upvote
> A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts.

The Los Angeles Police Department annual budget is over $2 billion. A couple million a year to flock is a drop in the bucket.

reply
reply
No, they don’t as far as I have seen sell data for commercial purposes.
reply
Yet?

You have to admit, the precedent for them being a company that understands the sensitivity of this data has not been set.

reply
Get rid of the what if hyperbole and focus on the core reason why it’s bad. These contracts do not allow commercial use. Could they in the future but so what, focus on the here and now. We should continue to focus on what is true today. Flock has never enforced strict security around their platform and it’s proven consistently that people in power abuse it.

The what if conspiracy serves no purpose in dethroning Flock.

reply
I don't really think "enshittification" is a conspiracy theory. I think everyone can relate to engaging in a relationship with a company, thinking they had a reasonable understanding of how the relationship worked, and then having the terms changed out from under them.

Maybe Flock gets bought by another company and "oops, the terms changed". Maybe all contract renewals will have commercial use in the language.

Once the cameras are there, the heavy lifting (from Flock's side) has been done.

reply
Sure but the premise was a conspiracy that they are padding financial numbers by selling the data commercially. They don’t so why perpetuate the conspiracy? Focus on the real problem with the business.
reply
(Not disagreeing with your point, pointing something else out) What happens when flock sells the company + data? That collected data doesn’t get deleted and could be used for whatever purpose at that time, as the company could be dissolved along with the contracts.
reply
It seems they can't do so without possible consequence in California, at least. It'd be interesting to know about other jurisdictions, and whether or not ALPR data is used as a possible lever to offer municipalities a "discount" by these companies' sales teams in jurisdictions where such things are allowed.
reply
You can generally get your hands on these agreements pretty easily. None of the ones I have seen allow commercial use.
reply
> A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts.

The contract awards are public no? Axon et al probably make the majority of their money on service charges for storing, accessing the data rather than on the cameras themselves.

reply
I would guess so, though that doesn't exactly get rid of the costs of the hardware.

I'd be interested to see what the op ex is for a company running this sort of business. You're storing lots of video, which isn't exactly cheap, and need to do so in a way that allows for cataloging, backup, and durable references to the data. On top of that, these cameras are transmitting data in a way that doesn't have a huge antenna sticking off of them, so there's almost certainly some sort of data plan to work with Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile in play, transmitting some sort of video data over the network, either as a file transfer or streaming depending on the use case. That's another expense.

For every big city that's signing one of these contracts, there are probably a dozen small towns or villages also signing one with significantly more pressure on the government to keep budgets small. I suppose the big cities could be subsidizing the small towns.

reply
You guys could do a little bit of research before chiming in. It's not that hard to find this information, and there are dozens of documentary videos on YouTube about Flock cameras.

To answer the unasked question here, their business model is indeed making money off of collecting and storing the data, then granting law enforcement access to it. The gross P&L from the cameras themselves is an afterthought.

reply
> What's to stop them from selling this license plate data to the police or to other parties to pad their quarterly numbers?

Motorola does!

https://drndata.com/

If you're a private repo-man you too can also buy Vigilant Solutions (now Motorola) ALPR cameras to track down deadbeats and take their cars.

Note the list of "Trusted by Fortune 500 data-driven companies" there. All of them are sub-prime lenders and cater to the 24.99% APR marketplace.

Even funnier they now sell the bodycams over through DRN too to the repo guys. https://drndata.com/body-worn-camera/

reply
Anyone accessing data from this system should have an active case they are assigned to, anything else should be subject to disciplinary action just as with HIPAA. It should have tamper evident audit trails. It should not be on a whim. If emergency access is needed they have to retroactively get reviewed and approved and if it was not in line with any active investigation or assist in an active investigation again it should come under serious scrutiny with actionable consequences.
reply
Regulation of private companies and enforcement of same aren't really the way things work in America. And even the most highly regulated companies struggle with reality practicalities of tamper evident audit trails, for example designating a subset of systems in-scope of SOX or PCI controls where such trails are required.
reply
You could require third party audits on an annual basis and discrepancies and violations addressed and or investigated. Failures need consequences like increased insurance rates, dismissals, etc. if it continues then the Feds get to take over the department/precinct, whatever.
reply
deleted
reply
deleted
reply
It's too late for that. This would have maybe worked 30 years ago, but since the Patriot Act and FISA we have literal secret courts approving >99% of the government's requests for surveillance. The existence of the data is now enough to guarantee its misuse.
reply
Flock sucks but I think these kind of conspiracies hurt the argument. You can go look at a number of these contracts since they are part of your local city/municipality.

A typical flock agreement is pretty firm that the data is the customers. Some of it might be used for training. There is opt-in to share with other law enforcement but I have not yet seen anything around commercial use.

I don’t think much padding is necessary. It’s a metal pole with a cheap camera and SIM card. They charge $3-5k a year per camera. The only upfront cost is a local contractor to install the camera, they typically have one that covers a very large region. Huge margins with that alone.

reply