alpr.watch

<- Back

alpr.watch

theamk

Comments (433)

fainpul
For years I've thought about doing an "art project" to make people more aware of the fact they are being observed – but I never actually got up and did it.The idea was to seek spots in the city where public web cams are pointed at, and paint QR codes on the ground at those spots (using a template), linking to the camera stream. So when curious passerbys scan the code, they see themselves in a camera stream and feel "watched".
travisgriggs
I keep wanting to see the "Rainbows End" style experiment.The common reaction to surveillance seems to be similar to how we diet. We allow/validate a little bit of the negative agent, but try to limit it and then discuss endlessly how to keep the amount tamped down.One aspect explored/hypothesized in Rainbows End, is what happens when surveillance becomes so ubiquitous that it's not a privilege of the "haves". I wonder if rather than "deflocking", the counter point is to surround every civic building with a raft of flock cameras that are in the public domain.Just thinking the contrarian thoughts.
avipars
There are some false positives, https://cityofmidlandmi.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_10...Mentions "flock" when referring to a flock of turkeys - not flock cameras
phildini
This is super important work, and is kind of why I built https://civic.band and https://civic.observer, which are generalized tools for monitoring civic govts. (You can search for anything, not just ALPR)
staffordrj
"We have seen a flock of turkeys walk right along that fence on the outside, but I have also seen them jump high enough that they could easily land on the 4ft fence. Just 2 more feet of fence would stop all of this and give us the sense of security that we have every right to."https://alpr.watch/m/WPv1POfirst the came for the turkeys...
Terr_
I sometimes imagine local laws/contracts with a provision like: "This system may not be operated if there is no state law that makes it a class X felony to violate someone's privacy in any of the Y conditions."In other words, the "we're trustworthy we'd never do that" folks ought to be perfectly fine with harsh criminal penalties for misuse they're already promising would never happen.This would also create an incentive for these companies to lobby for the creation/continuation of such a law at the state level, as a way to unlock (or retain) their ability to do businesses in the localities.
bichiliad
Genuine question: I’m someone who hates the centralization of data with companies like Flock. I also want safer streets. I have liked things like speed cameras and bus-mounted bus lane cameras specifically because they target the problem without the need for police involvement. How do you get the latter without ALPRs? Or do ALPRs indicate cameras specifically collecting license plates independent of active enforcement?
dkalola
"Systems marketed for "solving crimes" get used for immigration enforcement"What immigration enforcement are you speaking of here? Legal? Illegal? If the latter, wouldn't this system be solving crime?
jmward01
I'm all about monitoring privacy related things, but I think the bigger piece here is the monitoring of city counsels for this kind of data. Wow! I just hadn't thought about doing that before. This is a massive trove of information and building a strong, more generic platform around it could yield huge insights to enable fast action as municipalities start implementing things. I have actually built some code to review local city counsel meetings by transcribing them and downloading meeting packets but opening this up at a larger scale could be a massive thing.
gearhart
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?
snigsnog
>Systems marketed for "solving crimes" get used for immigration enforcementSo for solving crimes.I'm in favor, then!
ChrisbyMe
Very cool, I was thinking about building a similar thing when I saw the Flock discourse, but got busy with the holidays.Any interesting technical details? Getting the actual data from govt meetings looked like it was the hardest part to me.
reboot_boom
Similar but different project: https://sunders.uber.space> Surveillance under Surveillance shows you cameras and guards — watching you — almost everywhere.
csmpltn
The goal is to intimidate criminals, and mitigate crime. What’s wrong with that?
