8 ms·
The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras
- ungreased0675 3mo agoWhen people feel like their voice isn’t heard, this is the inevitable result.
- goodmythical 3mo agoI had this thought just the other day. It is not possible for any governing body to completely ignore the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action. There will always be a petition/revolt/exodus which results in the governing body hearing the governed.
- polishdude20 3mo agoYeah speech is the first way the populace indicates to the ruling what they want. Physical action is inevitable if the speech isn't listened to.
- georgemcbay 3mo ago> Physical action is inevitable if the speech isn't listened to. see also: "The Four boxes of liberty" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
- mannanj 3mo ago> the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action What about if the speech is censored, shadow-banned, limited etc in some other ways? Where the governed does not know their speech was limited in reach, censored etc? (which btw is a real approach social media companies are taking today).
- samrus 3mo agoTheyll see no effect of their speech, and try something else. Like voting, protests, and violence. In thay order
- customguy 3mo ago... or infighting, or self-destruction, or doomscrolling... the pressure will go somewhere but not necessarily into channels that relieve it. That takes more effort and persistence, and also a society (our consumer societies hardly rate as such in my books).
- mannanj 3mo agoYes as you said. Will the relief be productive? Especially when the other mechanisms/outlets for expression that are not digital (i.e. social media, the viable option in todays age - I'd love to know if anyone has succeeded wit any other outlet or medium today if they get shadow-banned on social media - share your real experience or study on this). This is touching at the debate of "should social media be regulated or treated like the commons when it gets so large?" You have a single company with the power and size of a country. Humans were never intended to be using something privately controlled with such an expansive reach & power differential, and then be told "they're private, if you're banned go elsewhere" except well this could be more like a public resource when it becomes that large. We haven't found a good answer to this in a capitalist system because the solution is non-capitalist.
- inigyou 3mo agoSoapbox, ballot box, jury box, ammo box - the four boxes of liberty
- felixgallo 3mo agothe right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to amplify your particular post.
- theendisney 3mo agoViolence and destruction are perfectly natural ways of communicating. Some animals use sounds and almost all use body language. One could even argue communicating over the phone or internet lacks the destructive component. Irl behavior is heavily modified by it. Verbal communication is a work in progress. We really want it to work. Sometimes you have to make people listen. Get them back in the program :)
- ElProlactin 3mo ago> Violence and destruction are perfectly natural ways of communicating. Some animals use sounds and almost all use body language. Except that animals don't have knives, guns, bombs and nuclear warheads. > Sometimes you have to make people listen. Get them back in the program :) Works great until you're the one being made to listen.
- esseph 3mo ago> Except that animals don't have knives, guns, bombs and nuclear warheads. Yeah, animals will spill your intestines out on the ground and start eating you asshole first while you scream. And they may even do it for fun and not even eat you, and just let your fleshy bits rot in the sun.
- theendisney 3mo agoThe rhinoceros are still wondering what part of stay away we dont understand.
- dymk 3mo agoThey certainly have knives, go look at what a tiger is sporting on his paws
- NopIdoN 3mo agoalso check out the bombardier beetle for the rest
- 3mo ago
- altcognito 3mo agoNO! Even if your voice is heard, the state doesn't need to track your every move.
- dredmorbius 3mo ago"This" presumably refers to vigilante action against Flock and other surveillance equipment, not the surveillance itself.
- altcognito 3mo agoAh, yeah, I think you got at the heart of it. I think I glossed over the fact that he was referring specifically to not listening to the people about surveillance.
- fool0 3mo agoEver hear of Total Information Awarness, or Eric Snowdon?
- altcognito 3mo agoEdward Snowden?
- Telaneo 3mo agoOn some level, it feels like (some) politicians haven't realised this, or have forgotten it. We can either have a functioning democracy and justice system, where responsibility is delegated to people whose job it is to uphold society's values, or we can have individual people that do job themselves. If a judge or police officer isn't going to carry out justice, then eventually people are going to do it themselves. That tends to get messy, so we stopped doing that with good reason, and built institutions to better service justice, but if the institutions aren't doing their jobs, they should be reformed or thrown out.
