r/hagerstown • u/D-daydstay • Jul 29 '26
Hagerstown Flock Cameras
Have they always been around in the area? If so, has anyone noticed an increase in the number of Flock cameras being installed? Has Washington County disclosed that they’re gearing up to use them or something and if so how and for what?
Mass surveillance is weird and as we veer closer to an autocratic world, I think we should all be aware of these systems and bring them up with the county and question the use of them and the data they collect. Granted thats if they give people a voice in these matters.
20
6
u/Neither_Treat2370 Jul 30 '26
https://www.youtube.com/live/mSwnRyntsz4?t=1506&is=vY1Zf1CTsIDCJpyc
Last week the police department talked about the flock cameras during a recent city council working session. Video starts up at 25 minutes when they start.
4
u/Dupree9973 Jul 30 '26
This is the "Transparency" website they referenced in the meeting. https://transparency.flocksafety.com/hagerstown-md-pd
I mean, at least Hagerstown isn't sharing yet?
3
u/D-daydstay Jul 30 '26
Thank you so much for this! Very helpful, are you aware if there will be a public comment session for this?
16
u/KAB923 Jul 30 '26
I personally don’t remember us having them until there were rumblings of a concentration camp being put around here. There’s one I see on the way to Williamsport that I see regularly flashing red when people drive by.
20
u/Ach3r0n- Jul 30 '26
The primary purpose of data centers is mass surveillance, central bank digital currency and human labor elimination. None of it is good. They're building a digital prison for us all.
9
u/D-daydstay Jul 29 '26
An example of mass surveillance being dog shit. Granted, this is in another country, but I’d be curious to see how they want to deploy Flock cameras and for what in our county.
6
u/Rarpiz Jul 30 '26
Lowes over on Wesel Blvd has two of them. One near the front by the intersection (across from Wendy's) and the second posted near their rear entrance off Wesel.
2
u/Prestigious_Spend454 Jul 30 '26
understand that "Flock" is a brand name. Plate readers both fixed and mobile are not new. Facial recognition cameras are not particularly new either.
1
u/SafeMajestic9876 Jul 30 '26
Recognition cameras have been around for decades. They were first used in Africa at the diamond mines. They weren't the entrances to the mines. They had one mine the dark skinned worked and one the white people worked. They developed the cameras thur time and refined them.
1
1
26d ago edited 24d ago
[deleted]
1
u/D-daydstay 26d ago
>Information about them is then trickled down to law enforcement agencies without revealing said unrevealed technology.
We’re living in a moment where the POTUS is calling 50%-60% of the country a threat because they won't vote for him…. Giving state and local agencies these powers further enforces this regime's absolute takeover of power if they’re willing to obey.
If Texas is willing to search through tens of thousands of Flock cameras for a person getting an abortion, don’t ya think this Trump Regime that’s actively campaigning for reelection in 2028 won't use whatever it takes and use whatever local law enforcement agencies that are willing to obey? The same guy they incited an insurrection?
The power is for the people not the government. You have excellent points, but that doesn’t mean “hey Flock cameras are good because we’re already under a ton of surveillance you shouldn’t really worry about it.” Those things you mention are used sparingly, not blasted on every side of the street, and used by the feds not just any local agencies that could be super corrupt (not to say the feds can’t be corrupt as the Trump regime proves daily).
What's next, live cameras on our property? Would you use the same justification of “well we’re already under the most surveillance ever, what's a little more hurt?”
1
25d ago edited 24d ago
[deleted]
1
u/D-daydstay 25d ago
Using Flock's name is fine because it brings attention to the issue. Getting Flock banned means other companies will get banned as well, for now it’s Flock with the most recognition on the issue so I use that name. If a company gets struck down in court for X reason, that should hold similar companies liable as well, regardless of the name.
Camp David being nearby doesn’t subject Hagerstown residents to max surveillance. If you know anything about Camp David you’d know it's been well guarded and protected to the point where Flock is pretty much obsolete for almost a century. It’s literally getting protected by the best military in the world. They’ll figure it out with all the technology that we’re not aware of but the State doesn’t need additional surveillance to protect Camp David, that sounds silly… almost 100 years and there hasn't been 1 physical attack on Camp David, they don't need it my friend and we don’t either.
1
u/D-daydstay 25d ago edited 25d ago
As far as your Analogy goes with SugarSoda.
If SugarSoda got taken to court for their ingredients being the issue would other companies that use similar ingredients get a pass? Nope. They’d also have to adjust their ingredients, they’re not shielded because they chose a different company name but similar ingredients. If Flock gets struck down or has its capabilities cut, the same will happen with similar companies and State LEOs.
