Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Privacy

Flock Executive Says Their Camera Helped Find Shooting Suspect, Addresses Privacy Concerns (cnn.com) 59

During a search for the Brown shoogin suspect, a law enforcement press conference included a request for "Ring camera footage from residents and businesses near Brown University," according to local news reports.

But in the end it was Flock cameras according to an article in Gizmodo, after a Reddit poster described seeing "odd" behavior of someone who turned out to be the suspect: The original Reddit poster, identified only as John in the affidavit, contacted police the next day and came in for an interview. He told them about his odd encounter with the suspect, noting that he was acting suspiciously by not having appropriate cold-weather clothes on when he saw him in a bathroom at Brown University. That was two hours before the shooting. After spotting him in the bathroom wearing a mask, John actually started following the suspect in what he called a "game of cat and mouse...." Police detectives showed John two images obtained through Flock, the company that's built extensive surveillance infrastructure across the U.S. used by investigators, and he recognized the suspect's vehicle, replying, "Holy shit. That might be it," according to the affidavit. Police were able to track down the license plate of the rental car, which gave them a name, and within 24 hours, they had found Claudio Manuel Neves Valente dead in a storage facility in Salem, New Hampshire, where he reportedly rented a unit.
"We intend to continue using technology to make sure our law enforcement are empowered to do their jobs," Flock's safety CEO Garrett Langley wrote on X.com, pinning the post to the top of his feed.

Though ironically, hours before Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez credited Flock for helping to find the suspect, CNN was interviewing Flock's safety CEO to discuss "his response to recent privacy concerns surrounding Flock's technology." To Langley, the situation underscored the value and importance of Flock's technology, despite mounting privacy concerns that have prompted some jurisdictions to cancel contracts with the company... Langley told me on Thursday that he was motivated to start Flock to keep Americans safer. His goal is to deter crime by convincing would-be criminals they'll be caught... One of Flock's cameras had recently spotted [the suspect's] car, helping police pinpoint Valente's location. Flock turned on additional AI capabilities that were not part of Providence Police's contract with the company to assist in the hunt, a company spokesperson told CNN, including a feature that can identify the same vehicle based on its description even if its license plates have been changed.

The company has faced criticism from some privacy advocates and community groups who worry that its networks of cameras are collecting too much personal information from private citizens and could be misused. Both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union have urged communities not to work with Flock. "State legislatures and local governments around the nation need to enact strong, meaningful protections of our privacy and way of life against this kind of AI surveillance machinery," ACLU Senior Policy Analyst Jay Stanley wrote in an August blog post. Flock also drew scrutiny in October when it announced a partnership with Amazon's Ring doorbell camera system... ["Local officers using Flock Safety's technology can now post a request directly in the Ring Neighbors app asking for help," explains Flock's blog post.]

Langley told me it was up to police to reassure communities that the cameras would be used responsibly... "If you don't trust law enforcement to do their job, that's actually what you're concerned about, and I'm not going to help people get over that." Langley added that Flock has built some guardrails into its technology, including audit trails that show when data was accessed. He pointed to a case in Georgia where that audit found a police chief using data from LPR cameras to stalk and harass people. The chief resigned and was arrested and charged in November...

More recently, the company rolled out a "drone as first responder" service — where law enforcement officers can dispatch a drone equipped with a camera, whose footage is similarly searchable via AI, to evaluate the scene of an emergency call before human officers arrive. Flock's drone systems completed 10,000 flights in the third quarter of 2025 alone, according to the company... I asked what he'd tell communities already worried about surveillance from LPRs who might be wary of camera-equipped drones also flying overhead. He said cities can set their own limitations on drone usage, such as only using drones to respond to 911 calls or positioning the drones' cameras on the horizon while flying until they reach the scene. He added that the drones fly at an elevation of 400 feet.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flock Executive Says Their Camera Helped Find Shooting Suspect, Addresses Privacy Concerns

Comments Filter:
  • The shooting suspect was found because someone reported them. If you just have the slightest touch point with news you know that but here they are just fucking lying to me.

    Short-term if you want to shut down flock in your area do a bunch of freedom of information requests for the information. After about a year when it becomes clear that you can get information about the coming and goings of your local politicians and in particular which Republicans are frequency the gay bars (it's all of them but they
    • by DamnOregonian ( 963763 ) on Saturday December 20, 2025 @03:52PM (#65871821)
      No, they were found because a person reported them, and they were able to track that person via flock.
      Article told to the truth.

      Flock is a fucking evil, but trying to remove its impact doesn't enable an honest discussion- it's just more of your bullshit where everything that you don't like can never, has never, and will never have a single redeemable quality.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
        Dude once the report was made you didn't need flock to track them regular police work could easily do that.

        It doesn't even make it easier it's not hard at all for the cops to find somebody without a 24/7 surveillance state.

        So you need to ask yourself why they have you ready to give up your rights and your privacy without a second thought because if you even gave it a second thought you'd have realized regular police work could have found the guy with ease.

        They got you. You need to take a step ba
        • by jhoegl ( 638955 )
          I think its odd that the typical conspiracy nuts havent put together the most obvious conspiracy with FLOCK cameras out there.
        • Dude once the report was made you didn't need flock to track them regular police work could easily do that.