- fool0 3mo agoWhen money is speech the loudest speakers have the deepest pockets. When money is speech taxes become censorship. When money/taxes are depressed to certain groups, or are given to other certain groups, that money/speech is being recycled into legal bribes/ campaign donations. The 'speech' become circular. Politicians are donation/bribe demanding machines. Legislation is bribe facilitating speech. Pay go play, follow the money. Flock pays, it is heard.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 3mo agoRelated: H.R.9800 - Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act - https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/9800/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/9800...
- Loughla 3mo agoNot to be too cynical but >No Federal agency may purchase, deploy, operate, access, or contract for any automated surveillance system that identifies, tracks, or records individuals [. . .] Emphasis mine. Am I wrong or does this 1. not outlaw the purchase of the data, just the systems themselves, 2. not outlaw the use of the data unless it was obtained by the federal government through a system they have purchased, and 3. not outlaw local or state law enforcement from buying it, just outlaws the use of federal funds to buy these systems. So flock feed the data through brokers instead of directly, correct? Or am I reading this wrong?
- Akronymus 3mo agoAFAICT, municipalities get paid to put up the cameras, which isn't federal, so flock can then use those cameras to freely gather data and sell it to police
- kurtoid 3mo ago> municipalities get paid to put up the cameras I've read lots of FOIAd flock contracts, and I have yet to see any municipality get paid by flock - they pay flock per-camera. Is that just a hunch, or are there cases of towns getting money from flock?
- Akronymus 3mo agoI appear to have misread some things. I'll have to re-research the stuff.
- hiworld6543 3mo ago[dead]
- superkuh 3mo agoLets instead talk about the growing vigalante action by Flock corporation refusing to allow cities to remove cameras from their property after the contract is cancelled. Some cities have been forced to cover the cameras with trash bags. https://www.404media.co/flock-objects-to-our-removing-their-equipment-emails-reveal-why-a-town-put-bags-over-its-flock-cameras/ https://www.404media.co/flock-objects-to-our-removing-their-... https://www.wmtv15news.com/2026/06/05/dane-county-covers-flock-cameras-after-company-fails-remove-them-following-contract-expiration/ https://www.wmtv15news.com/2026/06/05/dane-county-covers-flo...
- helterskelter 3mo agoLocal politicians need to coordinate to remove their Flock cameras at the same time and pass laws to prevent any new one from being put up. Flock doesn't have the resources to sue every single one of them, especially if every city commits to dragging out the process for as long as possible by creating as many legal hurdles as they can, all of which Flock would have to have a court rule on. Kind of like how practically every Scientologist filed suit against the IRS over CoS having their tax exempt status revoked, to which the IRS eventually relented.
- Avicebron 3mo agoIt's also wild to me we live in a country where people who _live_ in a region are not allowed to make decisions about something as foul as surveillance cameras. If people who live, work, and are affected by these don't want them that should be the end of the conversation. It should be to the people who live in an area to make decisions about it. With the legal ability to tell a company like Flock to fuck off.
- mylifeandtimes 3mo agoIf I were a city government, I would just start charging Flock rent.
- ares623 3mo agoThey'll be gone the next day!
- SXX 3mo agoThose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- themythfable 3mo agoPassed an old guy sitting on the side of the road with a lawn chair today, he was holding a pool skimmer with cardboard attached at the end to block a flock camera. There was a local news story about it [1]. Happy to see it. [1] https://www.cltampa.com/news/a-77-year-old-republican-man-is-staging-a-solo-protest-against-st-petes-flock-cameras/ https://www.cltampa.com/news/a-77-year-old-republican-man-is...
- georgemcbay 3mo agoI'm sure my politics are very different than that man's, but at least we agree on the fact that Flock fucking sucks.
- madrental 3mo agoDespite differences in political beliefs you probably have more in common with this man than any of the politicians that claim to care about your or your values.
