Why is there a flock camera indoors at a school in the first place? Are the schools supposed to be putting video and audio footage of children on 3rd party storage platforms? Are the parents aware of this? Perhaps PTA meetings should discuss. That seems like something that should be using close circuit PoE cameras to local NVR's with on-prem encrypted storage with a retention policy if there must be cameras. Encrypted CEPH perhaps? [3]
Just as one example Zoneminder [1][2] can be clustered and distributed assuming a large campus. I'm sure there must be other open source NVR's that can do the same. School IT staff should try out a small deployment first and then extend it year over year. Local AI should detect and alert on fights, abuse from teachers, anyone with a weapon, someone injured, etc...
Bob can be granted access to specific cameras that relate to his role to avoid Repetitive Strain Injury RSI among other issues.
The main reason that organizations choose commercially managed solutions is because they don't have local expertise or staff to do things themselves. I do agree that on-prem solutions are better, but Zoneminder is probably not a great option. Besides being old and clunky, it also isn't anywhere near a complete solution, and the IP cameras people often choose to connect to them are often security nightmares. There are many good and complete commercial offerings that are secure and keep video locally.
I totally get what you are saying and there are certainly some schools that lack IT staff, budget and experience but there are some schools that have big budgets and plenty of IT people sitting on their hands that could slowly build this out, document it in a way that schools could budget around YoY and set examples for other schools. Maybe even use it as a project to get students some college credits.
If there are better options than Zoneminder please do share the tutorial videos with others here so they have greater options. I am old and clunky so ZM works for me. Some may even say old and clunky can mean reliable and low maintenance. There are probably some school IT admins reading this. ZM has great documentation and tutorial videos in my opinion. It is also used by a large number of corporations.
Just my own philosophy but I am leery of expensive turn-key commercial solutions as they lead to proprietary solutions that school IT won't understand and will just lead to dead cameras and empty NVR's when law enforcement need them the most. It will be one of the first maintenance contracts that get cut from budgets.
Just because someone has an IT staff doesn't necessarily mean that staff really has the expertise to set up a bespoke surveillance system properly. Nor does it really make it a good idea to do so. Nor is it even a good use of time when packaged systems can fulfill most requirements with less integration risk.
The software running on an NVR is only one small part of a surveillance system. I'd be much more worried about the choice IP cameras themselves, which are notoriously problematic. And if you look at the cameras which are well regarded and high quality -- typically those vendors have their own NVR solutions which are also well regarded and already tested to work well with their cameras.
> I am leery of expensive turn-key commercial solutions as they lead to proprietary solutions that school IT won't understand
If IT can't adequately evaluate and choose a turn-key solution, I doubt their ability to piece together their own system.
> If there are better options than Zoneminder please do share the tutorial videos with others here so they have greater options. I am old and clunky so ZM works for me. Some may even say old and clunky can mean reliable and low maintenance.
The last time I tried Zoneminder, the problem I had was that the detection algorithms were so bad that I found them useless. The cameras I had were all outdoors and their algorithm struggled to strike a balance between detecting legitimate motion and not falsely triggering when lighting conditions changed. I tried some other projects that had better algorithms for filtering out changes in exposure and lighting (I forget which ones), but there's also some now that have AI object detection. But ultimately I've migrated away because commercial options got better, cheaper, and more feature filled.
If I picked a new system today I'd probably try something like: https://www.ui.com/us/en/camera-security I don't have any personal experience with it but the value looks incredible.
The last time I tried Zoneminder, the problem I had was that the detection algorithms were so bad that I found them useless.
Fair enough. I've had them set off by deer no matter how hard I try to avoid it. I think they know they are getting my attention.
For what it's worth in a school setting there can be monitors in multiple admin offices, the admin waiting area, school police office and other offices to group source monitoring of strange activity. Otherwise if nothing else it is useful to be able to go back an hour, a few hours or days to verify the "he said, she said" accusations often uttered in school.
