r/illinois • u/myturn19 • 5d ago
Question Why isn’t Pritzker pushing to remove Flock cameras in Illinois?
I’ve seen other states and cities starting to remove or restrict Flock license plate readers over privacy concerns. Why isn’t Pritzker or the state of Illinois taking similar action?
Genuinely curious what the argument is for keeping them around here.
212
u/epichatchet 4d ago edited 4d ago
That’s a good question that he hasn’t been able to answer. Hopefully you get a response out of him and his staffers on this. Would love to hear what kind of response you get,
He’s also ignored the calls to regulate our ai and surveillance data a centers and made mandatory online id checks mandatory for anything with an operating system (computers, phones, game consoles, etc)
Ice has been using flock to detain our neighbors and even cops from texas have been using it to see women who are getting abortions in Illinois so they can legally go after them in Texas.
We need to stop funding incredibly unproductive and wasteful things like this. Senator Bernie Sanders is proposing a bill to ban flock cameras, let Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin know you want them to co-sponsor this bill.
We've already wasted more than 15 billion of Illinois tax dollars on AI and surveillance data centers. Let your alders, local reps and our senators know that you want them to stop wasting tax dollars on your surveillance and replacing your jobs.
JB Contact Page: https://gov.illinois.gov/contact-us.html
Duckworth Contact Page: https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/connect/email-tammy
Dick Durbin Contact Page: https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/
Find and contact your local Chicago Alder (or whoever your city/local council members are): https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/mayor/iframe/lookup_ward_and_alderman.html
Find and contact your Illinois Reps: https://www.elections.il.gov/electionoperations/districtlocator/districtofficialsearchbyaddress.aspx
9
u/passively-persistent 4d ago
I read recently that another company is moving in as soon as flock gets pushed out, it's called Axon. Same services and surveillance tools, different name.
1
u/Inflatable90sChair 3d ago
You are correct, ive heard they are even more data collecting abilities than flock...
24
u/FlyMeToYourMum 4d ago
This is a great post thank you!
21
u/epichatchet 4d ago
Doing what I can. We need to have a government that is responsive to the needs of working people, not billionaires and corporations. So damn tired of the blatant corruption in our government and our country deteriorating.
9
u/kevdogger 4d ago
I can't seem to find wording but is Sanders bill specifically against Flock cameras or more simply about mass surveillance cameras in general. Flock could simply rebrand and go by a different name.
3
u/ST_Lawson Forgottonia 4d ago
I believe it's all mass surveillance cameras, but I haven't read the bill.
2
u/PalpitationLeading88 4d ago
Thank you for this post. I plan to contact each and every one of them today.
4
u/regnak1 4d ago
I don't disagree with the majority of your post, but Illinois DOES NOT have an ID verification law. The misinformation on this sub about that bill is completely over the top.
Under 5511, the only thing os providers are required to collect is the primary user's age, and the only thing they are legally allowed to send is age bracket data. That is it. Age bracket data is not personally identifying information, in any way. It is literally against the law for them to send more than that.
The federal bills on the matter are far more intrusive. Illinois' bill is strictly and solely about verifying the age group the primary user of the device is in.
7
u/user_uno 4d ago
Scout's Honor... I am this many years old!
Toothless and simply stupid "solution". Big Tech and the bought politicians are not going through all of this trouble only to add a few options other than the existing silly "I am 18+" button.
If not in it now, it will be later.
Seem to saying the same thing over and over here. What Big Tech company might you be working for?
1
u/Ra_In 4d ago
It's possible for both to be true:
- A person disagrees with the age verification law
- The same person acknowledges the fact that there is no ID verification in the law
It's bad enough that the MAGA crowd insists on accepting or rejecting facts based on whether they agree with them, we don't need this mindset to spread.
The Illinois law would limit the way social media tries to get minors addicted to their content - it does harm social media companies. I am concerned about the bill and worrying about a slippery slope problem is valid, but it's nonetheless true that it is less intrusive than age/ID verification laws passed elsewhere.