          That's idiocy.
          The dude was hiding out in his fucking storage unit.

          Don't be dense. Stop letting your political opinions shut off your fucking brain.

          So you need to ask yourself why they have you ready to give up your rights and your privacy without a second thought because if you even gave it a second thought you'd have realized regular police work could have found the guy with ease.

          And there it is.
          Truth is treason in your kingdom of lies.
          Get fucked, you little fascist wannabe.
          Your beef isn't with the existence of Flock, your beef is that it's in State control instead of yours. You want the same end.

        • Dude once the report was made you didn't need flock to track them regular police work could easily do that.

          The key thing that somebody reported was a suspicious gray Nissan. Once they zeroed in on looking for a grey Nissan at the crime scene, they looked at the surveillance cameras, found one that had in the right place at the right time, and used the Flock cameras and license plate readers to discover it was also present in Brookline at the MIT professor's shooting, then used the Flock cameras to follow it to the storage facility.

          Maybe "regular police work" could have followed it through the change of license

    • The world has changed, get over it. Cameras everywhere. They may be out to take your money but they are not out to get you - in fact they don't care about you unless you have money to spend. BTW you are still free to make faces at the camera.

      The reason cameras are everywhere is because we tolerate non life threatening crime now, in fact the expense and loss from petty crimes are built into our economy.
    • You're the liar. You think every murder has witnesses and people are writing down license plates? Without the images it wouldn't have been solved. If there was good camera coverage, they would have been able to track him well enough that he wouldn't have got to shoot the professor at MIT. Without cameras is how innocent people get caught.

    • by sabri ( 584428 )

      and in particular which Republicans are frequency the gay bars

      I don't know about you, but I don't give a shit about who visits gay bars and who doesn't.

      It's 2025. Being gay is okay.

  • I do not think anyone argues that these cameras are not useful to find someone, whatever the reason. Maximum security prisons are also very effective for this purpose. Do you want to live as if you are in one?

    • This is the proper way to discuss these fucking things.

      They're undeniably useful. They're also antithetical to freedom.
      A society under constant surveillance is only as free as the watchers allow it to be.

      I disagree with you on about 99.9% of all words you emit, but not this.
      • disagreeing with me on anything does not invalidate my positions nor does it make you right in any way, I do not know why it was important for you to add that to your reply, it actually implies that many of your positions are incorrect and it does not increase the chances that my position on flock cameras is more or less valid. My positions pretty much always align with each other because they are all derived from the assertion that maximizing individual freedoms is the most important goal for human life.

        • This statement is a perfect example of why it's remarkable that you actually came to the correct conclusion above-

          it actually implies that many of your positions are incorrect and it does not increase the chances that my position on flock cameras is more or less valid.

          You see, the latter part of that sentence is true.
          The former is obviously a falsehood.

          I wonder if your entire existence is just stumbling through an existence you're too dim to understand with a 50/50 rate of successful evaluation of your circumstances.

          • well clearly many of your positions are incorrect if you disagree with me 99.9% of the time as you said, that is because it is impossible statistically for me to be incorrect 99.9% of the time, I couldn't achieve that result if I put all my effort into it.

            • that is because it is impossible statistically for me to be incorrect 99.9% of the time

              Another falsehood. It's obviously perfectly possible.

              I couldn't achieve that result if I put all my effort into it.

              Now that is an even fucking dumber claim.

              Christ, you just aren't very intelligent.

              • OK, so if you disagree with 99.9% of what I write, tell me do you agree or disagree with this thesis I wrote a year ago about Islam being at war with the rest of Civilization:
                https://slashdot.org/journal/3... [slashdot.org]

                this position on the government being 'necessary' evil that needs to be controlled because left to its own devices it causes millions of deaths by war and other means:
                https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]

                this position that government promoting consumption rather than production with 0% interest rate policie

                • You can say whatever you like about my intelligence but if you disagree with 99.9% of my comments you are quite a bit off.

                  That is such an absurd claim.
                  Right on board with the dumbfuckery of, "it's statistically impossible..."

                  There's no law of statistics that requires me to agree with 0% or 100% of your opinions.
                  The intelligence dig is because you are trying to invoke such stupidity to defend your opinions.
                  You are then trying to set a bar of, "if you don't agree with some arbitrary percentage of my opinions, then you are quite a bit off."
                  This is also a stupid statement.

                  • Yeah, I see a lot of ad hominem here and nothing about the actual positions. Your original claim that you disagree with 99.9% of my opinions is highly unlikely, you don't even know my opinions, you didn't read them and right now you can say that you are diametrically opposed to all of them, no matter which ones I highlight, however they are not incorrect, so all you would be proving there is that you do not hold valid opinions, so it doesn't matter that you disagree with mine, your are simply wrong.

                    • Weak deflection.

