When Flock Comes to Town: Why Cities Are Axing the Controversial Surveillance Technology

Flock Safety surveillance equipment is appearing in neighborhoods across the country. I spoke with experts about the tech, laws and privacy issues at play.

CNET

It seems like this article buried the best lede of the story on paragraph ten, which explains Flock's new business of surveillance drones launched in response to 911 calls (and also presumably triggered by other alerts configured by police and private businesses).

> Flock has recently expanded into other technologies... Most concerning are the latest Flock drones equipped with high-powered cameras. Flock's "Drone as First Responder" platform automates drone operations, including launching them in response to 911 calls or gunfire. Flock's drones, which reach speeds up to 60 mph, can follow vehicles or people and provide information to law enforcement.

Hunter-Killers not far behind.
Nor is the Butlerian Jihad.
This is much less concerning to me than mass surveillance. If someone calls 911 and you need to send a first responder, why not send a drone to get there faster while a person is on their way?
As a concept, first responder drones are a good idea. But I wouldn't want public services having anything to do with that company.
Yeah this doesn't bother me in any way, shape, or form. We already have manned aircraft that respond to such things, unmanned aircraft are a strictly better solution. It makes sense for police and it makes even more sense for fire. An aircraft can arrive at the site of a reported fire while firemen are still buckling their pants.

At least their current cameras are fixed to a single point.

With their drones they now have cameras roaming freely everywhere.

If the drones are "providing information" to the police, it's only a matter of time before their AI hallucinates something that gets someone killed. We've already seen AI gun detection services that report things like Doritos bags as guns.
It's a very bleak (and awfully sus) outlook if you think providing more information to people who need to make decisions that could save or end lives is a bad thing.
OTOH it will provide more surveillance of the police themselves. Humans are also bad at gun detection (sometimes willfully so) and this provides another check.
I'm sorry but, in what way is a swarm of surveillance drones NOT a mass surveillance system?
They do more than that - our local PD gave a presentation on what Flock’s pitching - ALPRs, fixed pan/tilt cameras, “citizen cameras,” drones, and a whole “sensor fusion” software suite that lets you stitch in everything along with data from surrounding precincts which also have Flock (think Palantir for local cops). We were pretty shocked at the scale.

In Southern California we have eye-wateringly expensive (and loud) police aircraft flying 24x7.

I’m not a fan of Flock but I would welcome anything that knocks out some of the ghetto birds’ budget.

That’s actually really cool and I don’t feel like it’s invasive. It’s surveillance in a specific location for a specific purpose and in response to certain emergencies. Active shooter is probably the first thing that comes to mind, but accidents, fires, unexpected disasters, etc. could all be situations where this technology helps assess the situation and inform response.