That and paying to offload legal liability to a vendor.
Lots of great, free, widely adopted open source technology solutions aren't adopted by public sector because their legal staff won't accept the liability of not having a paid contract that makes guarantees. Great use of tax dollars.
> Are the parents aware of this? Perhaps PTA meetings should discuss.
Not everyone grows up in such an idyllic environment where there is an active and engaged PTA or concerned parents who feel like they have a voice. Moreover the perceived need for security cameras is probably inversely proportional to places with active PTA groups (though maybe not). Either way, suggesting tech solutions is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Either way, suggesting tech solutions is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
My gripe will be the music they are playing whilst I am moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. Enough ragtime already. I will take some Moonlight Bay please [1].
Oh and to your point of course there will be places that can't do this. They should be focusing on the proper disassembly cleaning lubricating and reassembly of their Hi-Point's. Such schools should have mandatory handgun safety courses like the old days. Or current times for the Swiss [2].
Arguing over on-prem vs cloud misses the entire point.The architecture doesn't matter when the core requirement itself is just insane surveillance.We should be angry that our engineering is being weaponized to fulfill such a sick requirement in the first place.
As someone who has been somewhat involved with this I'm disappointed and but not terribly surprised this goes even deeper than Dunwoody public spaces. There was a lot of community engagement on the Flock contract renewal but the vote was postponed twice. It seemed like once community engagement died down (because asking people to stay vigilant constantly is exhausting). Council seemed upset but when it came down to it they voted unanimously to continue and expand the Flock contract.
I feel like it really does a lot of harm to public trust. But also most people, even people pretty engaged in the community, just don't know or care about the consequences of being surveilled constantly. It's very hard to convey to them the potential harm this is doing to them or their kids.
why do sales employees have access (or ability to request access) to camera feeds at all?
i would like to know what other cameras adam snow, bob carter, cameran whiteman view regularly. "search him hard drive" as the kids say.
(p.s. https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety, sadly the "latest news" section does not have "flock sales employees caught watching kids", just hundreds of millions in funding to realize the minority report)
perhaps by setting up a dedicated "demo feed”, rather than access the cameras of live customers, like every other product that i have sat through a demo for
can you imagine sales force or dynamics poking around some random company's live data during a demo to some other company?
I've had a few sales reps do this for products they're trying to sell us. In front of me, they've opened their laptop, with no password, then used some remote access solution to access another customers equipment, and then demonstrate functions on it.
I made a rule. If you do this I cannot possibly trust you. I will never buy your products.
The council meeting alluded to in the article happened a few days ago and is on YouTube[1]. Public comment starts around 23m, the commenters bring up some of the things in the article, and the council still moves to approve around 1h20m.
It may take time but make no mistake - this will become a bigger issue than it currently is. The fact that multiple high level Flock employees appear to be spying on children in highly suspect settings (gym, pool) is a massive, massive scandal. This just gave everyone at their city council meetings some of the most potent talking points to use against city adoption of Flock cameras.
Not super surprising an employee comfortable with what Flock does, to not bear any moral burden from profiting off of it, would have a few creeps in the mix.
The sector is heavily regulated. I worked at a company in the same space as Flock a few years ago and production access was restricted to only those who needed it when they needed it (automated system that would give access for a defined period of time and then revoke it). It also required getting CJIS certified which was a massive pain in the ass and required things like being finger printed and sending forms to every individual state.
If Flock is just giving everyone in their company access to production data it's not that the sector needs ,more regulation, it's that someone need to audit Flock for compliance.
You're being snide, but I have first hand experience in this area. If random Flock employees can just pull up production data on a whim without being properly vetted, agencies, states, and the FBI will take this pretty seriously.
They don't take it seriously because of some moral, "We care about your privacy" stance. They take it seriously because if there's something that makes them look bad in there, they want to be able to control the narrative. If a Flock camera catches and officer doing something they shouldn't be doing, the agency/FBI doesn't want a disgruntled Flock employee to be able to sign in and grab that video and give it to the news.
