Flock Worker Calls Police On Reporter - For Filming Them in Public (investigatetv.com)
- Reference: 0185632584
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/09/13/0650227/flock-worker-calls-police-on-reporter---for-filming-them-in-public
- Source link: https://www.investigatetv.com/2026/09/08/flock-worker-calls-police-investigatetv-reporter-filming-public-camera-installation/
And then Flock's technician called 911. When asked "What's the address of your emergency" Flock's technician answered "I'm getting followed — harassed, pretty much. Taking videos and pictures!" Flock's worker said they'd been harassed multiple times that day, then stated incorrectly that "I know for a fact" that that was what the reporter wanted to do too.
InvestigateTV reports that as a result of the Flock technician's call, "Three police cars ended up in the national investigative reporter's rearview mirror that Wednesday afternoon." Keefe told one of the three police officers who pulled him over, "There is an irony here that they're setting up these cameras that track all of our movements, that follow everywhere we go. But when I try to get video in public of him in public setting up a camera, he's afraid I'm following him?"
InvestigateTV also reports that "About 17 minutes after the stop began, the responding officers returned to their vehicles and Keefe was allowed to drive away." But the call that brought three police cars to their reporter "was not the first time this summer someone working for Flock Safety summoned police over a camera. "
> About 17 minutes after the stop began, the responding officers returned to their vehicles and Keefe was allowed to drive away... [But the stop] was not the first time this summer someone working for Flock Safety summoned police over a camera. On June 5, police in Smyrna, Georgia, responded to a 911 call from a Flock employee after a group of YouTube creators began filming outside the company's distribution center located in the Atlanta suburb... The caller claimed the group filming had "been driving around the perimeter, basically harassing everyone" working at the facility. "Three young white males, probably mid-twenties, I'm not sure if they're armed. And they're carrying filming equipment as well," the caller said. Three times during the call he raised the possibility the people filming might be armed, though, when asked, he told the dispatcher he had not seen any weapons... [One of the protesters later told the caller "I think it's interesting, when you guys have this happen, you call the police and make us get stopped. But then you do it and it's okay?"]
>
> No one was charged in the YouTuber group, though the individuals were ordered to leave the premises under an official trespass warning.
Keefe's video report ends with one final irony. "Every day on my way to work, I'm captured again by those same new shiny Flock cameras. We tried watching the watchers. Turns outs, it's a lot easier for them to watch us."
Flock responded to the report by claiming "We do not object to members of the public or press photographing Flock cameras or personnel in public." But they added that employees working "in the field" must "prioritize their safety" and "may contact law enforcement when they believe they are being threatened, harassed, followed, or otherwise face a safety concern."
[1] https://youtu.be/S53cFmimChM?si=UdpLDHV2ZAWWQoik
[2] https://www.investigatetv.com/2026/09/08/flock-worker-calls-police-investigatetv-reporter-filming-public-camera-installation/
poor babies (Score:2)
> employees working "in the field" must "prioritize their safety" and "may contact law enforcement when they believe they are being threatened, harassed, followed, or otherwise face a safety concern."
They are a safety concern. They are creating an opportunity for a foreign adversary. Does anyone really believe these clowns are capable of maintaining security?
Re: (Score:2)
Links?
Flock is building 1984 (Score:2)
Our society requires privacy to function. This is because government (and that includes individuals with personal motivations within government structures) at all levels have power to selectively prosecute anyone they don't like. Our legal system is set up in a way that every law abiding citizen can be investigated (where investigation is the punishment) and their life ruined if there is a pretext (probable cause). Flock is an easy way to manufacture such pretext.
You can't have qualified immunity and Floc
Re: (Score:2)
I want to be clear here: I'm no fan of Flock. However, if you want privacy when you're in a public place, you're asking for something as incongruous as water not being wet.
Re: Flock is building 1984 (Score:2)
Youâ(TM)re not wrong, but the issue with flock and similar is not so much being witnessed in public as it is being algorithmically analyzed and suffering consequences as a result. Which is an erosion of the presumption of innocence. It also provides a an easy tool for stalkers/oppressors/paychopaths that is really difficult to defend against.
Re: (Score:3)
> Youâ(TM)re not wrong, but the issue with flock and similar is not so much being witnessed in public as it is being algorithmically analyzed and suffering consequences as a result. Which is an erosion of the presumption of innocence. It also provides a an easy tool for stalkers/oppressors/paychopaths that is really difficult to defend against.
