News: 0180430543

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Flock Executive Says Their Camera Helped Find Shooting Suspect, Addresses Privacy Concerns (cnn.com)

(Saturday December 20, 2025 @04:34PM (EditorDavid) from the I'll-be-seeing-you dept.)


During a search for the Brown shoogin suspect, a law enforcement press conference included a request for "Ring camera footage from residents and businesses near Brown University," according to [1]local news reports .

But in the end it was Flock cameras according to [2]an article in Gizmodo , after a Reddit poster described seeing "odd" behavior of someone who turned out to be the suspect:

> The original Reddit poster, identified only as John in [3]the affidavit , contacted police the next day and came in for an interview. He told them about his odd encounter with the suspect, noting that he was acting suspiciously by not having appropriate cold-weather clothes on when he saw him in a bathroom at Brown University. That was two hours before the shooting. After spotting him in the bathroom wearing a mask, John actually started following the suspect in what he called a "game of cat and mouse...." Police detectives showed John two images obtained through Flock, the company that's built extensive surveillance infrastructure across the U.S. used by investigators, and he recognized the suspect's vehicle, replying, "Holy shit. That might be it," according to the affidavit. Police were able to track down the license plate of the rental car, which gave them a name, and within 24 hours, they had found Claudio Manuel Neves Valente dead in a storage facility in Salem, New Hampshire, where he reportedly rented a unit.

"We intend to continue using technology to make sure our law enforcement are empowered to do their jobs," Flock's safety CEO Garrett Langley [4]wrote on X.com , pinning the post to the top of his feed.

Though ironically, hours before Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez credited Flock for helping to find the suspect, CNN was interviewing Flock's safety CEO to discuss " [5]his response to recent privacy concerns surrounding Flock's technology ."

> To Langley, the situation underscored the value and importance of Flock's technology, despite mounting privacy concerns that have prompted some jurisdictions to cancel contracts with the company... Langley told me on Thursday that he was motivated to start Flock to keep Americans safer. His goal is to deter crime by convincing would-be criminals they'll be caught... One of Flock's cameras had recently spotted [the suspect's] car, helping police pinpoint Valente's location. Flock turned on additional AI capabilities that were not part of Providence Police's contract with the company to assist in the hunt, a company spokesperson told CNN, including a feature that can identify the same vehicle based on its description even if its license plates have been changed.

>

> The company has faced criticism from some privacy advocates and community groups who worry that its networks of cameras are collecting too much personal information from private citizens and could be misused. Both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the [6]American Civil Liberties Union have urged communities not to work with Flock. "State legislatures and local governments around the nation need to enact strong, meaningful protections of our privacy and way of life against this kind of AI surveillance machinery," ACLU Senior Policy Analyst Jay Stanley wrote in an August blog [7]post . Flock also drew scrutiny in October when it announced a partnership with Amazon's Ring doorbell camera system... ["Local officers using Flock Safety's technology can now post a request directly in the Ring Neighbors app asking for help," explains [8]Flock's blog post .]

>

> Langley told me it was up to police to reassure communities that the cameras would be used responsibly... "If you don't trust law enforcement to do their job, that's actually what you're concerned about, and I'm not going to help people get over that." Langley added that Flock has built some guardrails into its technology, including audit trails that show when data was accessed. He pointed to a [9]case in Georgia where that audit found a police chief using data from LPR cameras to stalk and harass people. The chief resigned and was arrested and charged in November...

>

> More recently, the company rolled out a "drone as first responder" service — where law enforcement officers can dispatch a drone equipped with a camera, whose footage is similarly searchable via AI, to evaluate the scene of an emergency call before human officers arrive. Flock's drone systems completed 10,000 flights in the third quarter of 2025 alone, according to the company... I asked what he'd tell communities already worried about surveillance from LPRs who might be wary of camera-equipped drones also flying overhead. He said cities can set their own limitations on drone usage, such as only using drones to respond to 911 calls or positioning the drones' cameras on the horizon while flying until they reach the scene. He added that the drones fly at an elevation of 400 feet.



[1] https://www.masslive.com/news/2025/12/police-seek-ring-camera-footage-after-brown-university-shooting-leaves-10-shot.html

[2] https://gizmodo.com/how-a-reddit-post-helped-find-the-brown-university-shooting-suspect-2000701854

[3] https://riag.ri.gov/press-releases/attorney-general-neronha-law-enforcement-partners-announce-death-suspect-brown

[4] https://x.com/glangley/status/2002018155518890067

[5] https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/19/tech/flock-safety-ai-cameras-brown-suspect-privacy

[6] https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup

[7] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it

[8] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-and-ring-partner-to-help-neighborhoods-work-together-for-safer-communities

[9] https://apnews.com/article/georgia-plate-readers-stalk-harass-chief-arrested-39adb6f89fc2074da61f2801fef3f180



I'm tired of being lied to (Score:3)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 )

The shooting suspect was found because someone reported them. If you just have the slightest touch point with news you know that but here they are just fucking lying to me.