What does the FBI have to do with video streams at a JCC? And isn't flock doing the vetting?
This sounds a lot like BD guys doing demos with random data from a customer that agreed to show allow access and a local citizen getting very bent out of shape about it.
Bob also has some interesting searches. On September 30th, 2025 - Bob looked at just one camera. This camera is in the gymnastics room of the JCC. I personally am curious about why a sales employee from Flock would be viewing the gymnastics room. I think this also deserves an explanation.
I think it's worth speaking plainly and specifically about this.
The implied and speculated motivation is that Bob, and the other Flock employees watching people without their consent, is voyeurism. That means to look at people in otherwise-private places and in various states of undress, for sexual gratification. It is not uncommon for someone who believes nobody is looking to even adjust their clothes on their body, briefly exposing genitals, nipples, etc.
This is very concerning, but even more so because this includes children.
Why is there a flock camera indoors at a school in the first place? Are the schools supposed to be putting video and audio footage of children on 3rd party storage platforms? Are the parents aware of this? Perhaps PTA meetings should discuss. That seems like something that should be using close circuit PoE cameras to local NVR's with on-prem encrypted storage with a retention policy if there must be cameras. Encrypted CEPH perhaps? [3]
Just as one example Zoneminder [1][2] can be clustered and distributed assuming a large campus. I'm sure there must be other open source NVR's that can do the same. School IT staff should try out a small deployment first and then extend it year over year. Local AI should detect and alert on fights, abuse from teachers, anyone with a weapon, someone injured, etc...
Bob can be granted access to specific cameras that relate to his role to avoid Repetitive Strain Injury RSI among other issues.
[1] - https://zoneminder.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us20t1gQPOE [video][48 mins][tutorial using LXC on Debian and Proxmox]
[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzLV9Agnou8 [video][24 mins][ceph tutorial on proxmox][cat included]
The main reason that organizations choose commercially managed solutions is because they don't have local expertise or staff to do things themselves. I do agree that on-prem solutions are better, but Zoneminder is probably not a great option. Besides being old and clunky, it also isn't anywhere near a complete solution, and the IP cameras people often choose to connect to them are often security nightmares. There are many good and complete commercial offerings that are secure and keep video locally.
I totally get what you are saying and there are certainly some schools that lack IT staff, budget and experience but there are some schools that have big budgets and plenty of IT people sitting on their hands that could slowly build this out, document it in a way that schools could budget around YoY and set examples for other schools. Maybe even use it as a project to get students some college credits.
If there are better options than Zoneminder please do share the tutorial videos with others here so they have greater options. I am old and clunky so ZM works for me. Some may even say old and clunky can mean reliable and low maintenance. There are probably some school IT admins reading this. ZM has great documentation and tutorial videos in my opinion. It is also used by a large number of corporations.
Just my own philosophy but I am leery of expensive turn-key commercial solutions as they lead to proprietary solutions that school IT won't understand and will just lead to dead cameras and empty NVR's when law enforcement need them the most. It will be one of the first maintenance contracts that get cut from budgets.
Just because someone has an IT staff doesn't necessarily mean that staff really has the expertise to set up a bespoke surveillance system properly. Nor does it really make it a good idea to do so. Nor is it even a good use of time when packaged systems can fulfill most requirements with less integration risk.
The software running on an NVR is only one small part of a surveillance system. I'd be much more worried about the choice IP cameras themselves, which are notoriously problematic. And if you look at the cameras which are well regarded and high quality -- typically those vendors have their own NVR solutions which are also well regarded and already tested to work well with their cameras.
> I am leery of expensive turn-key commercial solutions as they lead to proprietary solutions that school IT won't understand
If IT can't adequately evaluate and choose a turn-key solution, I doubt their ability to piece together their own system.