Good point. IANAL, but I was in a discussion on this site a week or two ago regarding Flock, did some research, and learned that while being observed in (or from) a public place, even with a camera, is not a violation of privacy, the use of enhanced technologies could violate the Fourth Amendment. "Enhanced" supposedly meant things like telephoto lenses or thermal imagers, but I can imagine it also meaning algorithmic analysis.
That's for government surveillance. Private surveillance has more complicated law
Re: (Score:3)
"Privacy in a public place" is not what's being asked for. The concept of "not having privacy in public" is completely and totally outdated and different now that you can be passivley tracked by a network of cameras and software in a way that used to take a warrant and significant amount of law enforcement officers. This now happens all the time, without any action on the part of law enforment or flock, just by the nature of the system. Again, without a warrant Without even resonable suspicion or probab
Re: (Score:2)
I think I understand the difference at least as well as you do.
First of all "privacy in a piblic place" is exactly what is being asked for. And generally it is not something one can expect.
You're talking about enhanced surveillance which does in fact have constitutional limits for the government, but less clear limits for private companies or individuals. In the latter situation, I think they need to cross the line into stalking or harassment before there is a legal case. But IANAL, so consider that.
Unity (Score:2)
Forget the double standard of carrying far more pervasive surveillance equipment in our pockets or [1]simply replacing Flock cameras with Axon. [newsweek.com] Instead, let's be happy that America finally seems to have started remembering how to stand together. It's like Pokémon Go but with activism.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-cities-deploying-axon-cameras-flock-backlash-grows-12415569
Re: (Score:1)
> America finally seems to have started remembering how to stand together.
I'm not sure that's true. While there is a core demographic that are opposed to them, it's pretty small. A majority here in Seattle want our own camera system turned back on.
It's not about the amount of noise you make or the vandalism you commit. It's one person, one vote.
Re: (Score:2)
> But ... but ... I've been told here on /. that police showing up at your door because of a social media post that you've made, say, is perfectly fine, is evidence of the system working, and has no chilling effect at all?
I don't recall ever seeing that sentiment expressed here, except perhaps as a quote in a story summary. Do you have a specific comment in mind?
when reporting becomes stalking (Score:2)
> so Keefe also returned to his car and followed several cars behind, hoping to document the next stop."
Yeah that was a stupid thing to do. I don't care which side of the fence you're on regarding Flock cameras, police, or government surveillance, following someone is the wrong response. They're merely an employee doing their job, and you've just escalated it into something very personal.
If that'd have been me, I'd have driven to the cop shop and flagged down an officer, pointed out the car following me, an
Re: (Score:3)
> They're merely an employee doing their job
OM NOM NOM BOOTS
> How'd you like it if my buddy with the flock camera mounted on his roof starts following you around?
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING, BOOT LICKER.
You're a traitor in spirit, if not in law.
Re: (Score:3)
Following someone isn't illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
And he wasn't arrested.
Given the increasingly nasty controversy over the company, and how common road rage turns violent in general, it's not unreasonable to be concerned over being followed. Especially considering the hundreds, if not thousand, of crimes committed against the company('s cameras) already, as the controversy escalates.
Re: when reporting becomes stalking (Score:3)
Following and filming a publicly funded worker on the job is not harassment. Freedom from discomfort in public is not a right in the job or off. You going to participate in something controversial? You have implicitly agreed to the visibility.
Re: (Score:2)
How'd that work at Nuremberg?
Re: (Score:2)
Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
Roofer: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer - Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
[...]
Roofer: I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. You know,
Re: (Score:2)
"following someone is the wrong response" - Um, hello, McFly, that is Flock's actual business model.
False police report (Score:2)
Under GA , law that is a misdemeanor. Mot sure if a private citizen can file a complaint about it but if they can they should; it would not surprise me if Flock installers were unofficially were encouraged to call the police.
Re: (Score:3)
"False report" would be to report a fire when there isn't one. But he reported "I'm getting followed — harassed, pretty much. Taking videos and pictures!" which for most ("followed", "videos", "pictures") were factual and correct. Nothing false here. "Harassed" is a matter of interpretation and the officers went there to assess that part.
Re:False police report (Score:4, Informative)
Also from the article context it's pretty clear the flock employees are being trained to make false reports with specific phrases "might be armed" and "harassing" when neither are true. Just read what was said about people going around the preimeter of their property. It's laughably false with just the right amojnt of weasel words and possibility of interpertation to not be an obviously false report. I'm so tired of that style of weasel language. It's painfully obvious what's going on and one has to be lobotomized or a bootlicker to support it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not supporting Flock (at all), I just that accusing the technician is the wrong approach. If Flock corporate is training technicians top make police reports whenever pictured, and suggesting wording like "harassment" that will trigger police dispatch, then maybe there is an angle of attack against Flock corporate, for wasting time of police officers.