schoen
When I was working at EFF I would complain about people creating "persistent unique identifiers", and particularly ones that someone can passively log. Many governments probably have classified databases that are more intrusive than the ALPR databases, based on electronic surveillance means, which engineers might have been able to mitigate through more cautious protocol design.I've thought that license plates themselves are such a persistent unique identifier, but one that we sort of didn't notice until the recognition and storage technologies got cheaper.The original motivation for license plates seems to be about enforcing safety inspections of cars (maybe also liability insurance?). Nowadays we also have a lot of other uses that have piled up. The top two I think are very popular: allowing victims of crimes involving motor vehicles to identify the vehicles reliably, and allowing police to catch fugitives in vehicular pursuits. Maybe these were actually even considered part of the original motivation for license plate requirements. Below that, still fairly popular, you have allowing non-moving violation citations such as parking tickets; allowing police to randomly notice wanted persons' vehicles that happen to be nearby; and allowing government agencies another enforcement lever for other stuff by threatening to cancel previously-issued plates. (Oh yeah, and nowadays also paying for parking online!)I could imagine more modern approaches that would put more technological limitations on some of these things, but I guess any change would be controversial not least because you're intentionally taking some data away from law enforcement (which I think is a normal thing to want to do). The one that's really hard is the "victims of crimes easily identifying vehicles". If you replace license plates with something that's not easily to memorize or write down, the reporting gets a lot harder.Maybe we could try to have license plates change frequently using something like format-preserving encryption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format-preserving_encryption) so they still appear like existing license plate formats, and then prevent law enforcement agents or agencies from directly receiving the decryption keys, so they have to actively interact with the plate issuer in order to answer specific investigative questions about specific vehicles. If police receive a report of a crime they can ask to find out what the involved vehicle's displayed plate will change to on specific dates.This would have the problem that a partial or mistranscribed or misremembered plate would be pretty useless (you couldn't easily search for, or detect, a partial plate match). You could add some error correcting codes to the plate numbers, but I don't think existing plate numbers are long enough for that. Also, if the plate numbers didn't change very frequently, you could probably partially deanonymize ALPR datasets based on recurring patterns of locations over time.The best lesson is probably that, if you make a new technical system, you should be very cautious about the identifiers that go into that system, as they may still exist decades later, and used for new kinds of tracking and new kinds of surveillance that you didn't anticipate.
a456463
Ring! Please stop Ring cameras.... Ugh!!!
garyfirestorm
what is stopping me from putting a bright infrared light on my car angled in a way causing the camera to not be able to detect my plate? overexposed? this should be totally legal afaik since nothing is hiding my plate from any view to a normal human?
almosthere
I'm all for stationary government surveillance EVERYWHERE (in the public), just no surveillance ANYWHERE on individual persons. I think what people do in public should be heavily witnessed and recorded.
rhgraysonii
Is the site open source?I see some issues in the map display I would like to fix.
olliem36
Surveillance of the surveillants to prevent the surveilled
unkulunkulu
I believe a reasonable push back to this surveillance increase should be “incresing law precision”, like “fines for making a really dangerous maneuver vs driving fast on an empty road”“really scaring someone on a bike vs driving on a sidewalk in general”
atymic
Clicked a random one and it's a document about a flock of ducks :-) https://www.gtwp.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_10222025...
1123581321
Is that map using the same data as DeFlocked? The presentation is easier for me than how DeFlocked's map groups cameras until you zoom in closely.
sodality2
It’s so awesome to see more people making things to fight back against ALPRs. Deflock movements are gaining traction across the country and genuinely making progress at suspension or cancellation of contracts.
owlninja
> Authorize Execution of a Public Right-of-Way Use Agreement Granting Flock Group, Inc. a License to Install and Maintain Non-Police Department Flock License Plate Reader Cameras on Public Rights-of Way and Establish Fees for Permitting, Inspection, and UsageThis is on my town and seems like strange wording. What the heck are private flock cameras?>The City and Flock have negotiated a Right-of-Way Use Agreement, which will grant Flock a non-exclusive license to install and maintain certain private cameras within the City's ROW. The agreement is for a period of twenty (20) years and may be renewed for up to two (2) successive five (5) year terms. Flock will be responsible for paying the permit and inspection fees for existing private cameras within the City's ROW and for any newly installed private cameras within the ROW as well as for an annual ROW usage fee on a per camera basis for the right to install cameras within the City's ROW.20 years...
snow_mac
How do you get access get all the local government meetings? Do you have a crawler that looks up every city in the country then visits each website and pull down the info? A public listing site?
deadfall23
In my area it's mostly Home Depot and Lowes parking lots. Time to start shopping online more. I'm looking at options for hiding my LP from AI cameras.