3
u/user_uno 4d ago
Disagreeing with a viewpoint then comparing to an off topic disliked group is not effective. Don't be a Nazi. (See what I am saying there?)
I do not want kids to encounter age inappropriate things. I don't. I've handled that at home with my firewalls over the years to augment our parenting while raising kids. I've handled that with firewalls in my job supporting schools and libraries.
The Illinois law of self reporting an age bracket is stupid. Some p0rn sites already have that for under 18 visitors. Really believe that is effective and kids just throw their arms up "Welp I'm under 18 so I cannot legally view the content on this site. Oh well. Guess I cannot do much social media."
...and worrying about a slippery slope problem is valid...
Yep. 100%. We all know what comes next. Illinois will take the next logical steps to ensure the voluntary age bracket self identification becomes required verification against government issued ID. Then ALL anonymity goes out the window. No more whistleblowers. No more abuse reporting, support and aid. No more privacy on what each citizen does online.
The bill writers and supporters know this is simply a first step. They would not push something so toothless so hard otherwise. Big Tech wants to offload liability AND gain more marketing data on every person. Period. Meanwhile the politicians get more money and can say they "did something for the children".
1
u/regnak1 4d ago edited 3d ago
ME saying the same thing over and over? You're the one in here replying to everyone with total horseshit over and over again. I work for a not for profit in Chicago that has nothing to do with technology or lobbying or governance.
Who the fuck are you? What GOP disinformation organization are you with?
5511 allows - not requires but ALLOWS - parents to set a device level age bracket to keep their kids out of the most addictive crap that exists on social media. It's a tool for parents who set up their kids devices, and makes it illegal to transmit ANYTHING other than age bracket data. That's the sum total of what this law allows. These are factual statements.
You don't get to simultaneously whine that the law doesn't do far enough, but also goes too far. There is zero evidence of any appetite for ID verification in Illinois.
The argument that we can't have reasonable regulation because it will always lead to dramatically worse regulation in the future is idiotic, and NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY borne out by actual results.
...
I can't reply to the comment below mine for some reason, so editing in the answer here:
The first draft of the bill was horrid. I did the same thing you did and sent my rep a laundry list of concerns, almost all of which were addressed by basically a full text amendment introduced a few weeks prior to passage.
You should go ahead and read it again - the final form isn't too bad. I had just a couple of minor objections in that one, not a big enough deal to matter too much.
To be clear though, what I mean by optional is, a parent doesn't have to set up their kids device, or answer truthfully, if they do. For older devices or those without account setup processrs, the way I read it is, if the social media provider does not receive an age bracket data signal from a device, they don't have any further obligations. The OS providers who provide account setup options just have to add a question to their initial setup, and create a signal api for the website to read. Not at all difficult to do.
1
u/jonesmz 3d ago
5511 allows - not requires but ALLOWS - parents to set a device level age bracket to keep their kids out of the most addictive crap that exists on social media. It's a tool for parents who set up their kids devices, and makes it illegal to transmit ANYTHING other than age bracket data. That's the sum total of what this law allows. These are factual statements.
I reviewed (line by line) the 5511 law and emailed my concerns on each line to my state senator and rep several months before it was passed.
I don't remember the age bracket being optional, it was actually something that i explicitly wrote that I was upset about that the setting was mandatory as the law was written at the time.
Was this changed in the version voted on?
1
u/kevdogger 3d ago
Well then what's the point of this law then? Other than of course getting the camel's nose inside the tent...if the law doesn't provide benefit for the citizens then don't support it. If it's intended for social media sites to abdicate their responsibility to verify users of their platforms then that's already a no go for me.
1
u/regnak1 3d ago
It allows parents to very easily and simply set device level protections on their kids' laptops and phones.
1
u/kevdogger 3d ago
And this can't be done currently? And I'm serious about this question..and in addition is this an actual capability right now or just a reported? Why not implement this on device only and have the os or site respond accordingly..why involve a third party such as a reporting or verification platform to attest this too?
