联邦法官称弗洛克公司实施“无差别大规模监控”
Federal judge calls Flock 'indiscriminate mass surveillance'

原始链接: https://techcrunch.com/2026/10/03/federal-judge-calls-flock-indiscriminate-mass-surveillance/

联邦法官裁定,俄克拉何马州塔尔萨县警长的一名警员未经令状查询 Flock Safety 的车牌数据库,侵犯了一名女子的《美国宪法第四修正案》所保障的权利。法官莎拉·希尔表示,警员搜索该女子加州车牌 seemingly 没有合理依据,唯一的理由只是该车牌来自外州。尽管据称警员在搜查她的车辆时发现了 91 磅甲基苯丙胺,但法官下令排除通过 Flock 搜索获得的所有证据,将其视为 unconstitutional search 的衍生证据。 这项不具约束力的裁决,是首批认定 Flock 搜索违宪的判决之一。希尔还批评 Flock 可能对车辆位置进行不加区分的被动大规模监控。该裁决反映了两党日益增强的反对态度:佛罗里达州和得克萨斯州计划停止使用这项技术,而参议员伯尼·桑德斯提出立法,拟限制联邦政府使用自动车牌识别系统。Flock 首席执行官加雷托·兰利主张在隐私与安全之间寻求折中,并向那些因执法机构使用该系统而遭到跟踪的女性道歉。公司还提出了员工自愿买断方案,以应对相关服务被取消的情况。

一则关于 Hacker News 讨论的报道提到,一名联邦法官将 Flock 的车牌追踪称为“无差别的大规模监控”。评论者围绕 widespread tracking 是否侵犯第四修正案或公众对隐私的期待展开争论,也质疑政府机构是否在利用私人承包商规避宪法限制。 另一些人则认为,这项技术取得了正当的公共安全成果。他们提到,据称 Flock 的车辆行驶历史数据帮助警方找到一辆车,并在其中查获了 91 磅冰毒。评论者还质疑该法官在政治上是否保持中立,并指出,近几任总统任命的法官越来越极端,尽管司法独立仍然很重要。 总体而言,这场讨论凸显了大规模监控、宪法权利与有效执法之间的矛盾。
相关文章

原文

A federal judge ruled this week that a Tulsa, Oklahoma sheriff’s deputy violated a woman’s Fourth Amendment rights when using Flock Safety to search for her license plate without a warrant. 

As reported by 404 Media, this ruling does not create a binding precedent, but it is one of the first times that a federal judge has ruled that a Flock search is unconstitutional.

In this case, Judge Sara Hill said the deputy should have obtained a warrant before searching the Flock database for the woman’s license plate, as he had “no apparent reason” for the search “other than the fact that [the woman’s vehicle] had a California license plate.”

The deputy then used the woman’s travel history in Flock as part of the justification for searching her car, where he allegedly discovered 91 pounds of meth. But Judge Hill wrote that all evidence obtained after the Flock search “must be suppressed as the fruit of a poisonous tree.”

Judge Hill also took broader aim at warrantless searches of the Flock database, writing that tracking people’s location — even when they’re in public places — becomes “constitutionally problematic when law enforcement can indiscriminately and passively catalog your whereabouts over an extended period of time and then use that information for any purpose whenever convenient.”

“This is a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance,” Hill wrote. “It is not targeted on a single individual, as in [Carpenter v. United States, a Supreme Court case focused on how government agencies access location data from cell phones]. It is a tool that collects information about all vehicles that pass by any network-connected camera at all times, and it serves up the information to law enforcement on demand.”

Hill joins a growing chorus of Flock critics from across the political spectrum. Numerous local and state governments, including Florida and Texas, have said they will stop using the technology. And on Friday, Senator Bernie Sanders — a Democrat from Vermont — introduced the Block Flock Act, which would bar federal agencies from using automated license plate readers such as Flock.

Flock CEO Garretty Langley — who we’ll be interviewing on-stage at TechCrunch Disrupt — has called for a “compromise” between privacy and safety and offered an apology to women who have been stalked by law enforcement officers using the Flock system. And with all those cancellations, Flock has also reportedly offered voluntary employee buyouts as a way to shrink its workforce.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com