BimJeam
We need that for Europe, too.
shinhyeok
As a Korean, this is hilarious
lapetitejort
Reading these comments, a common through-line seems to be cars. Hit and runs, drive by shootings, cars without plates, cars speeding, breaking into cars, etc. But the concept of disincentivizing cars never seems to be brought up. Close down urban roads to private car traffic. Increase public transportation. Remove subsidies on gas. Build bike lanes.Cars are weapons. They kill people quickly with momentum, and slowly with pollution and a sedentary lifestyle. We need to start treating them as such
ZebusJesus
Im glad WA ruled that you can get flock data with a FOIA request and because of this local cities decided to disable the cameras. Currently they have put caps of the lenses of the installed cameras in WA.https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigat...
jeffbee
"Massive database of vehicles" is the best hope we have for reestablishing order and peace in American cities. I am all for cameras and the larger, more visible number plates of Europe. I also think the cops should intercept and seize all vehicles operating without their plates.
sneak
Many metros, including Las Vegas and LA, have rolled out thousands of facial recognition traffic cameras above the signals at intersections.The ALPR situation is trivial by comparison. Transportation privacy is a historical oddity. You can’t drive down the road in a major metro or walk down an airport concourse without being identified and tracked by your facial geometry.The US federal government seems to be entirely hellbent on accumulating facial biometrics on the entire population.
t1234s
I think this is how they are going to roll out tax-by-the-mile schemes across the US.
ponker
For an alternate perspective on these drones, see this interview with rapper "DreamLife Rizzy" where he talks about how these technologies have made it impossible for him and his associates to do crimes in San Franciscohttps://nypost.com/2025/12/11/us-news/sf-rapper-dreamllife-r...
celeryd
Are these meetings truly constrained to the continental US?
MagicMoonlight
ANPR is used across the UK and solves an incredible amount of crime.I couldn’t imagine living in a country where you can shoot someone in the street and drive off, and nobody knows where the car went.
exceptione
All over the world the bed is being made for the autocrats. The new generation of wealthy autocrats have tools at their disposal the previous generations lacked. Like Musk and Vance told the audience, this was the last time it had to vote.The defense industry is something of a foregone era. Most capital has been allocated to surveillance capitalism since last decades, providing very powerful tools to influence and measure the personal lives of the population. But things are shaping up for more active forms of control; as the finance sector is putting all their eggs in the next iteration, LLMs, which is being accepted by the public as a means for thought generation. I am totally not surprised to learn that the government now needs to a) sponsor this business model and b) needs to pull this horse inside government and executive branches.Sure, there are positive use cases to be thought of for LLMs. But lets not be that naive this time, shall we? I mean, Grokopedia anyone?
stackedinserter
Why aren't those flock cameras being destroyed all the time in the US?In our city people vandalized speed cameras all the time, so eventually government gave up and just banned them in the whole province. I'm not sure they did that because of being vandalized, but at least there was direct actionable push back.
qoez
We have this in sweden and it works fine. I kinda think the US would be better off with this since it'd lead to less crime or lower costs to investigate it
rcpt
Can't wait to get out to these meetings and advocate for more speed cameras and red light cameras.
SilentM68
This is a very useful site :)
spencerflem
I would pay a hundred thousand dollars to get a 24/7 video feed of Peter Thiel
bequanna
How are you monitoring the meeting minutes? Would you open source this?
guelo
Missing Oakland. There's no where to submit anything as far as I can tell.
elwell
I, for one, welcome surveillance.
