Ok Before I am accused of misrepresenting things and in the interest of clarity.

1. I am in San Francisco.

2. Upon further research Flock does not appear to be used by SFPD for ticketing. They have another camera system for that. That does not mean that Flock could not be used for speeding tickets or a host of other things like running red lights, littering etc. Microprocessors and CMOS cameras can do amazing things.

Regardless of what company is doing the surveillance the debate remains the same.

1. Pervasive surveillance has the potential to be used inappropriately by authorities. Discussion is needed.

2. The data collected by a company such as Flock but not necessarily Flock could be used inappropriately or sold for other purposes. Benn Jordan has a good video on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ&t=21s

3. The claim that Flock is responsible for %10 of solved cases seems dubious but without data it is difficult to know or believe. Given that Flock is in YC's portfolio makes it even more suspect.

Flock or a company like Flock may try and become pervasive and indispensable before a public discussion places any limits on their behavior.

I have no idea where the "10% of solved cases" thing comes from, but I posted across thread: I looked at effectiveness very carefully in my own muni, and my conclusion was that the cameras were of basically no help. It feels cynical to make this observation, but if I had to bet --- from the way our own PD, which I respect a lot, tried to formulate an argument for keeping the cameras --- they're counting every crime where an involved car blipped an ALPR. That's not at all the same thing as solving a crime.

Someone who knows more about how Flock generates that stat could say more.