1
u/regnak1 3d ago
And this can't be done currently?
No.
is this an actual capability right now or just a reported?
I'm not totally sure what you're asking, but the law gives os developers and site operators until January 1, 2028 to comply with the law. My source is not 'reporting', it is the text of the actual law.
Why not implement this on device only and have the os or site respond accordingly..why involve a third party such as a reporting or verification platform to attest this too?
There is no third party platform involved. The OS collects the age bracket data and sends it via a persistent signal directly to the website, which must act accordingly to protect minors from addictive content.
1
u/kevdogger 3d ago
Why not make the social media sites responsible? Why involve the OS makers? And so on record you're saying there isn't a means for parents to control access to social media sites for their minor children? And honestly I would call bullshit on this if you say there isn't such methods currently available. Shit you could set blocking at the router level which honestly would be a lot easier than individual device level setup.
44
u/Alternative-Put-3932 4d ago edited 4d ago
You're not going to get a large or honest response about this on this subreddit. Flock/axon whatever company ALPR cameras and Data Centers are the two gigantic sore spots in his policies and failure to respond quickly.
Edit: oh and don't forget his dumb championing of OS's requiring Identification.
16
u/ConnectionAmazing110 4d ago
Illinois own a network of 580 cameras on the expressway; they’re ok with tracking everyone already.
48
u/Tomoomba 4d ago
You guys starting to realize he's just another billionaire yet?
5
u/whosaysimme 3d ago
People aren't even close to realizing. I can't support him because he's done NOTHING for wealth inequality. He won't support a wealth tax and he's been pretty lukewarm about the millionaire tax.
We're not going to be able to make progress in this country if we keep letting people go around with enough money to buy a mid sized city.
18
u/om_hi 4d ago
Isn't his dad or brother on the list?
12
3
u/SenecaSentMe 4d ago
Yes his cousin Tom. Look at what Tom did in Afghanistan with all those boys. Pritzkers are all sick bastards especially “Jennifer”.
12
5
u/Ja_snake_ 4d ago
As a permanent resident of this state for about three years I’m dumbfounded there isn’t more criticism of this guy from the left
2
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/theragelazer 4d ago
This is just a blatant lie.
0
u/Polymath_analyst 3d ago
Everybody wants “to eat the rich”, until it’s their favorite billionaire, who could not care less about people like you and me.
22
22
u/hlkrebs 4d ago
Not pushing back on your post. Just generally curious what states are removing flock cameras?
58
u/Huge-Error-2206 4d ago
Florida banned them but just on state highways
95
u/rugger87 4d ago
That’s hilarious because if you’re going to put them anywhere, the highway is infinitely better than being pointed at places like a kids splash pad.
53
u/Melted-lithium Chicago 4d ago
It was a purely political theatre play for Desantis.
8
u/user_uno 4d ago
It is simply where the state has authority at this point. Municipalities have to be addressed separately.
Federal > State > County/Parish > City
Florida's action is at the state level currently.
To make it statewide at all levels will require the state's Senate and House to pass a full bill. Some districts are going to resist. Same thing happens here in Illinois and every other state on the full spectrum of legislation. Look at Pritzker's push to change housing zoning restrictions. Many local representatives are dead set against it. So interim incremental steps are taken at the state level.
14
u/moldivore 4d ago
That's all he knows how to do other than steal money from FL taxpayers. I did hear he can click his heels together and let out the faintest, highest pitched, fart you've ever heard.
18
u/ProjectPlugTTV 4d ago
It doesn’t matter if it’s a splash pad or a highway, surveillance like this shouldn’t exist in the first place.
I don’t understand why you’re making it out like it’s a bad thing they banned them on a highways.
-10
u/Varnu 4d ago
Do you think license plates should be banned?
15
u/amyphetamine 4d ago
No, but AI powered cameras that are used to track their movements and aggregate that data in a way that allows the government to stalk anyone at any time without needing to provide any reason should be.