- xingped 3mo agoThis is widely true if you look at popular support for issues that politicians refuse to implement or even address. That said, the trick is getting most people to actually recognize and admit that. As soon as some people sense you're "on the other team", their brain shuts down and they refuse to acknowledge any common ground with you. Not everyone, of course, but more than enough that it has led to the extreme political polarization we see today.
- arjie 3mo agoThe wonder of modern representative democracies is the ability for people unlike me to extract progress for my objectives. I don’t require cos(them, me) = 1. I only require my objectives to progress more than they would under the alternatives.
- smalltorch 3mo agoWell that is just art and quite the signal.
- ButlerianJihad 3mo agoCongratulations, Flock, on establishing the most successful honeypot of all time! No matter what the level of corruption, no matter which side of the surveillance state you support, no matter which side of the cameras you're on, Flock has a way to shine a spotlight on you and bring you out of the closet! Currently following a YouTuber who knows all the roadside regulations for signposts and he points out how the Flock poles are all installed dangerously wrong, and will surely impale the next driver to crash out on the shoulder!
- Akronymus 3mo agoThis one [0] by chance? [0] https://youtube.com/@theguardrailguy https://youtube.com/@theguardrailguy
- toomuchtodo 3mo ago@theguardrailguy is great, love his work, highly recommend.
- trueno 3mo ago> Congratulations, Flock, on establishing the most successful honeypot of all time! No way man that award goes to cloudflare
- thex10 3mo agoThey’re hiring software engineers!
- beloch 3mo agoFlock was pitched as the triumph of technology over criminality. It's surveillance network was supposed to end crime. However, when people witness extreme criminality thriving unpunished at the top levels of U.S. politics, the lie becomes evident. Flock isn't about ending crime. It's a tool of control to be used by criminals. Who watches the watchers? Everyone.
- Jaxkr 3mo agoThis is a perspective I hadn’t heard or considered before. Often times common crime (petty/violent) is viewed as a totally different area as white-collar crime or corruption. But they’re related. As someone who’s had bikes stolen and car broken into, I sympathize with the desire for surveillance (especially in San Francisco). But Flock has no safeguards against cops using it to stalk ex-wives or misusing a partial match.
- bluefirebrand 3mo agoI think it would be kind of different if people were having cars broken into less often or bikes returned after being stolen But it's clear that increased surveillance hasn't been leading to stolen property being recovered.
- ryandrake 3mo agoYea, that's the thing: I could almost get behind mass surveillance if it actually solved crime. Probably not, but almost. But it doesn't! Having a camera on every street corner doesn't do anything to solve crime if the police won't look at it and actually follow up. So we get the downsides of mass surveillance without any upside. Same thing with things like "find my iPhone". Great in theory, but if your phone actually gets stolen and you tell the cops "Hey, my phone is at this exact address, I can prove it with Find My," they still don't give a shit and don't lift a finger to solve it, so the technology is in reality useless. We need a police force who is actually motivated to solve crime rather than just find black people to beat and show up in force when someone protests something.
- theendisney 3mo agoI think it should depend on what residents living in the street want with several tiers. Public cam, paywall, law enforcement 24/7 or for a specific case, encrypted court order only, fake cams. Each with different aproval requirements. A public cam would require 100%. Fake cams req only one vote. etc
- lordnacho 3mo agoI think I may have a minority view about surveillance. At least I need someone to explain something to me. Is the backlash really about privacy, or is the real problem a complete lack of trust in government? Because if I thought someone would actually use the cameras to enforce the law, that's not actually such a bad outcome. You aren't supposed to speed, you aren't supposed to let your dog poop without cleaning up after it, and there's a bunch of other offences as well. Why would I not support a hypothetical police that enforced these rules? Guy takes his dog for a walk, doesn't pick up, boom, cameras plus AI finds the person and issues a fine. Enforcing a social norm, cheaply. There seems to be evidence that it works with speeding: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/04/250402181306.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/04/250402181306.h... The kind of story that I've actually come across is that someone with access to the public database abuses it. They peek into their ex girlfriend's records, that kind of thing. Obviously nobody thinks that's ok, and I can understand if the main pushback people have is that none of the first thing will happen and lots of the second thing will happen. But that doesn't seem to address the principle itself. So what exactly is the argument for why we shouldn't have cameras catching people who break the law? Presumably we would have no issue with a cop seeing someone breaking the law, and enforcing. The issue comes up when we replace the policeman with a system that is always on and way cheaper to run than a cop. EDIT Just to be clear, I understand it if people don't trust the government. What I'm looking for is an argument other than that. Thus far every response has been along the lines of "you can't trust the government to use this fairly/correctly". That's known, everybody can see that argument. I want to know if there's a reason beyond that why widespread surveillance shouldn't be a thing.