Short-term if you want to shut down flock in your area do a bunch of freedom of information requests for the information. After about a year when it becomes clear that you can get information about the coming and goings of your local politicians and in particular which Republicans are frequency the gay bars (it's all of them but they don't like it when there's proof) then your city will cancel all the contracts.

Eventually they will find a way around that.

I keep saying this but if privacy and rights and freedom have any importance to you whatsoever you need to take the culture War bullshit that you've been trading your rights for and let it Go. This does mean you need to learn the difference between culture War bullshit and actual civil rights.

Otherwise every time an election comes around a bunch of propaganda will get blasted into your eyeballs and you will be so freaked out by whatever the hell the news media is telling you to be freaked out about that you will race to vote for people that will put flock cameras everywhere and monitor everything you do say or think...

Re: (Score:3)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

No, they were found because a person reported them, and they were able to track that person via flock.

Article told to the truth.

Flock is a fucking evil, but trying to remove its impact doesn't enable an honest discussion- it's just more of your bullshit where everything that you don't like can never, has never, and will never have a single redeemable quality.

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

You know, your trolling of him almost makes me pity his dumb ass. You should cut it out, I think it's having the opposite effect you intend.

Re: (Score:1)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 )

You're replying to an llm. It's just somebody training a chatbot off my comments. Also Trump fucks kids. I say that with full understanding that the llm has already picked up on the fact that Trump fucks kids and has been repeating it which is fucking hilarious.

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

I don't think it's an LLM. Too much work to replicate you with an LLM.

Trump also likely does not fuck kids. I bet he's wanted to a few times, though.

It's pretty unsurprising that you consider slander part of your repertoire against your enemies, though.

After all, if they do it, that justifies you doing it, right? Those ends, they really justify those means.

Re: (Score:2)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 )

Dude once the report was made you didn't need flock to track them regular police work could easily do that.

It doesn't even make it easier it's not hard at all for the cops to find somebody without a 24/7 surveillance state.

So you need to ask yourself why they have you ready to give up your rights and your privacy without a second thought because if you even gave it a second thought you'd have realized regular police work could have found the guy with ease.

They got you. You need to take a step ba

Re: (Score:2)

by jhoegl ( 638955 )

I think its odd that the typical conspiracy nuts havent put together the most obvious conspiracy with FLOCK cameras out there.

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

> Dude once the report was made you didn't need flock to track them regular police work could easily do that.

That's idiocy.

The dude was hiding out in his fucking storage unit.

Don't be dense. Stop letting your political opinions shut off your fucking brain.

> So you need to ask yourself why they have you ready to give up your rights and your privacy without a second thought because if you even gave it a second thought you'd have realized regular police work could have found the guy with ease.

And there it is.

Truth is treason in your kingdom of lies.

Get fucked, you little fascist wannabe.

Your beef isn't with the existence of Flock, your beef is that it's in State control instead of yours. You want the same end.

Re: (Score:2)

by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 )

> Dude once the report was made you didn't need flock to track them regular police work could easily do that.

The key thing that somebody reported was a suspicious gray Nissan. Once they zeroed in on looking for a grey Nissan at the crime scene, they looked at the surveillance cameras, found one that had in the right place at the right time, and used the Flock cameras and license plate readers to discover it was also present in Brookline at the MIT professor's shooting, then used the Flock cameras to follow it to the storage facility.

Maybe "regular police work" could have followed it through the change of license

maximum security prison (Score:1)

by roman_mir ( 125474 )

I do not think anyone argues that these cameras are not useful to find someone, whatever the reason. Maximum security prisons are also very effective for this purpose. Do you want to live as if you are in one?

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

This is the proper way to discuss these fucking things.

They're undeniably useful. They're also antithetical to freedom.

A society under constant surveillance is only as free as the watchers allow it to be.

I disagree with you on about 99.9% of all words you emit, but not this.

Re: (Score:1)

by roman_mir ( 125474 )

disagreeing with me on anything does not invalidate my positions nor does it make you right in any way, I do not know why it was important for you to add that to your reply, it actually implies that many of your positions are incorrect and it does not increase the chances that my position on flock cameras is more or less valid. My positions pretty much always align with each other because they are all derived from the assertion that maximizing individual freedoms is the most important goal for human life.

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

This statement is a perfect example of why it's remarkable that you actually came to the correct conclusion above-

> it actually implies that many of your positions are incorrect and it does not increase the chances that my position on flock cameras is more or less valid.

You see, the latter part of that sentence is true.

The former is obviously a falsehood.

I wonder if your entire existence is just stumbling through an existence you're too dim to understand with a 50/50 rate of successful evaluation of your circumstances.

Re: (Score:1)

by roman_mir ( 125474 )

well clearly many of your positions are incorrect if you disagree with me 99.9% of the time as you said, that is because it is impossible statistically for me to be incorrect 99.9% of the time, I couldn't achieve that result if I put all my effort into it.