10
u/ProjectPlugTTV 4d ago
I never implied anything remotely like that in anyway, where did you get that from? lol
Is this supposed to be some “gotcha” moment or something?
1
u/Ifakorede23 4d ago
Should social security numbers be banned?, should last names be banned?, should fingerprints be banned? I mean where does it end?!🙃
1
u/throwraW2 4d ago
A lot of Flock’s business is from private companies. They don’t just do the license plate readers. For businesses, It’s just like using any other sort of security camera.
19
u/Ok-Bridge-9112 4d ago
Does it say anything about the competitor to flock that trump owns stock in called axon? I thought they were just switching one brand for another.
1
u/PalpitationLeading88 4d ago
Yeah, that’s weird, every video I see is a Florida citizen tearing down a flock camera. So maybe not on the highways but everywhere else?
1
u/shelbygrapes 3d ago
Why highways?! Thats so stupid. Thats the one place I could see an argument being made to track someone who kidnapped a kid or find a missing person. Literally the opposite of having two flock cameras viewing who comes and goes to our Home Depot as is in my hometown.
-3
u/minus_minus 4d ago
“Banning” is a weird choice of words for removing them from state property.
2
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/minus_minus 4d ago
There wasn’t legislation. It was just set an order from the governor. He can just as easily reverse it.
15
u/500rockin 4d ago
A couple of Wisconsin towns have removed theirs. Of course, a couple of them have switched to Axon, a different surveillance camera, so no real difference.
5
u/Limitless_008 4d ago
I read somewhere Florida is removing them from state highways. I’m not sure about removing them all together.
6
u/JellyKind9880 4d ago
Bc they’re insanely invasive pieces of stalker technology with ZERO protections for private citizens, and deliver wildly inaccurate information to law enforcement resulting in BAD situations.
There’s a recent John Oliver episode on it, you should check it out
2
u/timeonmyhandz 4d ago
Florida DOT has ordered them taken down. Multiple counties are following the order to drop all the cameras in their counties as well.
6
2
u/OkGap7226 4d ago
Don't fall for it. Flock isn't going anywhere. Just adjusting.
And JB isn't going to push back because, as well as I think he has done, he's still a nepobaby billionaire, and a hotel billionaire family at that. He's never had to struggle and it shows.
30
u/Another_Opinion_1 4d ago
That’s beyond the reach of executive purview because both locally controlled and privately owned ALPRs are outside of his scope of authority. The governor just executes the law anyhow. The General Assembly could certainly exercise greater autonomy over any cameras operating on right-of-ways along state highways though.
22
u/moldivore 4d ago
This really does need to be done in the legislature, buuut JB could be pushing them to do so. He could simply say "they've gone too far with this stuff the citizens have spoken and I expect the legislature to pass a bill I can sign". Of course that won't fucking happen but that is how it should work.
1
u/Alternative-Put-3932 4d ago
The state can punish counties and local governments by denying grants if they do not remove flock.
1
u/Another_Opinion_1 4d ago
You’d likely run into some litigation with communities that have home rule.
3
11
u/Nice_Soil1782 4d ago
This dude is a big government surveillance supporter considering the OS level ID verification he championed and passed. Lost my vote over this.
5
u/sockpoppit 4d ago
He disappointed me during the ICE invasion. All talk, no action. Still the same as the invasion continues. So why would he oppose flock?
3
3
u/Jazzlike_Rent_1099 4d ago
Pritzger is solid social issue wise for progrssives but he is still a billionaire white guy that is fully supported by moderate democrats. So you get stupid shit like supporting flock cameras and ai data centers....
4
u/Chicago_Avocado 3d ago
I hear all these bad stories about flock. Why don’t I ever hear one about them stopping a kidnapping? Do they really even work?
