Flock Cameras Are Being Destroyed Across the US (cnn.com) 129
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: Surveillance cameras owned by Flock Safety have been cut down with electric saws in New York State, vandalized with paint in Oakland, California, and rammed with a truck in Idaho. Flock claims its services fight crime, but law enforcement agencies also use their services to track vehicles based on license plate numbers and reconstruct their movements, even when the drivers and owners of these vehicles have never been accused or convicted of any crime. (Flock states it has 120,000 automated cameras that record license plate data, as well as pan-tilt-zoom cameras, across the United States.)
A guerilla mindset among average citizens has seen these cameras forcibly disabled within recent weeks with sympathy directed toward the vigilantes. In June, a West Virginia man accused of destroying several Flock cameras was arrested. Under a Facebook post from the local NBC affiliate announcing his arrest are dozens of people volunteering to provide alibis. "He was out fishing with me that day, you got the wrong guy," one man wrote.
A guerilla mindset among average citizens has seen these cameras forcibly disabled within recent weeks with sympathy directed toward the vigilantes. In June, a West Virginia man accused of destroying several Flock cameras was arrested. Under a Facebook post from the local NBC affiliate announcing his arrest are dozens of people volunteering to provide alibis. "He was out fishing with me that day, you got the wrong guy," one man wrote.
Governments don't have the right (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah they do (Score:3, Insightful)
And about 45% of the country is composed of your stupid neighbor.
That's not quite enough to sell the other 55% down the river. But since most countries have winner-take-all first past the post voting all you need to do is apply a little voter suppression at the county level to stop about 6% from voting and your stupid neighbor gets to decide how you live your life.
Re: (Score:2)
....since most countries have winner-take-all first past the post voting ...
I don't think that is completely accurate. My understanding was that winner-take-all systems were the (very slight) minority. Of course I can't easily find any references, because web search sucks these days. Here is data at least showing that a lot of places do some sort of proportional system:
https://www.fairvote.ca/how-de... [fairvote.ca]
Of course, that doesn't really impact the larger point that if enough of our stupid neighbours decide on something, or are tricked into thinking something, we are totally screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair America's
Re:Governments don't have the right (Score:5, Funny)
Companies like Flock are the cockroaches of our communities.
Look, there's no reason to impugn cockroaches like that.
Reading license plates in parks and on playgrounds (Score:5, Informative)
Let's be very clear, mass surveillance is exactly what this is.
1. It's being sold under the guise of license plate tracking (also in TFS), but there are Flock cameras installed in places where there is not a road in sight, such as in parks and on playgrounds. See for instance: https://www.reddit.com/r/Flock... [reddit.com]
2. They automatically pan and zoom to faces and phones of pedestrians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (also, their security is apparently dogshit).
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be very clear, mass surveillance is exactly what this is.
1. It's being sold under the guise of license plate tracking (also in TFS), but there are Flock cameras installed in places where there is not a road in sight, such as in parks and on playgrounds.
Not certain where to put this in, but has anyone else noticed that license plates are getting a little bland? https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/im... [abcotvs.com]. In real life, the liberty bell is much more subdued. And many other states are switching to what has to be a lot more easily scanned.
The irony is a plate that is designed to be surveilled has "Let Freedom Ring" on it.
Re: Reading license plates in parks and on playgro (Score:2)
Re:Governments don't have the right (Score:4, Insightful)
to do mass general surveillance. And they can not give the right to businesses and then buy the surveillance either. Companies like Flock are the cockroaches of our communities.
they may not have the right... but a somnambulant population will let it happen, the "dont tread on me" types will happily let the "right" government walk all over them and worse, many will even attack those that resist.
I mean just a few articles down there's one describing how the FCC is being used to censor media... where are the "I need mah gurns to protect me from the gubbermint" types now... now is your time to shine... instead you're making excuses because you like who it's currently targetting and are too thick and short sighted to see how it will be turned against you next.
Turns out as long as you let them do the odd school shooting every few weeks, they're quite happy with an oppressive government.
Re: (Score:2)
where are the "I need mah gurns to protect me from the gubbermint" types now
Fucking moron. And who exactly are they supposed to shoot? Answer that and you will find your answer as to why they are not shooting anyone. What the hell is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:2)
Governments can, and do, do whatever they want. The guardrails of the "Rule of Law" have been removed. The Constitution is being violated on a daily basis and nothing is being done about it. The Rule of Law is something that is given lip service to while finding every way to ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
The public needs to disabuse them from this incorrect ideology, because certainly the courts wont fucking do it.
