Flock drones with cameras deployed as first responders in some US cities amid privacy concerns — UAVs connect to wider emergency services system and streams video to dispatchers, officers

a Flock DFR drone
(Image credit: Flock)

Several towns and cities in the U.S. are experimenting with Flock’s Drones-as-First-Responder (DFR) system, which employs remotely operated drones that automatically launch from rooftop docks. According to Military.com, these units are integrated into emergency services systems, which can send drones in response to a 911 call, license-plate reader notification, or gunshot-detection alert. Once in the air, these units stream live footage to dispatchers and officers in the field.

Flock initially gained this capability when it purchased drone firm Aerodome, which sells drones with high-definition video, thermal imaging, and other onboard capabilities. It’s also not the only company advertising similar services, with one startup advertising a Starlink-connected first responder drone that lets it operate outside the range of its base station.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

  • TheCyberKender
    And, just like with the stationary cameras, the competition (Axon, Motorola, etc.) are also moving to sell such drones.
    Reply
  • TechieTwo
    The privacy concerns are laughable when there are cameras all over in society and every person on the planet carries 5 cellphones - all with cameras. The only one that should be concerned about Flock or other cameras are the criminals. Unless you can turn back the clock of time 20 years or more you don't have a chance of removing cameras from society.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    TechieTwo said:
    The privacy concerns are laughable when there are cameras all over in society and every person on the planet carries 5 cellphones - all with cameras. The only one that should be concerned about Flock or other cameras are the criminals. Unless you can turn back the clock of time 20 years or more you don't have a chance of removing cameras from society.
    One of the main privacy concerns is what happens to the footage.

    Video from your cell phone or the security camera on my house is not searchable by the state without a signed warrant.
    Flock and the others pipe that video direct to the states database, no warrant needed.
    Reply
  • Bryanhat
    Admin said:
    U.S. cities consider deploying Flock drones that automatically respond to emergency calls. However, other jurisdictions are pushing back against the service due to privacy and other concerns.

    Flock drones with cameras deployed as first responders in some US cities amid privacy concerns : Read more
    Why would it matter if your not a criminal why should you worry is the most brainless answer to any question involving governmental authority I ever heard . Look at china people. Look really hard at your future. If government declares a disagreement between you and government makes you a criminal punished by prison time would you jump on the train so fast?
    Reply
  • TheCyberKender
    TechieTwo said:
    The privacy concerns are laughable when there are cameras all over in society and every person on the planet carries 5 cellphones - all with cameras. The only one that should be concerned about Flock or other cameras are the criminals. Unless you can turn back the clock of time 20 years or more you don't have a chance of removing cameras from society.
    Let's see...
    Shively PD officer Asad Zahir tracked the activity of their ex, using Flock.
    Haines City PD officer Christopher Goodson tracked their estranged wife, using Flock.
    Moorsville PD officer Elizabeth Snowman tracked her boyfriend's ex-wife, using Fock.
    Five Indianapolis officers, Michael Rogers, Jonathan Schultz, Cassandra Crawley, Matthew Binford, and Abigal Cramer, were all charged with misusing Flock systems to stalk a variety of people.
    Reply
  • Joomsy
    TechieTwo said:
    The privacy concerns are laughable when there are cameras all over in society and every person on the planet carries 5 cellphones - all with cameras. The only one that should be concerned about Flock or other cameras are the criminals. Unless you can turn back the clock of time 20 years or more you don't have a chance of removing cameras from society.
    So, what's your home address? I'd like to come stand in your yard, and just stare at your house. I might even take a peep through the windows at any given moment. Y'know, for funsies. If you've got nothing to hide, you should be totally fine with me, as well as the rest of the world, doing this.
    Reply
  • scottslayer
    TheCyberKender said:
    Let's see...
    Shively PD officer Asad Zahir tracked the activity of their ex, using Flock.
    Haines City PD officer Christopher Goodson tracked their estranged wife, using Flock.
    Moorsville PD officer Elizabeth Snowman tracked her boyfriend's ex-wife, using Fock.
    Five Indianapolis officers, Michael Rogers, Jonathan Schultz, Cassandra Crawley, Matthew Binford, and Abigal Cramer, were all charged with misusing Flock systems to stalk a variety of people.
    The Institute For Justice has a tracker that covers more than Flock.
    https://ij.org/the-ij-database-of-alpr-abuse/
    Reply
  • jackt
    Exactly like in China !
    Reply
  • JR54
    Bryanhat said:
    Why would it matter if your not a criminal why should you worry is the most brainless answer to any question involving governmental authority I ever heard . Look at china people. Look really hard at your future. If government declares a disagreement between you and government makes you a criminal punished by prison time would you jump on the train so fast?
    Because brain dead officers conflate proximity with guilt, look at the woman falsely arrested for a hit and run in Florida. In jail for over a month despite the flock footage and no damage to her vehicle proving her innocence. Detective searched for matching vehicles, got the one matching and called it case closed.

    Getting the same thing with facial recognition, smooth brain officers arresting people because a computer said they're the person despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
    Reply
  • JR54
    JR54 said:
    Because brain dead officers conflate proximity with guilt, look at the woman falsely arrested for a hit and run in Florida. In jail for over a month despite the flock footage and no damage to her vehicle proving her innocence. Detective searched for matching vehicles, got the one matching and called it case closed.

    Getting the same thing with facial recognition, smooth brain officers arresting people because a computer said they're the person despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
    That being said, i give less of a shit about misuse. Officers committing crimes using the system are getting arrested, in that instance it's like the ultimate bad cop honeypot. I'm far more concerned about sloppy lazy policing, they use powerful tools and can't grasp that 1+1=2...
    Reply