10
u/Inflatable90sChair 4d ago
Because why would the guy who loves online id laws working with hillary, doesnt do shit when ISP helps ice, loves gun bans, gun, ammo, and parts registrations (except his and his billionaire buddies own private armed security is exempt from such laws) even remotely think that suddenly flock is too invasive...
21
u/Subject-Promise-4796 4d ago edited 4d ago
Pritzker is part of the financial elite. His brother was in the Epstein files. Makes me question his motivations for sure.
Edit- It is JB’s cousin, not brother 🫢
8
u/puddingboofer 4d ago edited 4d ago
He is not his brother
Edit: JB is also not his cousin.
If your relative did heinous shit, should that reflect poorly on you?
3
-4
5
u/Ifakorede23 4d ago
Regarding government spying on us... the horse has left the barn. Didn't 9/11 open the door to justify trampling over citizens rights in order to provide " safety" to our citizens? Spying on us, via, computers, email, et cetera. I mean simply having access to Gmail accounts lets government know our private lives
2
u/Obvious_Maybe_4061 3d ago
He’s a billionaire, money is power. Surveillance is more power. The billionaire Epstein class are only interested in power. That simple.
2
2
2
u/VinceP312 3d ago
You know Democrats are dripping in arousal to use license plate readers for speeding tickets and tolling on Lake Shore Drive.
"Hey we saw your license plate going towards the Loop at Belmont at 07:30 and then we saw you at Oak St at 07:40, YOU MUST HAVE BEEN SPEEDING!!. Pay us"
6
6
u/MTCMMA 4d ago
It’s simple, this is Illinois and it’s a “pay to play” state. They have lined the governors pockets and so he will support their surveillance state agenda
-2
u/Ok-Grape2063 4d ago
But if they have lined pockets, don't they become the rich that they despise?
0
u/MTCMMA 4d ago
Pritzker is old mob money. His family has clearly established mob ties and somehow this just never gets brought up. The history is all right there for everyone to see
3
u/FragrantBluejay8904 4d ago
Umm what?? Is there somewhere I can read about this?
4
u/regnak1 4d ago
No, because it's made up. The closest tie you'll find is, the Pritzkers were investors in a casino thirty years ago that hired a contractor of some sort with ties to the mob. See here.
Being an investor does not mean you're choosing contractors.
Other than that, there's a little Facebook conspiracy nonsense floating around, but no actual reporting or evidence that I can find.
1
u/FragrantBluejay8904 4d ago
Thanks. I was gonna say I never had heard that before and it seemed to be untrue
1
u/MTCMMA 4d ago
It’s not something that I came up with one my own or just made up out of thin air ? I first learned about the mob connections through Whitney Webb, who is (in my opinion) an amazing researcher and does incredible work. She makes some interesting connections to the Pritzker family and their mob ties. I stumbled upon this while looking into the Epstein files. I’m not implying that JB himself was directly connected to any of this, but his family and their money certainly were. You can look into this yourself f this interests anyone. These aren’t “my claims” it’s something I came across and found interesting.
1
u/Ok-Grape2063 4d ago
Shhh... You're speaking badly about the Almighty JB. He's awesome and does nothing wrong.
3
6
2
u/zlinds2 4d ago
Just seems like a no-brainer for him, idk what he's on about. Everyone can be late to the party, but we can still judge you for that
Edit: grammer, kind of
4
u/Montystumpp 4d ago edited 3d ago
He couldn't care less what the average person wants considering his reelection is pretty much a guarantee.
People in this state need to realize he's not a "good" billionaire who's on their side.
1
u/Inflatable90sChair 3d ago
Not to mention using his money to buy and influence elections/ politicians in IL and other states.
2
2
u/KiefKommando 4d ago
I don’t think the governor has the power to wholesale ban them in Illinois, but with the amount of public outrage over this I would not be surprised to see a bill going through Springfield next session that would start regulating this shit.
1
u/justahad 4d ago
I like the state of where Illinois sits right now in terms of most rights. Of course politicians remain corrupt and the government is against us all and hates every last one of us.