The courts have been giving law enforcement and the government more and more leeway over, just about everything. From "officer safety" at the expense of the public's safety, to using the constit
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is neither government nor Flock. Flock cameras have been around for over a decade and were never a big problem. You can find posts on /. defending their use of Flock cameras from that era - their neighborhood installed them and cut down people loitering and such and they would defend them.
The problem started when government started misusing the data for things like ICE and all that, which then turned the cameras evil. It's why the cameras are suddenly in the hot seat, and why cameras that might
Re:Governments don't have the right (Score:5, Insightful)
Usage of Flock cameras is almost certainly a violation of the 4th amendment.
But the violation of the constitution is just the beginning of the problems with Flock. The abuse of the data by cops and the lax security by Flock should be concerning to all citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Usage of Flock cameras is almost certainly a violation of the 4th amendment.
But the violation of the constitution is just the beginning of the problems with Flock. The abuse of the data by cops and the lax security by Flock should be concerning to all citizens.
Handing it off to a private company seems to be their constitutional workaround.
Present administration like workarounds.
Re: (Score:2)
The present administration is an extreme case, but ALL administrations like tools that make what they want to do easier. So does just about everyone, but larger groups tend to take more extreme positions, because some of their members are more extreme, and they are supported by the other group members.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I suppose if one were to ignore 250 years of constitutional law, your opinion might make some sense.
Re:Governments don't have the right (Score:4, Insightful)
The actual problem is we, the people, have not yet decided if mass recording and storage of identifiable images should be illegal. The people must decide if they wish to enact laws that prohibit this activity and create laws to prevent it. This means we need to let our local representatives know we want to restrict this mass surveillance and storage of our whereabouts. They write the bills and if enough people support it, it passes and becomes law.
Without a law to prevent it, these companies will attempt to generate income from anything not yet illegal. If we feel strongly enough, we need to create these laws to stop it. Many cities and states are writing laws that prevent capturing information, limit how long the data is saved, or who can query the data. The laws in Boston, Boise, and Barstow will very different depending on the amount of public pushback each location generates.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except constitutional law agrees with the parent poster. Flock is just the latest example of a long history of governments purchasing tracking data, which historically very successfully has been used in a very wide variety of criminal proceedings.
If it were a constitutional violation then every use of Flock would result in cases getting thrown out, something which we haven't seen.
Re:Governments don't have the right (Score:4, Insightful)
If it were a constitutional violation then every use of Flock would result in cases getting thrown out, something which we haven't seen.
This implies that the issue was already fully tested and it's a black and white issue now. We're all still debating it as we speak. I think it's clear that many would interpret the constitution et. al. to mean that this would be a violation. Regardless, new amendments can be passed - it's not like the founders could have foreseen such a thing - and the supreme court could rule and establish that it is unconstitutional.
I think you hit on an important point though - if it were deemed to be a constitutional violation, what would come of all those that were convicted based on evidence obtained by said violation? That may be a big enough hurdle that lawmakers, judges, and even most people wouldn't want to touch it.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't want to touch the other side of it either. If what Flock is doing is fine, so is the creeper snapping photos on a public playground and creating a giant database somewhere.
That seems...undesirable.
Re: Governments don't have the right (Score:2)
The difference is that you can chase off the creeper or call the cops, whereas you cannot do the same with state sanctioned flock cameras. I would suggest that instead of vandalizing them, you just block the view with something, perhaps even with a photo of the area they are observing.
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest that instead of vandalizing them, you just block the view with something, perhaps even with a photo of the area they are observing.
The hairspray suggestion made elsewhere seemed like a safer and easier gamble. Blocking it with something would at least be littering - might as well take it out at that point.
Re: Governments don't have the right (Score:2)
Probably going to run up against a very broad interpretation of "vandalism". They can fake up monetary losses even if there is no permanent damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. One doesn't need to have something fully tested to effectively see how the law is applied. Lack of a ruling, lack of having cases thrown out, lack of action, all effectively determine how the law works as it stands.
Right now what you interpret is irrelevant. The fact is that the Flock issue is just the latest in a string of similar cases. As such there's no reason to believe that anyone is going to challenge it this time either.
Re: Governments don't have the right (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not, SCOTUS is already making it up as they go along and ignoring 50+ years of SCOTUS precedent.