Re: (Score:3)
Police reports,IIRC,are public records. A pattern of reporting would be worth bringing up at city council meetings. The way to fight is make it clear to elected officials their job could be at stake.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice you ignore that the people "going around the perimeter of their property" were given a trespass notice. That means they were on private property. I'd guess they were in the parking lot, circling the building. Given how many crimes have already been committed against the company, in an escalating pattern, to not call the police would have been criminally negligent regarding their employee's safety.
And in neither incident were the activists (and that's what they are, calling themselves journalists or
Flock is... well, flocked. (Score:3)
There is no way in hell that Flock ever comes out of this as a viable company. No amount of "Flock solved this crime" edge-cases are ever going to be enough to overcome the consistently bad PR. Probably the ONLY case that might save their bacon is if they recorded the election being stolen.
Actively stalking is a different behavior ... (Score:2, Interesting)
> Your hatred of free speech and the first Amendment... Is noted.
Actively stalking and harassing is a different behavior than passively filming, and a different behavior than investigative journalism.
You do realize journalists have no rights beyond what a normal citizen has? They have the exact same freedom of speech, they have the exact same responsibility to obey the exact same laws. Nothing extra.
You did not think this through at all (Score:2)
The very essence of journalism in a Western world is to expose wrong doing and nobody being exposed likes. Journalism isn't meant to be rage-bait or hallmark moments for clicks that it degenerated into. It meant to cover and expose uncomfortable realities so individuals can be informed.
Taking a good thing too far (Score:5, Insightful)
But in this case the investigative journalist seems to have stepped over the line into stalking and harassment. It seems to merely be an upset activist masquerading as a journalist. Act like an angry ex-boyfriend and the cops should have a conversation with you.
Re:Taking a good thing too far (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, in neither of the cases mentioned was the filming the issue the cops were responding to. In the first, it was following the installer down the road, which is always suspicious. In the second, they were trespassing on private property.
And in both cases, the cops established what was really going on, and responded appropriately - with no arrests.
Re: (Score:2)
> Honestly hoping you are Canadian, and that no American would say something this ignorant about Free Speech and the First Amendment and Journalistic FREEDOM. I am sincerely hoping this is someone from another country, who is just ignorant of our laws... Seriously.
Why do you hope this person is Canadian specifically?
Please note that Canada does in fact protect free speech explicitly in its Constitution, including "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication ".
There are exceptions, pertaining to hate speech, defamation, obscenity, child pornography, incitement to violence, and direct threats.
I'm a Canadian who lives permanently in the USA, so I can see it from both sides.
Perhaps freezing back account for protest donation (Score:3)
> Why do you hope this person is Canadian specifically?
I'm guessing, but it might have been due to government abuse of free speech during covid. Donate to a group protesting against the government, get your bank account shutdown. Note that whether one is for or against covid mandates is irrelevant, the real issue here is whether the government can freeze the bank account of someone exercisng free speech by donating to a group protesting a government policy. Again, its about the attacking the protest, not what is being protested.
"As part of these measures, th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Canada guarantees Freedom of Expression in our Constitution. While on paper, the USA has stronger guarantees, in practice, Canada has much more freedom (as measured, for example, by [1]Freedom House [freedomhouse.org].)
We don't have the equivalent of the FCC threatening broadcasters for which politicians they interview on TV, for example. We don't have governments dictating to librarians which books they are or are not allowed to stock. And we don't have governments banning universities from teaching certain subjects. You
[1] https://freedomhouse.org/country/scores?sort=fiw&sort_order=desc
Journalists have no additional rights (Score:2)
Journalists have no additional constitutional rights, they have the exact same rights as an ordinary citizen, no more.
And journalists must obey the exact same laws as an ordinary citizen, there are no exceptions.
Being a journalist does not provide some sort of cover to act like a pissed off activist and harass someone.
It probably was a good thing that he had a conversation with the police before he crossed the line regarding some sort of anti-slaking law. If he is a real journalist then this might ha
Re: Journalists have no additional rights (Score:2)
Actually, in Washington State at least, having an investigator's license IS a legal defense against harassment charges. (Not all journalists will have that of course.) So there actually can be cases in which one profession is held to a different standard than another.
Re: (Score:3)
> No local TV news station, harassment is what you brag about doing. You proudly state it is your reporters jobs.
Which local TV news station brags about harassment? I've never seen a TV station brag about that.
Re: (Score:1)
> The reporter should find another job if he doesn't want the consequences of working for a publicly declared assailant.
Flock can't produce better shilling than that??