Verlyn139
The state of this thread lol, buch of trump bootlickers, i hope he go to hell soon
stuffn
This isn't said in bad faith but there is a few things that seem to be unanswered here besides surveillance is bad.1. You have no expectation of privacy in public.2. People carry surveillance devices in their pocket.It is somehow simultaneously bad that the government uses public surveillance, but completely fine the public does. I don't think it's acceptable these target "flock". It's completely useless doesn't solve the greater problem. The greater problem in my eyes is:1. I can't move around my own neighborhood without being recorded by 200 personal cameras whose data is uploaded an analyzed by various security companies.2. I can't go to someone's house without their internal cameras recorded my every move and word.3. I can't go outside without some subset of morons, that seem to always exist, bringing out their pocket government tracking device to record everyones face, movement, location, and action.4. I can't say or do anything in public without risking some social justice warrior recording me, cutting it up, and using it to destroy me.The greater problem is the proliferation of surveillance devices in every day life. Flock is such a small player in the grand scheme of this. These websites are simply art pieces and do nothing to solve the actual, pervasive, problem we face.So do we just stop at Flock and raise the Mission Accomplished banner? Or do we forget this nonsense and target the real problem.
bomsloth
[dead]
samsudin
[dead]
oldpersonintx2
[dead]
renewiltord
[flagged]
ck2
I don't get it99% of the population is voluntarily carrying sophisticated tracking devices with self-reporting always oneven if the signal is off it catches up laterwith SEVERAL layers of trackingnot just your phone carrier but Google+Apple stores have your location as the apps are always on in the backgroundeven phone makers have their own tracking layer sometimeswe know EVERY person that went to Epstein Island from their phone tracking and they didn't even have smartphones back thenFlock is just another lazy layer/databroker
kortex
Does anyone else find it painfully ironic that the one CO cop said "You can't get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing," [0], in light of the George Floyd BLM rallying cry "I can't breathe!" and the common metaphor describing surveilance states as "suffocating"?Like what are we doing as a society? Stop trying to build the surveilance nexus from sci fi. I don't want to live in a zero-crime world [1]. It's not worth it. Safety third, there is always gonna be some risk.[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/flock-cameras-lead-col...[1] Edit to add: if this raises hackles, I encourage folks to think through what true zero crime (or maybe lets call it six-nines lawfulness) entails. If we had literal precrime, would that stop 99.9999% of crime? (hint: read the book/watch the movie)
lutusp
I hope the article's authors aren't taking the position that mass surveillance is a bad thing, signifying a breakdown in civilized norms ... after all, they're using the same methods to "track the trackers."
lo_zamoyski
There are two extremes that rash people tend to fall into.The first is the person who has no concern for surveillance. He believes that if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. You see more of these people in older generations, when institutional trust was irrationally high.The second is the person who responds rabidly to any form or application of surveillance. This is the sort of person who believes that all surveillance is abused, public or private, and if it isn't, that it inevitably will be. Slippery slope fallacy is his motto.A reasonable range of opinion can exist on the subject between those two extremes.Personally, I have no problem with traffic cameras per se. First, we are in a public space where recordings are generally permitted. Second, no one is being stalked or harassed by a fixed camera. Third, there are problems that only surveillance can reasonably solve (loud cars, dangerous speeding).My concerns would have to do with the following.1) Unauthorized access to accumulated data. You should have to have some kind of legal permission to access the data and to do so in very specific ways. For example, if you neighborhood is being disrupted by loud cars, you can use complaints to get permission to query for footage and license plates of cars identified as loud. Each access is logged for audit purposes.2) Data fusion. You should not be able to combine datasets without permission either. And when such combination occurs, it should also be scoped appropriately. Queries should then be subject to (1).3) Indefinite hold. Data should have an expiration date. That is, we should not be able to sequester and store data for indefinite periods of time.4) Private ownership. The collection of certain kinds of surveillance data should belong only to the public and fall under the strict controls above.The non-specific and general fear of abuse is not a good counterargument.
gsibble
If you think privacy exists in any real capacity anymore, you're a moron.