Flock privacy debate: 'no local facial recognition' is a meaningless defense
GlenBradley · x · 2026-09-17
Responding to privacy defenses of Flock surveillance cameras, Glen Bradley concedes there's no local facial recognition on the devices — but argues that's beside the point: any desired facial recognition can be done remotely, after the fact or in real time, exactly how Flock reads license plates remotely.
He's careful not to claim it's happening, saying he lacks data for conclusions. His core point: arguments that "a Flock camera isn't doing XYZ locally" are essentially meaningless, since most of the system's processing happens remotely anyway.
More from Safety
- OpenAI discloses six model misalignment incidents and launches a public disclosure framework — TansuYegen · 2026-09-17
- Singapore subsidizes 6-month premium AI tool subscriptions for citizens taking AI courses — reddumpling · 2026-09-17
- Halvar Flake publishes slides from his Microsoft BlueHat Singapore talk — mboehme_ · 2026-09-17
- Anthropic's Policy Chief Says Her Team Talks to the White House on a Daily Basis — pstAsiatech · 2026-09-17
- How the AI Regulatory Capture Narrative Was Built From a Mundane Security Failure — AlexTensor · 2026-09-17
- White paper reframes the HuggingFace incident via LLM semantic field miscalibration — LopsidedLevel9009 · 2026-09-17