> If there are better options than Zoneminder please do share the tutorial videos with others here so they have greater options. I am old and clunky so ZM works for me. Some may even say old and clunky can mean reliable and low maintenance.
The last time I tried Zoneminder, the problem I had was that the detection algorithms were so bad that I found them useless. The cameras I had were all outdoors and their algorithm struggled to strike a balance between detecting legitimate motion and not falsely triggering when lighting conditions changed. I tried some other projects that had better algorithms for filtering out changes in exposure and lighting (I forget which ones), but there's also some now that have AI object detection. But ultimately I've migrated away because commercial options got better, cheaper, and more feature filled.
If I picked a new system today I'd probably try something like: https://www.ui.com/us/en/camera-security I don't have any personal experience with it but the value looks incredible.
The last time I tried Zoneminder, the problem I had was that the detection algorithms were so bad that I found them useless.
Fair enough. I've had them set off by deer no matter how hard I try to avoid it. I think they know they are getting my attention.
For what it's worth in a school setting there can be monitors in multiple admin offices, the admin waiting area, school police office and other offices to group source monitoring of strange activity. Otherwise if nothing else it is useful to be able to go back an hour, a few hours or days to verify the "he said, she said" accusations often uttered in school.
That and paying to offload legal liability to a vendor.
Lots of great, free, widely adopted open source technology solutions aren't adopted by public sector because their legal staff won't accept the liability of not having a paid contract that makes guarantees. Great use of tax dollars.
> Are the parents aware of this? Perhaps PTA meetings should discuss.
Not everyone grows up in such an idyllic environment where there is an active and engaged PTA or concerned parents who feel like they have a voice. Moreover the perceived need for security cameras is probably inversely proportional to places with active PTA groups (though maybe not). Either way, suggesting tech solutions is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Either way, suggesting tech solutions is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
My gripe will be the music they are playing whilst I am moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. Enough ragtime already. I will take some Moonlight Bay please [1].
Oh and to your point of course there will be places that can't do this. They should be focusing on the proper disassembly cleaning lubricating and reassembly of their Hi-Point's. Such schools should have mandatory handgun safety courses like the old days. Or current times for the Swiss [2].
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud7ZTU4FS3U
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBDK-QNZkM
Arguing over on-prem vs cloud misses the entire point.The architecture doesn't matter when the core requirement itself is just insane surveillance.We should be angry that our engineering is being weaponized to fulfill such a sick requirement in the first place.
PTA isn’t the place. The school board is.
PTA isn’t the place. The school board is.
Well I would still want all the parents to be in the loop even if many won't care.
Also:
- Yup let the board know.
- Notify all biker clubs in North America that explicitly protect children.
- Notify the local Sheriff.
- Notify Chris Hansen to keep an eye on Bob.
Most likely, it's part of not dealing directly with access to guns, and associated Police state and chillun-to-prison pipeline.
This seems to just be a regular progression, and offering some open source alternative to oppression is amusing.
As someone who has been somewhat involved with this I'm disappointed and but not terribly surprised this goes even deeper than Dunwoody public spaces. There was a lot of community engagement on the Flock contract renewal but the vote was postponed twice. It seemed like once community engagement died down (because asking people to stay vigilant constantly is exhausting). Council seemed upset but when it came down to it they voted unanimously to continue and expand the Flock contract.
I feel like it really does a lot of harm to public trust. But also most people, even people pretty engaged in the community, just don't know or care about the consequences of being surveilled constantly. It's very hard to convey to them the potential harm this is doing to them or their kids.
just when you thought it was bad, it gets worse.
why do sales employees have access (or ability to request access) to camera feeds at all?
i would like to know what other cameras adam snow, bob carter, cameran whiteman view regularly. "search him hard drive" as the kids say.
