Atherton is not the focus of the story, so much as it is a town small enough that it can't handle oversight of the actual story, which is Flock cameras. Outsourcing public safety cameras to a non-governmental corporation creates a privacy nightmare over which small towns can't exercise proper oversight.
Another example: https://cardinalnews.org/2025/03/28/i-drove-300-miles-in-rur... (although I think the Commonwealth of Virginia has now started to regulate Flock camerasj.
I am curious if merely by having a published policy, larger cities have less scrutiny in the actual use by federal law enforcement - though likely just as frequently accessed as any Atherton camera.
Atherton is actually notorious though for this kind of thing.
Before ALPR was ubiquitous, in the 2000s, the Atherton Police Blotter in the local paper was a hoot. Half of the entries were residents calling about suspicious people that were hired landscapers or kids walking home from school.
Not at all surprised that they went overboard on Flock and opened the footage up for every agency under the sun.
Law enforcement’s sole societal function is to serve the interests of the ruling class.
In a capitalist (and, with some qualifications, in a predominantly capitalist mixed economy) society, that is protecting capital and the capitalist class, but that’s a product of context.
I live in a neighborhood that recently installed the Flock cameras. I was glad to see them installed, because my privacy concerns are significantly less pressing than my concerns about home invasion burglaries which have been occurring in the area.
I think the point is partly deterrence. Thieves might choose to burgle homes in areas without Flock cameras instead of areas with them to lower the risk of being caught.
Also, I believe Flock cameras immediately notify local PD when a vehicle reported as stolen passes by. Thieves often use stolen vehicles to avoid being caught, so this functionality makes it much more risky for them to do so. It basically tips off the cops even before you get to the home you're planning to burgle.
To some extent, it just moves things around. But it's not like thieves expect to net the same haul if they break into a home in Atherton and neighboring Redwood City.
Ultimately, it's about changing the cost/benefit and expected value calculations. Neighborhoods are not entirely fungible (especially a tony town like Atherton).
Why not install the cameras and simply never connect them if the point is mere visual deterrence? Similarly, it's not hard to imagine an ALPR system that doesn't save anything unless there's a match with a stolen car database. You don't need to go all the way to the privacy nightmare of flock to improve the situation. Municipalities do because there's no care given to privacy rights.
It depends on the jurisdiction. In my area, we still have some enforcement of property crime law. But if the criminals are able to escape to neighboring counties, very little will happen. The Flock cameras raise the chances that they will be apprehended beforehand.
Maybe the fix to home invasion burglaries isn't increased surveillance but actually helping people? We increasingly put people in bad situations and then blame them when they lash out.
This sounds like a "first they came for the socialists..." moment. Where we might not feel oppressed with the increased surveillance but as we go further and further into the surveillance state, eventually we'll be the ones that are pushed into a bad situation where a surveillance state is used against us.
> We increasingly put people in bad situations and then blame them when they lash out.
They are not _justifying_ it, they are calling out a cause/effect relationship. When people are desperate, they do destructive things. And our society is doing things that increase the number of desperate people.
You have to be more specific about the "bad situation" imo.
A lot of crime gets blamed on all kinds of causes, but with a cause so vague all kinds of counterfactuals can be listed out: poverty doesn't explain why countries with more surveillance and more poverty have less crime like home invasions (CCCP).
You'd think the residents of Atherton of all places would know better than to think "I have nothing to hide..."
Atherton is not the focus of the story, so much as it is a town small enough that it can't handle oversight of the actual story, which is Flock cameras. Outsourcing public safety cameras to a non-governmental corporation creates a privacy nightmare over which small towns can't exercise proper oversight. Another example: https://cardinalnews.org/2025/03/28/i-drove-300-miles-in-rur... (although I think the Commonwealth of Virginia has now started to regulate Flock camerasj.
SF uses flock cameras as well[0][1].
I am curious if merely by having a published policy, larger cities have less scrutiny in the actual use by federal law enforcement - though likely just as frequently accessed as any Atherton camera.
[0]: https://www.sf.gov/news--san-franciscos-new-public-safety-ca...
[1]: https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2021-...
Atherton is actually notorious though for this kind of thing.