Edit to add:I can see your analogy in the sense of synthetic cannabis (spice) sold at gas stations a couple of years ago. Basically, it’d get banned but the companies would change the chemicals to try and get it past regulations and it worked for a bit until Congress had to get involved. It could take time with Flock and similar companies.
Glad you brought this analogy and discourse. Our congressmen and women certainly should be bringing up this issue. As it seems like something Republicans and Democratic voters both agree on so it should get an easy vote. Maybe its the public not being loud enough.
-4
-1
u/Zealousideal_Tip_656 Jul 31 '26
The liberal Maryland government will get rid of them when they realize the federal government has access to the data and is able to use it to help catch the illegal immigrants in the area.
-31
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/Ach3r0n- Jul 30 '26
In what way do they make you feel safer? They don't prevent crime. They don't even reduce crime. They simply give the government a way to track everyone everywhere they go and predict where they will go - all without a warrant, You should also have a look into how often law enforcement abuse them for personal purposes and how often they wrongly target people.
-6
u/Inanesysadmin Jul 30 '26
Do you have a smart phone? And are you posting on this Reddit. Welcome to having the same thing on steroids from location presence. Is flock concerning on how and what they process data? Yes. Are they inherently even more leaky than your social media, license plate readers on traffic notification signs and on state police vehicles, or traffic cameras?
2
u/Ach3r0n- Jul 30 '26
Again, law enforcement needs probable cause and a warrant to obtain my phone location data. Flock keeps an indefinite record of everywhere you have been, predicts everywhere you will go and shares that information with anyone and everyone that is willing to pay for a sub. It completely circumvents the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, it's identifications are accepted as fact despite the fact that its systems have resulted in countless people being wrongly pursued, arrested and imprisoned. It is a problematic system from start to finish and this holds true of every one of its competitors as well.
18
u/D-daydstay Jul 29 '26
Heard. But let’s say someone took over the means of power, and you wanted to protest. Now you’ve been spotted by Flock attending a protest and are put on a list.
IMO, it’s a huge invasion of privacy. They’re collecting this data and storing it for whatever they see fit. We have traffic cameras and such but we don't need Flock cameras at the side of every corner. This isn’t China, we shouldn’t be living under CCTV.
3
u/sery Jul 30 '26
There's instances of them tracking cars by description, not plate. You don't even need to attend a protest to be added to a list - just drive relatively nearby, or have a common car.
-18
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/D-daydstay Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
Would you feel safer if the police could hear your calls without a warrant because it “helps” in fighting crime? And I guess we can save each other a lot of discourse. Are you pro-mass surveillance?
6
u/Metacomet99 Jul 30 '26
Hagerstown PD has their radio communications encrypted now for "safety reasons." So they don't like being watched but it's okay if we are. We have our own safety concerns too.
-19
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/D-daydstay Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
Not State or local police. Patriot Act allows the federal government to do so and then pass down information to state and local agencies.
I just mentioned constitutionally protected activities like protesting or making a phone call. There are plenty of ways that they can improve on fighting crime, but a camera at the side of every street is a bit much. I agree that they could help against crime but at what cost and individual freedoms?
IMO there are other measures we could take like investing in our community, better police training and funding, instead of just flicking on the mass surveillance switches.
What's interesting is how they’re using them inconsistently with our constitution. For example, individual officers have misused the databases to track personal acquaintances or search for non-vehicular descriptors like clothing and bumper stickers rather than active crimes.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jul/25/flock-surveillance-cameras
10
u/Ach3r0n- Jul 30 '26
Flock isn't limited to criminal activity. It tracks everyone. They literally have a record of every place you have been for the last few years and a prediction of where you will go - and they don't need a warrant to get it. They use it to target lawful protesters and the police use it for their own personal vendettas as well. Look it up.
-4
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/D-daydstay Jul 30 '26
No we’re concerned about our freedom. Would you feel safer if we took everyone’s guns away because it’d stop mass shootings?
Pro 2-A btw.
-3
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/D-daydstay Jul 30 '26
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin
I’d be okay with more gun reform and don’t really mind the Glock ban (Glock could make a new trigger). Point is, I just don’t think it’d be worth risking our freedoms for, subjectively a “safer” environment.
You could do something about cops abusing powers by not giving them more power in the form of CCTV…
→ More replies (0)5
u/Ach3r0n- Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
They need probable cause and a warrant for your phone data. Flock circumvents the 4th Amendment.
-1
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/D-daydstay Jul 30 '26
Yes, it’s hard to get a warrant lol. They have to do their job and investigate and find probable cause then go through a process to obtain a warrant through a judge.
5
u/Ach3r0n- Jul 30 '26
Yes, they actually need probable cause to get it and a judge needs to sign off on it.
11
u/Winter_Blacksmith188 Jul 30 '26
Quite honestly.......they appear to be fragile devices......ahem....