(p.s. https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety, sadly the "latest news" section does not have "flock sales employees caught watching kids", just hundreds of millions in funding to realize the minority report)
How else would they sell to additional customers if they couldn't demo random video feeds from all over?
perhaps by setting up a dedicated "demo feed”, rather than access the cameras of live customers, like every other product that i have sat through a demo for
can you imagine sales force or dynamics poking around some random company's live data during a demo to some other company?
access to every camera on the system is the selling point
"our employees can watch any camera at any time" is not one of their selling points.
I've had a few sales reps do this for products they're trying to sell us. In front of me, they've opened their laptop, with no password, then used some remote access solution to access another customers equipment, and then demonstrate functions on it.
I made a rule. If you do this I cannot possibly trust you. I will never buy your products.
It's insane to me.
The council meeting alluded to in the article happened a few days ago and is on YouTube[1]. Public comment starts around 23m, the commenters bring up some of the things in the article, and the council still moves to approve around 1h20m.
[1] - https://youtu.be/AqOYDNKBr3g?si=EFOTKlKIRK01mVvL
If they are skeezing on adults at the pool and in the gym, you know they are on... everyone.
It may take time but make no mistake - this will become a bigger issue than it currently is. The fact that multiple high level Flock employees appear to be spying on children in highly suspect settings (gym, pool) is a massive, massive scandal. This just gave everyone at their city council meetings some of the most potent talking points to use against city adoption of Flock cameras.
This is just the beginning.
Also public employees.
Although there are many trends of Dunwoody PD officers and staff monitoring the live view cameras on the JCC’s fitness studios, gyms, and pools [...]
I doubt this aligns with any guidelines on effective crime prevention.
Not super surprising an employee comfortable with what Flock does, to not bear any moral burden from profiting off of it, would have a few creeps in the mix.
Flock is so wantonly irresponsible. Their security focus is borderline non-existent. This sector desperately needs to be regulated.
The sector is heavily regulated. I worked at a company in the same space as Flock a few years ago and production access was restricted to only those who needed it when they needed it (automated system that would give access for a defined period of time and then revoke it). It also required getting CJIS certified which was a massive pain in the ass and required things like being finger printed and sending forms to every individual state.
If Flock is just giving everyone in their company access to production data it's not that the sector needs ,more regulation, it's that someone need to audit Flock for compliance.
By whom? The regulators are the ones signing up for these services.
The FBI. This sounds like a CJIS violation
Buddy, I have some awful news. On the plus side, you can email the FBI director at his personal email to try to get him on the case.
You're being snide, but I have first hand experience in this area. If random Flock employees can just pull up production data on a whim without being properly vetted, agencies, states, and the FBI will take this pretty seriously.
They don't take it seriously because of some moral, "We care about your privacy" stance. They take it seriously because if there's something that makes them look bad in there, they want to be able to control the narrative. If a Flock camera catches and officer doing something they shouldn't be doing, the agency/FBI doesn't want a disgruntled Flock employee to be able to sign in and grab that video and give it to the news.
What does the FBI have to do with video streams at a JCC? And isn't flock doing the vetting?
This sounds a lot like BD guys doing demos with random data from a customer that agreed to show allow access and a local citizen getting very bent out of shape about it.
> Flock is so wantonly irresponsible. Their security focus is borderline non-existent. This sector desperately needs to be regulated.
Like literally every other YC company lol.
From the article:
Bob also has some interesting searches. On September 30th, 2025 - Bob looked at just one camera. This camera is in the gymnastics room of the JCC. I personally am curious about why a sales employee from Flock would be viewing the gymnastics room. I think this also deserves an explanation.
I think it's worth speaking plainly and specifically about this.
The implied and speculated motivation is that Bob, and the other Flock employees watching people without their consent, is voyeurism. That means to look at people in otherwise-private places and in various states of undress, for sexual gratification. It is not uncommon for someone who believes nobody is looking to even adjust their clothes on their body, briefly exposing genitals, nipples, etc.
This is very concerning, but even more so because this includes children.
Sounds like Bob should run for president.