Flock you! (Score:3)

by Local ID10T ( 790134 )

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

Re: (Score:2)

by Local ID10T ( 790134 )

> These cameras are *all* in public spaces where you have *no* expectation of privacy, what-so-ever.

It is legal to take photographs and videos in public spaces without a requirement for consent of those photographed. It is also legal to keep records of what you observe. It is even legal to combine your records with other people's records to make a giant database.

It is not legal for the government to track us and observe us as we go about our daily lives. This is a basic tenet of our society, dating back to the founders of our nation -the right to privacy from the government . The government using a thi

Cameras in your bathroom will also detect crimes (Score:3)

by gurps_npc ( 621217 )

So will cameras in your bedroom. (and create a wonderful new side industry for the government selling access).

Also, letting the cops get DNA of everyone in the US will also help you stop crimes. (and cause quite a few divorces).

Furthermore, letting the government read the emails of all businesses will cut down on fraud. (And hurt all those small companies trying to compete with the big ones).

There a ton of ways to reduce crime while doing tremendous damage to innocent people.

Re: (Score:2)

by NotEmmanuelGoldstein ( 6423622 )

You're demonstrating an extreme position on a certain policy, to expose a subsequent danger. The problem is, you're not far from the truth. The UK government did plan to install 'security' cameras in people's homes 'for the children'.

Wow, cameras good!! (Score:3)

by Uldis Segliņš ( 4468089 )

Cameras, buhh, muhh, good, just keep calm and carry on buhh ... wuhh ... BULLSHIT! This is erosion of privacy and destruction of democracy. If anything called that still can be considered a reality in US of A.

The murder would've eventually been found (Score:2)

by davidwr ( 791652 )

He was dead for 2 days when they found him. He had things with him that tied him to Brown University murders and I think to the MIT professor's murder. He would've been found eventually without any assistance from Flock or from the eyewitness.

The only thing that the eyewitness and Flock provided was a quicker end to the manhunt. Given that people in the Brown community were living in fear that a gunman was still out there, this is still worth something. Is it worth living in what is a few short steps awa

It's an oily gradient (Score:3)

by rmdingler ( 1955220 )

I'm not surprised a company like Flock exists to monetize the surveillance state.

I'm not surprised at law enforcement's reckless disregard for those pesky personal freedoms that are always hampering their investigations.

I'm a little surprised at how willing we seem to be as a species to catalog our daily movements for anyone with access to the surveillance databases; otherwise, AI might be blind to our shenanigans in a dystopian future. Sending drones into potential crime scenes ahead of humans is a recipe for what, exactly?

Convincing would-be criminals they will be caught (Score:1)

by davidwr ( 791652 )

"Convincing would-be criminals they will be caught" does nothing to deter the person bent on suicide (like the Brown University murderer) or the person who intends to be caught (people engaged in civil disobedience expecting to be arrested to make a point).

There's not much that can stop someone who is 1) smart enough to pull off a crime, and 2) determined to commit the crime no matter what the consequences.

Deterrence keeps honest people honest and it sometimes keeps those who are dishonest but who do don't

Re: (Score:2)

by gweihir ( 88907 )

Well, that is the Big Lie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie) being pushes by law enforcement and Law&Order politicians, isn't it? Claiming harsher sentences, more surveillance and more police and police powers would actually improve safety. The reality is they do not.

If you let the police make your laws, then one day you will wake up in a police-state.

Re: (Score:1)

by davidwr ( 791652 )

> Claiming harsher sentences, more surveillance and more police and police powers would actually improve safety. The reality is they do not.

I don't know about you, but when I'm driving and I see a police car, if there's little or no other traffic I make sure I'm at or below the speed limit. If I'm in moderate traffic going the speed limit, I wait until the cop is out of sight for a minute or two before trying to pass. If I'm in heavy traffic I'm probably stuck in a pack, so it doesn't matter.

In the first two scenarios, my increased attention to my speed probably has a non-zero improvement in safety for the moment in question.

Back to your ori

Huh? (Score:1)

by Black Parrot ( 19622 )

Is even shooging against the law now?

"My big brother is also heavy." (Score:2)

by kackle ( 910159 )

People still died. People still get robbed. The real, unanswerable question is how much crime are these cameras preventing . Worse, thanks to the pandemic masks are socially acceptable in the states now.

Talk About != Addressing (Score:1)

by EmagGeek ( 574360 )

Lying about how you handle ubiquitous surveillance data is not the same as addressing privacy concerns. Addressing them means you have dispensed with the policies and practices that caused the concerns.

Re: (Score:1)

by davidwr ( 791652 )

"Addressing" can mean "acknowledging" as in "Frock acknowledged the privacy concerns of its technology, then proceeded to lie about its ubiquitous survellance data...."

Or, to put it another way: "Dear person with privacy concerns, let me address them by simply saying 'Frock you!' Sincerely, Frock executive."

No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
-- C. Schulz