? Why reinstall them?

            The comment you replied to was quite banal. Fines are the remedy for a company invading the privacy of citizens. Then when you assume the company executives or agents knew the contract was terminated because of the violation of state law, reinstalling them demonstrates the intent to continue violating the law. The remedy for that is being arrested.

            The comment seems to me to be slightly hyperbolic, and expressing frustration about how individuals make clearly malign decisions, and then get away with that asshattery because they hide behind documents of incorporation. But even if you think it was literal, arrested and charged is still operating within the bounds of the law, is it not?

      • By DonHopkins 2025-09-2610:011 reply

        [flagged]

        • By serbuvlad 2025-09-2610:50

          Me: "I do not think the population should live under fear of excessive, arbitrary and unaccountable law enforcement. The company may be entirely in the wrong in which case they should be punished to the full extent of the law, including for present non-compliance, but that should be up to the judge and to the extent determined in the written law."

          "Bootlicker"

    • By miltonlost 2025-09-2619:18

      That's Silicon Valley and tech's whole thing: move fast and break things (the law). Uber, Spotify, OpenAI: all began by flouting laws and were rewarded. And of course now we have a convicted felon of fraud as President doing his best to remove any chance of prosecuting fraud. This whole site is built on people wanting to break laws.

    • By renewiltord 2025-09-267:463 reply

      Well, if we consider it fine for people to commit crimes like shoplift, rob, or assault people it seems fairly normal to permit groups of people to violate the law too.

      Lots of fans of Luigi Mangione and this hasn't directly killed anyone yet.

      I'd say it's just a general tolerance to the idea that the rules we have are baroque and anything goes when trying to reach your aims. This seems fairly cross politically unifying.

      Those who want the law obeyed are kind of rare. Most are happy to have the law violated to hurt their political opponents. Then they feel surprisingly aggrieved to have same strategy played against them.

      • By stavros 2025-09-2614:232 reply

        The difference is that people are fans of Luigi Mangione because he enforced a punishment for what people feel should be illegal. You're trying to paint vigilante justice with the same brush as lawlessness, when in fact it's the opposite.

        One is breaking the law to punish someone that the law failed to, the other is breaking the law to avoid punishment.

        The CEO caused vast death and suffering with the policies he enacted in the name of profit, yet the law didn't touch him. Enforcing what the people think should be enforced isn't the same as enforcing what the people think shouldn't be enforced (mass surveillance). It is, in fact, the opposite.

        • By randallsquared 2025-09-2618:121 reply

          > The CEO caused vast death and suffering with the policies he enacted in the name of profit, yet the law didn't touch him.

          If the CEO caused someone to die indirectly, how much more did the doctors involved cause people to die by refusing to schedule and perform procedures for free? They didn't.

          • By stavros 2025-09-2618:20

            Might as well jack up the price of all procedures and medication to "all your money", then.

        • By renewiltord 2025-09-2615:501 reply

          The Flock guys are breaking the law to reactivate their cameras so that they can catch people doing things that are illegal or that they think should be illegal. Seems to be an exact match actually.

          You have to apply some Theory of Mind. Just like you think you're doing the right thing so do they.

          • By stavros 2025-09-2616:131 reply

            They'll be reporting them to the police, you reckon?

            • By renewiltord 2025-09-2616:201 reply

              The entire problem here is that these cities don't want ICE to have the camera data from Flock and Flock providing that to ICE over their express wishes so yes, they will be reporting targets to federal law enforcement.

              • By stavros 2025-09-2616:241 reply

                And do you think it's the city here that's expressing the will of the majority of city inhabitants, or the federal government?

                • By renewiltord 2025-09-2616:521 reply

                  I think that just like Luigi Mangione acted against the law to do a thing that he wanted and lots of people think that's fine; you should be unsurprised that Flock is acting against the law to a do a thing that they want.

                  If you condone violation of the law, it will become commonplace. Acting like your violations of the law are fine but others' violations of the law aren't fine is a position you can take but considering that you're in the minority on both, I don't think it's going to result in anything. Sleep with the dogs, wake up with fleas.

