Texas Sheriff Used Flock Alpr in Abortion Investigation
Posted2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
eff.orgOtherstory
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
Abortion LawsSurveillanceAlpr
Key topics
Abortion Laws
Surveillance
Alpr
A Texas sheriff used Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) technology in an abortion investigation, sparking debate about the use of surveillance technology in law enforcement and the controversy surrounding abortion laws.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Moderate engagementFirst comment
14m
Peak period
7
0-3h
Avg / period
3.3
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 10, 2025 at 1:33 PM EST
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 10, 2025 at 1:47 PM EST
14m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
7 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 12, 2025 at 1:11 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45879151Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 1:23:53 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Stop trying to play down how tech is enabling authoritarianism. We can't have databases of beneficial ownership to facilitate investigation of white collar crime, but we can run after random women getting abortions enabled by networked cameras?
Society can't be trusted with half the tech we've given them.
Yes, that's the whole point of tech used by law enforcement: to enable the enforcement of law. If we don't like the law (and I don't), we should change it!
But focusing on the ALPR here is just silly, as a quick glance of this partial list of other technologies used by law enforcement officers in the course of enforcing the law will show: * cars * guns * phones * handcuffs * computers * the internet * notebook and pen
All of these can be used to "enable authoritarianism", and indeed, any authoritarian regime would be hard pressed to run without them. Some of them are more important than others, and ALPRs are definitely a major improvement in the "who is going where" part of law enforcement -- but the problem is the bad law, not the enforcement thereof.
Your argument reduces to "some laws are bad, so we should have weak enforcement mechanisms, because otherwise people will be unable to evade prosecution for breaking bad laws, and that is bad, because the laws are bad and therefore those who break them should not be subject to prosecution." This is not as helpful a move as it might seem, since it just sends us back to the original question, which is "ok, what laws should we have?"
For better or worse, we have a setup in which we have one branch charged with answering that question, and another charged with enforcing whatever laws we happen to have. Trying to undermine one branch in order to compensate for the stupidity of another is unlikely to help.
It used to be that we had systems such as Palantir who went out of their way to design these systems with ACLs and audit review. That was their trade off to get these powerful systems approved by respecting civil liberties
Well that seems to have been lost in today’s surveillance ecosystem. Who has access to Flock amd what are they allowed to search for? The answer seems to be any LEO for any reason
https://www.ilsos.gov/content/dam/news/2025/august/250825d1....
https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/state/2025/06/12/texas-law-e...
Flock's PR response was, and continues to be as of this comment, factually inaccurate based on reporting that has been done, as mentioned in this piece by the EFF.
https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/statement-network-sharing-u...
It would be great if Gary Tan, as YC's primary partner for Flock, could reach out to have Flock's PR misinformation corrected.
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety
So essentially the point of the article is to prove that not being able to murder your 9 month-old baby in TX means we're living in a Handmaid's Tale.