Seems like that's what we do now.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose if one were to ignore 250 years of constitutional law, your opinion might make some sense.
Shhh! Don't give anyone any Alito replacement suggestions for SCOTUS.
Re:Governments don't have the right (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong, it's a slight of hand. This is not about individual cameras, this is about the network that uses all cameras together to follow you no matter what you do, no matter where you go, people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices. If this was about individual cameras you would have a point, it is not, it is unreasonable to allow a government to exist that creates a panopticon of this scale, citizens shouldn't feel like they are inside a prison and the warden is watching.
Re:Governments don't have the right (Score:4, Interesting)
Huh I agree with you, pretty strongly, about something!
Personally I think the right to privacy stuff is a little broken. It was fine to have no particular expectation of privacy in a public place because when those laws were written the only practical way to violate it was to have 1 person essentially stalking one other, and that doesn't scale. It's really expensive, so a few people might have their privacy violated in an unreasonable way but as a population it was fine.
We now have the tech to scale cheaply, so a well funded organisation can follow huge numbers of people all the time.
Depending on your views of private corporations, that may or may not be acceptable.
However, the temptation for the government is always too great here, and if that data is available they will use it legally or not. I think the only way to stop them is to make it much harder for companies to do panopticon surveillance in the first place.
Re: Governments don't have the right (Score:3, Insightful)
You mentioned whatever a human policeman can see and memorize. That's the difference.
If all policemen had a photographic autobiographical memory, eyelids which never closed, required no sleep, were connected to a distributed consciousness which never forgot anything they ever saw and allowed them to collaborate across vast distances, and furthermore could be inexpensively placed at every intersection... I'm confident the founders would have outlawed them.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm pretty sure my car counts as one of my effects.
My papers are in the glovebox. You need to give me a valid reason for wanting to see them.
Re: (Score:2)
The act of surveilling someone is a form of search (Carpenter v. United States (2018)) as US citizen's enjoy certain levels of "privacy", even when in public.
This "privacy" while in public, with regard to the government, is specifically related and limited to to unreasonable focus of observation, monitoring and tracking (i.e. scrutiny), which the courts have deemed intrusive on a person. (Chatrie v. United States)
The Fourth Amendment states:
Re: (Score:2)
That's an easy one. The thing prohibiting them from doing it is that the constitution doesn't grant them that power.
Re: (Score:2)
It also doesn't say they can't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
It does in the 10th amendment.
jury nullification (Score:5, Informative)
Someone needs to launch a national campaign educating people on jury nullification.
The property damage laws are not really the sort of thing nullification is meant for, it's supposed to quickly put an end to the effect of bad laws, but if that's the one tool handy, and it's this much of a social issue, it should be put to work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a stupid approach. You're slapping a bandaid on the symptom while the underlying disease is running rampant. Jury nullification isn't the answer. Hell banning Flock isn't the answer. The answer is stopping the government from buying private citizens data, and passing some actual real privacy laws that prevent companies who have obtained people's data from selling it to anyone. That instantly would fix far more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a stupid approach. You're slapping a bandaid on the symptom while the underlying disease is running rampant. Jury nullification isn't the answer. Hell banning Flock isn't the answer. The answer is stopping the government from buying private citizens data, and passing some actual real privacy laws that prevent companies who have obtained people's data from selling it to anyone. That instantly would fix far more.
It's part of the answer. The people destroying the cameras are helping to bring it into the mainstream media, so refusing to convict them means that more people will do it, and it will get more attention. Plus cities may decide it's not worth it to pay for cameras that only last two days, then pay to prosecute people that are impossible to convict.
Plus, a widespread campaign of jury nullification that's successful for this will send a message that we won't let them get away with stuff like this.
Re: jury nullification (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not from inside of vior dire
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
What's a French strip club got to do with it?
And considering there's a hole in the wall where the men can see it all, I wouldn't assume them to be big proponents of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not illegal, but it will almost always result in a mistrial and a referral to the Bar if done by a lawyer.
Under no circumstances do this! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Under no circumstances should you aim a high power green laser at these cameras. It may seriously damage them.
I hate to well, ackshually this, but the kind of laser you'd need to damage the sensor can also easily reflect and damage your eyes. So, safety first: don't look into laser with remaining eye.
Re: (Score:3)
Infrared laser will work better, and can't be seen with remaining eye.
FTFY
They have no accuracy (Score:3)
There is a story about how dealer plates have small numbers on them that Flock cameras do not see. The system then accuses people of car theft.