                  EDIT: And I'll add some facts here and an example to my last statement here:

                  Luigi Mangione's act is a minority approved act actually https://archive.is/hXNhj

                  So about 18% approve of his act.

                  And no, in the US the will of the majority is not sufficient. There are damping influences on time-localized desires by design. A typical example might be that California's Proposition 8 banned gay marriage but was nonetheless struck down by the California Supreme Court. The will of the majority is not irrelevant but it is not paramount.

                  • By stavros 2025-09-2616:56

                    The law isn't a thing that was handed down from the heavens on stone tablets, it should reflect the will of the majority. What Mangione did is something that the majority wanted, or at least was fine with. What Flock did wasn't. It's as simple as that.

      • By BobaFloutist 2025-09-2619:391 reply

        > Lots of fans of Luigi Mangione and this hasn't directly killed anyone yet.

        There are also fans of Charles Manson, that doesn't mean we should automatically excuse any bad behavior that falls short of his.

        • By renewiltord 2025-09-2620:11

          No, we shouldn't. I think we'll find that as we excuse bad behavior with certain political alignments, those with opposed alignments will find it easier to excuse other bad behavior with the net effect being a total lowering in quality of life as median behavior becomes less good.

          So yes, I'm in agreement that neither is good. I'm accusing people of supporting a bad thing and opposing a crime less than that bad thing.

      • By worthless-trash 2025-09-268:05

        > Most are happy to have the law violated to hurt their political opponents.

        Way to make me feel like an outcast.

    • By flanked-evergl 2025-09-269:111 reply

      If government fails to prosecute crime then laws are pointless, and in the west we have had a significant swing, especially in high population centres, towards electing governments and officials that refuse to prosecute crimes.

      • By Frieren 2025-09-269:412 reply

        That is because we are moving away from Democracy and rule of law and towards Feudalism and aristocracy. In such a system, the law is not blind but it is applied depending on the accused social status.

        Feudalism is not a good goverment system to produce wealth nor well-being. It is very good at concentrating the diminishing wealth in a few hands, thou.

        • By flanked-evergl 2025-09-269:581 reply

          If people elect officials that promise to not enforce crimes, how is that not Democracy? I don't get it.

          • By bippihippi1 2025-09-2615:29

            democracy is the process of defining what the laws are and who enforces them. The executive branch is not allowed to decide what laws to enforce. That's what an autocracy is.

        • By iamnothere 2025-09-2611:58

          The problem is would-be aristocrats who prefer neofeudalism fighting it out with other would-be aristocrats who prefer to rule through directed mobocracy and information control. The former pretends they are fighting for decency, morals, and individual freedoms, while the latter pretends they are fighting for the common good, democracy, and “freedom from” various bad things. God help us if either group succeeds.

  • By jbullock35 2025-09-265:476 reply

    There is a larger issue that other commenters are missing:

    > The city has paid the first two years of that extension but would still owe $145,500 for the final three years if the contract is upheld. The city intends to terminate the contract on Sept. 26 under its notice to Flock, but the company is challenging that termination, and the dispute could escalate to litigation.

    The city is trying to terminate a contract with Flock. Under that contract, the city agreed to pay Flock for three more years of service. Flock maintains that the city doesn't have the right to nullify the contract. The linked article says almost nothing about the contract dispute, but another article [1] has some details.

    I don't know whether the city is correct about its power to terminate the contract, or whether instead Flock is correct. Either way, I wonder whether Flock is re-installing the cameras out of fear that, if it doesn't, it will be voiding its right to future payment under the contract.

    [1] https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/08/28/flock-challenges-c...

    • By terminalbraid 2025-09-2618:29

      > I don't know whether the city is correct about its power to terminate the contract

      They were unambiguously violating state law intended to prevent this exact scenario when they were sharing the data with the federal government. Some lawyer is going to be having a bad year and a black mark on their resume if they didn't have a statutory breach clause in the contract with a city government and even if such a clause doesn't exist there is an extremely strong case for it regardless.