                      Further, you continue to present your patently fucking absurd logic that disagreement with your opinions is tantamount to incorrectness.
                      If you use the word "correct" in reference to an opinion, then you are not intelligent, and/or educated enough, to defend it.
  • Flock you! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Saturday December 20, 2025 @03:47PM (#65871805) Homepage

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    -Benjamin Franklin

  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Saturday December 20, 2025 @03:55PM (#65871829) Homepage

    So will cameras in your bedroom. (and create a wonderful new side industry for the government selling access).

    Also, letting the cops get DNA of everyone in the US will also help you stop crimes. (and cause quite a few divorces).

    Furthermore, letting the government read the emails of all businesses will cut down on fraud. (And hurt all those small companies trying to compete with the big ones).

    There a ton of ways to reduce crime while doing tremendous damage to innocent people.

    • You're demonstrating an extreme position on a certain policy, to expose a subsequent danger. The problem is, you're not far from the truth. The UK government did plan to install 'security' cameras in people's homes 'for the children'.
    • RE the divorces comment, that's a feature not a bug when you realize that what's being uncovered is 100% deeply dishonest behavior.

      Personally I don't know why DNA testing at birth isn't mandatory even if it was only to confirm paternity and then disposed.

  • by Uldis Segliņš ( 4468089 ) on Saturday December 20, 2025 @04:04PM (#65871845)
    Cameras, buhh, muhh, good, just keep calm and carry on buhh ... wuhh ... BULLSHIT! This is erosion of privacy and destruction of democracy. If anything called that still can be considered a reality in US of A.
  • He was dead for 2 days when they found him. He had things with him that tied him to Brown University murders and I think to the MIT professor's murder. He would've been found eventually without any assistance from Flock or from the eyewitness.

    The only thing that the eyewitness and Flock provided was a quicker end to the manhunt. Given that people in the Brown community were living in fear that a gunman was still out there, this is still worth something. Is it worth living in what is a few short steps awa

  • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Saturday December 20, 2025 @04:14PM (#65871865) Journal

    I'm not surprised a company like Flock exists to monetize the surveillance state.

    I'm not surprised at law enforcement's reckless disregard for those pesky personal freedoms that are always hampering their investigations.

    I'm a little surprised at how willing we seem to be as a species to catalog our daily movements for anyone with access to the surveillance databases; otherwise, AI might be blind to our shenanigans in a dystopian future. Sending drones into potential crime scenes ahead of humans is a recipe for what, exactly?

  • "Convincing would-be criminals they will be caught" does nothing to deter the person bent on suicide (like the Brown University murderer) or the person who intends to be caught (people engaged in civil disobedience expecting to be arrested to make a point).

    There's not much that can stop someone who is 1) smart enough to pull off a crime, and 2) determined to commit the crime no matter what the consequences.

    Deterrence keeps honest people honest and it sometimes keeps those who are dishonest but who do don't

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Well, that is the Big Lie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie) being pushes by law enforcement and Law&Order politicians, isn't it? Claiming harsher sentences, more surveillance and more police and police powers would actually improve safety. The reality is they do not.

      If you let the police make your laws, then one day you will wake up in a police-state.

      • by davidwr ( 791652 )

        Claiming harsher sentences, more surveillance and more police and police powers would actually improve safety. The reality is they do not.

        I don't know about you, but when I'm driving and I see a police car, if there's little or no other traffic I make sure I'm at or below the speed limit. If I'm in moderate traffic going the speed limit, I wait until the cop is out of sight for a minute or two before trying to pass. If I'm in heavy traffic I'm probably stuck in a pack, so it doesn't matter.

        In the first two scenarios, my increased attention to my speed probably has a non-zero improvement in safety for the moment in question.

        Back to your ori

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          The point is that a police state is undesirable enough to generously negate all possible advantages it could have.

  • Is even shooging against the law now?

  • People still died. People still get robbed. The real, unanswerable question is how much crime are these cameras preventing. Worse, thanks to the pandemic masks are socially acceptable in the states now.
  • Lying about how you handle ubiquitous surveillance data is not the same as addressing privacy concerns. Addressing them means you have dispensed with the policies and practices that caused the concerns.

    • by davidwr ( 791652 )

      "Addressing" can mean "acknowledging" as in "Frock acknowledged the privacy concerns of its technology, then proceeded to lie about its ubiquitous survellance data...."

      Or, to put it another way: "Dear person with privacy concerns, let me address them by simply saying 'Frock you!' Sincerely, Frock executive."

  • He shot himself 2 days before they found him. This is not some triumph of technology. It's not a victory for the FBI. He shot himself with time that he could have used to escape or shoot some other people.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    If you follow Garrett with his own cameras you find him at the methadone clinic, the AIDS clinic, a certain gay bar, and a certain massage parlor that was previously raided twice for employing underage boys. With all of that information he was also tied to to 3 liquor store robberies. A real turd burglar.

  • OMG, Flock CEO making it sound like they solely broke the case.......NO, it was John that gave crucial evidence !!!
  • We are living and a technofascist post 1984 world where your every thought and movement is monitored.

    Welcome to the Machine
    Where-have-you-been?
          its-all-right-we-know-where-you've-been
    What-did-you-dream?
          its-all-right-we-told-you-what-to-dream

    Pink Floyd

Basic unit of Laryngitis = The Hoarsepower

Working...