They are proven as not reliable. If I were a judge I would rule that the police must treat Flock camera information as an unreliable, anonymous source. No drawing guns on people tracked or accused because of Flock information and their info cannot be used to obtain a warrant.
Re: They have no accuracy (Score:2)
Judges aren't there to serve us or they would treat officer testimony that way, because there is literally no less reliable form of evidence. It's actually less reliable than unsolicited third party reports.
The disclaimer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the best thing to do is make popcorn and enjoy the show...
Re: (Score:3)
One historical trick is hairspray (Score:4, Informative)
In repressive countries with video cameras like the GDR, the trick was hairspray. It's usually water soluble and can be removed without lasting damage. This makes it hard to be considered property damage... since nothing gets damaged. Yet it effectively disables the camera.
It's also a very normal item to own and can be bought easily.
Wouldn't try that in Florida (Score:2, Informative)
Here in Florida they were arresting people for chalking a crosswalk. Yes, you read that right - chalk, as in the stuff children draw on sidewalks with that washes away the next time it rains.
There is a man in Florida who has been protesting Flock cameras by blocking them with a sign attached to a pool skimmer pole [reddit.com]. Even that lead to the protester having an interaction with police, probably with the cops trying to figure out if they could charge him with something.
The safest way to express dissatisfaction
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, tell them to "Flock Off*?
Or is that "Get the Flock out of here"?
Re: (Score:2)
It'll still be considered property damage. If the camera is out of commission at any point you've caused damage, even if the damage solves itself. Bonus points if they send a tech out to check what is wrong, you've materially cost them time and money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: One historical trick is hairspray (Score:2)
Chemical store?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: One historical trick is hairspray (Score:2)
Well I call it a lab supply store, not the "chemical store". Just amusing to imagine a store with a big sign out from thar says "Chemicals", especially because literally everything is made of chemicals, so the store could sell anything.
Consitution? (Score:2, Insightful)
The current felonious administration doesn't give a flying rat's ass about the Constitution. Neither do its billionaire supporters. They do something illegal, maybe the ACLU or the SPLC will have the money and lawyers to bring it to court. The perps will just tie it up in the Courts until End-O-Time or it gets up to the Nazis on the Supreme Court who will find in this instance, whatever government entity committed the offense is permitted to ignore the Constitution.
And the SPLC is under threat now from the
Here's the web site (Score:2)
https://deflock.org/ [deflock.org]
Note: the www address seems to not work
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't ironic that a website concerned about privacy uses Cloudflare, one of the biggest players of the surveillance technological complex.
Over Reporting (Score:3)
These incidents are a drop in the Flocking ocean. These incidents are being over reported and giving people false hope that these things might be forced out of existence.
In fact, Flock is spreading like a sexually transmitted disease. This is truly bewildering as the leadership of Flock have repeatedly proven themselves to be cheating, lying, scumbags.
https://www.thedrive.com/podca... [thedrive.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Flock is the primary offender. But, don't lose sight of the fact that they have competitors striving to be the heir apparent in this surveillance push. Flock, Leonardo, Axon, and probably more are all making a push to enable the same surveillance state. But, the grimy leaders at Flock are leading the charge.
The Transparent Society (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Love my social feeds lately (Score:2)
I don't support distruction of property (Score:2)
None of them are being shot? (Score:2)
I'm disappointed that no one is shooting them. That would be the American way!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm disappointed that no one is shooting them. That would be the American way!
Contrary to what you might've heard about America, it's usually illegal to actually fire a gun outside of a gun range, hunting area, or self-defense situation. So, you'd be adding another crime on top of destruction of property.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm disappointed that no one is shooting them. That would be the American way!
Contrary to what you might've heard about America, it's usually illegal to actually fire a gun outside of a gun range, hunting area, or self-defense situation. So, you'd be adding another crime on top of destruction of property.
I am an American, have been for all of my 57 years. I'm actually a certified pistol, rifle and shotgun instructor, a certified range safety officer, and a concealed carry instructor. And while I wouldn't recommend it, it's not at all hard to get away with shooting outside of one of those situations.
Also, it was a joke.
flocked (Score:2)
My wallet hurts again (Score:2)
Neckties (Score:2)
Some years ago, there was a website that was dedicated to images of "Gatso" speed cameras around Birmingham, UK being burned out using the "necktie" approach: A tire was hung on the camera, petrol [gasoline] was added and set alight.