      They have self-inflicted a business disaster upon themselves for doing that in a state like Illinois. In the event this holds up under that legal theory every municipality in the state has a case to dump them, to say nothing of getting new contracts there and in any place that has the same values.

    • By themafia 2025-09-266:00

      > I wonder whether Flock is re-installing the cameras out of fear that

      They are already being accused of breach and the city ordered them to remove them. Reinstalling devices out of "fear" is not a reasonable response.

    • By burnte 2025-09-2618:451 reply

      What you're missing is they can get that money without putting the cameras back up. That's what you do when a customer doesn't want your service/product but they still have an active contract.

      • By delfinom 2025-09-2618:571 reply

        Yep, paying out the remaining value of the contract is generally the default-court acceptable manner to terminate a contract. And it's probably in there as a clause.

        However, if Flock was really being evil, they could argue in court they are losing on the value of spying on the American populace.

        • By burnte 2025-09-2620:21

          > However, if Flock was really being evil, they could argue in court they are losing on the value of spying on the American populace.

          We don't know they won't say this! All the surveillance they do absolutely has value in being able to sell it to other government agencies and private security. Later on, once they've been around a while each customer is less important, but right now every single one is key so I would not be surprised if they fight to keep the cameras up so they can gather metrics for internal use and marketing/sales. They very well may say, "the contract calls for the surveillance to be active. Removing the cameras reduces our ability to further improve the system, so we're financially harmed by that." They won't win, but they very well may try it.

    • By rs186 2025-09-269:381 reply

      "Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois cameras in a 'pilot program' against state law" they are already violating state law, aren't they?

      • By tehwebguy 2025-09-2613:19

        Company fears not being paid, has no fear of committing a crime.

    • By conartist6 2025-09-265:531 reply

      I would think the commission of state crimes would have an impact on the contract. If the city does nothing they would be an accessory to those crimes

      • By ocdtrekkie 2025-09-266:121 reply

        The core of the debate is that Flock has "fixed the issue", and hence doesn't think the contract should be escapable, the services provided today are ostensibly legal. Definitely a question for lawyers on how the exact terms shake out, if the city has an out or if Flock met their obligations by fixing the access issue.

    • By EasyMark 2025-09-2620:42

      If what they did was illegal and against city law then the contract with flock is not binding anyway. A bookie can't force you via "the legal system" to pay him back for a bet you made since gambling is illegal. However, he has the option to hit your knee cap with a ball peen hammer until you pay up, also not legal, but effective. Not sure if Flock has similar remedies.

  • By forkerenok 2025-09-268:151 reply

    > This decision came after Illinois Secretary of State [...] discovered that Flock had allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois cameras in a “pilot program” against state law, and after the RoundTable reported in June that out-of-state law enforcement agencies were able to search Flock’s data for assistance in immigration cases.

    This illustrates the textbook argument for why mass surveillance is bad: these tools can quickly end up in the wrong hands.

    Play silly games, win silly prizes.

    • By burnte 2025-09-2620:221 reply

      > these tools can quickly end up in the wrong hands.

      With respect, they ALWAYS end up in the wrong hands.

      • By EasyMark 2025-09-2620:442 reply

        The people pitching for said surveillance are always the wrong hands if they're from the government. "We here from the government, we're here to help" are very scary words, and be careful if you take them up on the offer

        • By conception 2025-09-272:30

          This statement from Reagan is why we’re in this mess. There’s nothing wrong having the government come help you. The problem is regulatory capture, corruption, and a population that seems ok with it. A competent government with people who care can be a powerful force in people lives, eg social security, national parks, public schools.

        • By burnte 2025-09-2620:531 reply

          I don't really want private parties doing mass surveillance either.

          • By EasyMark 2025-09-2621:171 reply

            me either, but their power is limit. Governments can ruin you forever and even disappear you without any real consequences

            • By ab5tract 2025-09-277:58

              Governments can equally allow private companies this same capacity.

HackerNews