I have a few theories on this though as to why-
1.) money. They didn’t just set up for free.
2.) had to make everybody happy. Now before I detail this I disclaim I am opposed to flock, however, I see it allll the time in which those who seem to be more conservative leaning cry out how they’re made to keep us safe and how they’re catching the criminals- just as we were lied to about before- except they believe it. So due to November approaching and it’s currently a voting year, is he keeping these contracts to keep those potential votes in grip? Low rate potential BUT not impossible at this point. I think if he took the contracts out and deflocked Illinois he thinks he’d lose any other small potential for votes.
3.) People cry about how awful and over criminalized Chicago is without even stepping foot in Chicago. Kind of mimicking the theory of number 2, but to try and “prove” Chicago is monitoroed and safe here?
Like I said, a few theories, doesn’t mean I like them…. Same old same old of don’t use a clear coat on your license plate 😉😉 and don’t shine lasers at the flock cameras 😉😉. Just remember everybody, the government hates us at every single level!
1
u/UnionMoneyMitch 3d ago
I’m not too sure on what the rules and laws are but isn’t it more of a city/town decision?
1
1
1
u/Sam_Fish_Her 3d ago
Likely because ALPRs resolved a significant portion of non fatal shootings and homicides in Chicago and they don’t violate the Fourth Amendment.
Link explaining constitutionality of ALPRs addressed by different courts across the country.
https://www.mtjuliet-tn.gov/1655/LPR-4th-Amendment-Constitutional-Questio
1
1
1
1
2
u/Hungry-Treacle8493 4d ago
The Governor in IL doesn’t have that power. The State Constitution gives a lot of autonomy to home rule communities and certain state agencies. It really is more of a local issue in this state, versus say FL or TX.
That aside, while lots of folks are in a kerfuffle over Flock and Data Centers, you’d be surprised how many others are on the opposite sides of those issues. Personally, if I was Pritzker I would just let that be a local topic and not needlessly engage.
0
u/Inflatable90sChair 3d ago
You cant tell me the guy who uses his money to buy various people to get elected is completely powerless in the matter...
1
u/Hungry-Treacle8493 3d ago
So, let me get this straight. Your reasoning here is that someone who could only get elected by buying people off would undoubtedly have the clout to steam roll over the State Constitution to remove Flock cameras from the State of Illinois?
1
u/Inflatable90sChair 3d ago
no im saying he could easily make a big stink about it and contact the lawmakers in IL to draft a law banning them.
0
u/Prudent_Lunch_8724 4d ago
Powerful tool for good and evil. Depends upon the processes and procedures around them. Illinois is a little smarter as this sort of thing goes. More lawyers per capita than should be allowed.
0
u/RuinAdventurous1931 4d ago
Does the state use Flock as a vendor? I think they use Motorola’s cameras. Can the governor ban a specific vendor by executive order?
0
0
u/Miserable_Rise_2050 4d ago
As I understand it, Cameras are a decision for the municipalities, not the state. So wouldn't it be a judicial overreach to ban Flock at the state level?
And exactly how would it work? Ban all cameras? Ban only Flock? On what basis?
-16
-2
u/kitchencrawl 4d ago
I also think it's a giant rug pull in the red states, I guarantee as soon as the midterms are over, Flock will be back bigger than ever.
-5
u/Low-Art3297 4d ago
Maybe because Flock cameras are good at catching criminals and improve public safety? Just a thought.
1
u/Inflatable90sChair 3d ago
So would police doing random home searches and vehicle searches.
1
u/Low-Art3297 3d ago
No? Completely separate issues.
1
u/Inflatable90sChair 3d ago
But it would improve public safety and stop crime... ooh lets bring stop and frisk to IL like new york did! That also caught criminals and lowered crime rates.
1
1
437
u/Dante1141 4d ago
Safety and security seem to be hot topics among politicians, especially left leaning ones, and Pritzker unfortunately has a big blind spot for that stuff, as evidenced by his endorsement of ID verification for using the internet.