Before ALPR was ubiquitous, in the 2000s, the Atherton Police Blotter in the local paper was a hoot. Half of the entries were residents calling about suspicious people that were hired landscapers or kids walking home from school.
Not at all surprised that they went overboard on Flock and opened the footage up for every agency under the sun.
Law enforcement’s sole societal function is to protect capital and the capitalist class.
Law enforcement’s sole societal function is to serve the interests of the ruling class.
In a capitalist (and, with some qualifications, in a predominantly capitalist mixed economy) society, that is protecting capital and the capitalist class, but that’s a product of context.
It's an ok simplification. The ruling class always controls the capital, so there isn't much difference to any other society.
(And when the ruling class doesn't control the capital, you don't get a clear class division.)
I live in a neighborhood that recently installed the Flock cameras. I was glad to see them installed, because my privacy concerns are significantly less pressing than my concerns about home invasion burglaries which have been occurring in the area.
I agree with you, but in my city police won’t do much even with the video proofs. They don’t care too much about stolen vehicles either.
I think the point is partly deterrence. Thieves might choose to burgle homes in areas without Flock cameras instead of areas with them to lower the risk of being caught.
Also, I believe Flock cameras immediately notify local PD when a vehicle reported as stolen passes by. Thieves often use stolen vehicles to avoid being caught, so this functionality makes it much more risky for them to do so. It basically tips off the cops even before you get to the home you're planning to burgle.
>Thieves might choose to burgle homes in areas without Flock cameras instead of areas with them
It doesn't really fix the issue then, just moves it around.
Not criticizing your reply here. It seems like that's the exact logic around it.
To some extent, it just moves things around. But it's not like thieves expect to net the same haul if they break into a home in Atherton and neighboring Redwood City.
Ultimately, it's about changing the cost/benefit and expected value calculations. Neighborhoods are not entirely fungible (especially a tony town like Atherton).
A good argument for globally adopting Flock cameras!
Why not install the cameras and simply never connect them if the point is mere visual deterrence? Similarly, it's not hard to imagine an ALPR system that doesn't save anything unless there's a match with a stolen car database. You don't need to go all the way to the privacy nightmare of flock to improve the situation. Municipalities do because there's no care given to privacy rights.
That's definitely one idea! I think stores have lots of cameras, but also use dummy cameras that have the same black domed appearance.
It depends on the jurisdiction. In my area, we still have some enforcement of property crime law. But if the criminals are able to escape to neighboring counties, very little will happen. The Flock cameras raise the chances that they will be apprehended beforehand.
Even if this were true, I don't understand why this information is not placed behind a court warrant requirement? Seems like a simple fix.
Even if what were true?
That privacy concerns are secondary to safety concerns.
They might not be for everyone, but for me they are, given the situation regarding property crimes.
Not what I’m contesting.
In my area it’s common to see cars with no plates. The police don’t seem to enforce it.
People planning home invasions know how to avoid ALPR. They wear masks and gloves, and leave their cell phones at home.
You are giving up your privacy, to anyone with access to Flock, for nothing at all.
That’s not a problem I observe, so I don’t think your conclusion follows for my circumstances.
Maybe the fix to home invasion burglaries isn't increased surveillance but actually helping people? We increasingly put people in bad situations and then blame them when they lash out.
This sounds like a "first they came for the socialists..." moment. Where we might not feel oppressed with the increased surveillance but as we go further and further into the surveillance state, eventually we'll be the ones that are pushed into a bad situation where a surveillance state is used against us.
There is no kind of bad situation that justifies burglarizing homes.
As the person you replied to said:
> We increasingly put people in bad situations and then blame them when they lash out.
They are not _justifying_ it, they are calling out a cause/effect relationship. When people are desperate, they do destructive things. And our society is doing things that increase the number of desperate people.
You have to be more specific about the "bad situation" imo.
A lot of crime gets blamed on all kinds of causes, but with a cause so vague all kinds of counterfactuals can be listed out: poverty doesn't explain why countries with more surveillance and more poverty have less crime like home invasions (CCCP).
> countries with more surveillance and more poverty have less crime like home invasions (CCCP).
I am eager to learn more if you have some data/links on this
WRT home invasions, I'm sure the ubiquity of guns in the US is another relevant dimension.
So, the French Revolution was not justified?