Futurism93%

Police Department Not Happy When Every Single One of Its Flock Cameras Gets Stolen 19%

By Joe Wilkins91%

8/5/2026, 1:33:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Loss Aversion, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 26.6% saturation with 105 hits. Analysis detected 786 faulty-reasoning hits from 394 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.1% and a BS Rank of 19% (25,061 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.90% of the article peer group.

Whether magicians, thieves, or just fed up citizens, somebody has made an entire city’s worth of ALPRs vanish in the night. 
According to new reporting by MPR News , police in the city of Winona, Minnesota are incensed after their entire fleet of Flock license plate readers went missing. 
In a press release shared on Facebook, the Winona Police Department groused that “all eight of our city’s Flock cameras were missing.” 
The police department’s first clue came on the night of August 1st, when an eagle-eyed officer “noted that there’d been no recent activity on the cameras.” 
“Officers subsequently checked the various locations where the Flock cameras were placed and found that the poles were cut down near the base,” the presser explains. 
“Officers located the poles nearby in the weeds, but the cameras had been removed. 
As of [August 4th], the cameras have not been located.” 
Overall, the police department noted that the cost to replace each ALPR and pole is about $3,000, meaning the city could be out roughly $24,000 if it chooses to replace the eight cameras and the poles they used to be attached to. 
That doesn’t include service fees from the company, however, which could add as much as $16,000 to the bill before all is said and done. 
Though this case is pretty extreme, it’s just the latest incident of vandalism involving ALPRs in Minnesota  and indeed, the rest of the country. 
The company and its surveillance devices have become a lightning rod for anxieties around surveillance in the US, embodying concerns about privacy , tech industry oversight , and police abuse of power all in one public gadget. 
Case in point, comments under the Winona Police Department’s press release were overwhelmingly positive, celebrating the act of vandalism and making a local folk hero of whoever’s responsible. 
“Whoever you’re suspecting was actually on a fishing trip with me between July 29th and August 1st,” one poster quipped . 
Another blamed natural forces : “I think the deer might’ve ate them. 
[They’re] outta hand lately.” 
More on Flock: Google’s AI Is Telling Users That Flock Cameras Are Filled With Valuable Gold and Copper 
The post Police Department Not Happy When Every Single One of Its Flock Cameras Gets Stolen appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.3%Joe Wilkins: 6.5%Futurism: 5.6%Confirmation Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Joe Wilkins: 5.6%Futurism: 5.3%Availability Heuristic13.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.8%Futurism: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Joe Wilkins: 12.1%Futurism: 9.9%Framing Effect3.6%This article: 17.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.0%Loss Aversion17.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect10.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Joe Wilkins: 4.4%Futurism: 3.8%Pessimism Bias1.0%This article: 25.9%Joe Wilkins: 22.0%Futurism: 19.4%Negativity Bias25.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.2%Futurism: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.9%Futurism: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.7%Futurism: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.8%Futurism: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Joe Wilkins: 1.9%Futurism: 2.0%Recency Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.0%Futurism: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 4.4%Futurism: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.1%Futurism: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.2%Futurism: 1.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.4%Joe Wilkins: 10.3%Futurism: 9.0%Hasty Generalization7.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.9%Futurism: 0.9%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.1%Joe Wilkins: 1.0%Futurism: 0.9%Bandwagon7.1%This article: 9.4%Joe Wilkins: 9.7%Futurism: 7.9%Appeal to Emotion9.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.7%Futurism: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.2%Futurism: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.4%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division9.4%This article: 17.8%Joe Wilkins: 3.5%Futurism: 3.6%Anecdotal17.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.1%Futurism: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 26.6%Joe Wilkins: 2.6%Futurism: 3.1%Unattributed Quote26.6%This article: 7.1%Joe Wilkins: 2.4%Futurism: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection7.1%This article: 8.9%Joe Wilkins: 23.2%Futurism: 18.1%Biased Writer Voice8.9%This article: 9.4%Joe Wilkins: 1.4%Futurism: 1.7%Indoctrination9.4%This article: 9.4%Joe Wilkins: 4.3%Futurism: 2.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.6%

394 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers25%attributed speech297writer words
Selected voice

MPR News

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words29% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+74.1 ptsWriter: 25.9%MPR News: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-12.5 ptsWriter: 12.5%MPR News: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-12.5 ptsWriter: 12.5%MPR News: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%MPR News: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%MPR News: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%MPR News: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.