Not even crocodile tears for this one (Score:2)
Mess with the data (Score:2)
no justice, no peace (Score:2)
When society lacks real justice it experiences social justice. Here we are seeing social justice in action. I expect this damage will accelerate until there is real justice that does not include nation-wide dragnets.
Other cameras? (Score:2)
The traffic control ones installed at major intersections, for example. They have sufficient resolution for ALPR. They caught a guy using a home brew Opticom transmitter by checking the recorded video around the logged signal preemptions and getting his plate off the picture.
Great! (Score:2)
I am taking 12 Flock Cameras with me to DEFCON and giving them out to people as prizes. Flock Safety can go flock themselves, my privacy is more important. When Axion cameras pop up, they'll face the same fate.
Detective work (Score:2)
"even when the drivers and owners of these vehicles have never been accused or convicted of any crime."
Like watching 'innocent' bank clients prior to a robbery, to see if any resemble the masked robbers' body language from a surveillance video.
Get over it, it will never go away.
Re:Good or bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the whole point of the bill of rights. It makes those hard decisions so an individual doesn't need to. This is a clear violation of the constitution. It will take time to work through the courts though.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's not, governments have bought private data troves of citizens for a long time now and it's so far failed to be struck down in any court case in any decisive manner. Flock is just the latest in a long history of this kind of bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the whole point of the bill of rights. It makes those hard decisions so an individual doesn't need to. This is a clear violation of the constitution. It will take time to work through the courts though.
Doesn't the bill of rights restrict the government, rather than businesses or individuals? Thus, regulations on this kind of surveillance / stalking needs separate legislation - like the European GDPR. In lack thereof, the separate question is whether law enforcement can buy information they're not legally allowed to create themselves.
Re:Good or bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What part of the bill of rights protects your whereabouts in public from being recorded?
Counter point : what part of the constitution grants the government the right to perform mass surveillance on the public?
Re: (Score:2)
Now I agree "mass surveillance" is creepy, but we can have Flock without mass surveillance.
Mass surveillance is the widespread collection and monitoring of data on large groups of people, usually without specific proof of wrongdoing. This is exactly mass surveillance.
You are arguing that there a benefits to mass surveillance and we should accept them to feel secure in our lives. I disagree with your opinion and think you are naive for thinking mass surveillance won't ever be abused.
Re: (Score:2)
Got data? (Score:3, Insightful)
Say someone gets kidnapped. By the time police can respond, they are long gone. With a camera network, police can start with a much stronger lead. Does the bad outweigh the good?
I'll counter with this. What data is there about their effectiveness? How many crimes are prevented by flock cameras that wouldn't have otherwise? Are they crimes I care about? How many innocent people have been charged with crimes due to Flock errors? I don't honestly have a strong opinion. Most of the abuse stories are hypotheticals and I typically trust cops because I don't commit crimes and I not narcissistic enough to think everyone is out to get me.
However, as a cold rational person, I'd ask
Re: Good or bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Good or bad? (Score:4, Interesting)
Tough. I don't want a total surveillance state. We have it in England and our country is becoming a dystopian sh*t hole. Crime and shoplifting continue, but the hard working motorist is ticketed for accidental speeding.
It can always get worse. In .au we have "AI" cameras that automatically send fines for things like "incorrect" seatbelt use by passengers: https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au]
This guy even got a fine for doing a manual gear change because the authorities thought he was holding a phone: https://www.canberratimes.com.... [canberratimes.com.au]
I don't know what the system does if you happen to routinely drive with a comedy rubber phallus in your lap. Hopefully a few (thousand) public-spirited citizens are trying this out right now.
Re: (Score:3)
England and Wales recorded 499 homicides in the 2025/26 period, representing the lowest annual count since comparable records began. That's with the huge influx of migrants too btw.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Strict limitations on what they can be used for. That also sets limits on data retention and on who has access to it (absolutely no 3rd parties)
2) Audits and oversight of how the system is being used, with real consequences for violations. The benefits of each use case to be evaluated from time to time, ins
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good or bad? (Score:2)
Hate to sounds like Reddit, but... "this".
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Say somebody murders their spouse in the bedreoom (Score:2)
Should we not put surveillance cameras into all bedrooms?
Re: (Score:2)
Flock cameras are only 93% accurate. There were 533,936 missing persons reports in 2024. If we had flock cameras everywhere doing what you propose, that would generate 37,375 false leads. If even one of them was wrongly convicted because of it, I would say the bad outweighs the good.