- Vinnl 3mo agoLaws are not perfectly moral, and future laws might be even less so. Same goes for governments - their power should not outweigh the governed's.
- AvAn12 3mo ago1. If someone is running to a cop because someone didn’t pick up after their dog, that is a sad state of affairs. 2. If we are so interested in enforcing laws, what about all of the white collar crime, crypto scams, insider trading, and grifting off of the public sector? Clearly doing more harm to society than some dog poop. Where are the $8bn market cap companies that go around enforcing securities laws?
- RazorBucksICO 3mo agoFlock is definitely not the only provider of this kind of surveillance. What is the real reason that this is getting so much media attention?
- nyrikki 3mo agoMost are targeted ALPR camera systems that take pictures of license plates, check the plates against local hot lists, and then flush the data if there’s no hit. Flock is building a giant camera network that records people’s comings and goings across the nation and maintains those records despite any link to crime for an indeterminate amount of time. The other players like Axon and Motorola are looking to follow Flock's lead, but mass surveillance is the main problem.
- bob1029 3mo agoI think Flock might be a "limited hangout" to distract from much more powerful surveillance technology. There have been systems designed & deployed that make ALPRs look like kittens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARGUS-IS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARGUS-IS
- Cider9986 3mo agoDon't touch Americans' cars. Notice how more people die from cars than guns and there's no outcry. Trends are random. This one has a large underlying informed group, deflock, centered in a Discord server. It then became common internet opinion to be opposed to it.
- trinsic2 3mo agoThis isn't a vigilante movement. These cameras are being installed without any constitutional basis. And people don't need legal authority to correct an unlawful camera installation problem that cities are not handling.
- throawayonthe 3mo agoeh? it's still vigilantism if they're 'correcting' something unlawful?
- anigbrowl 3mo agoPerhaps you meant it's not a vandalism movement?
- inigyou 3mo agoFlock is a vigilante movement.
- RickJWagner 3mo agoUndecided on Flock. Totally decided against vandalism. Violations of the social contract suck. Edit to invite explanations. If you approve of vandalism to flock cameras, what are your feelings about vandalizing abortion clinics, mosques or opposition political headquarters?
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- dare944 3mo agoSocial contract also includes the expectation that, over all, businesses work for the benefit of society, not its detriment.
- RickJWagner 3mo agoNo, it does not. Social contract allows cigarettes, alcohol, pornography, etc. These are not overall beneficial to society, yet we allow them, by law. When individuals decide they alone get to decide what’s allowable and what’s not they are proving themselves anti social. The civilised way to make that decision is with the help of the rest of the citizens at the voting booth.
- dare944 3mo agoThere's no question that, in general, people expect businesses to provide a valuable service that does not harm society in the process. Of course, the consensus as to what things are valuable and what things cause harm changes over time (as is clearly the case for cigarettes). As well, when people sense a violation of their expectations, they should certainly take their outrage with them to the ballot box. But when people sense that the ballot box isn't listening; that the government is both in bed, and emboldened, by the very thing that violates their sensibilities, they often step outside their part in the social contract and do things that speak louder than simply voting, like destroying property. If you are a US citizen like I am, you will know very well that this method of "discourse" is a foundational and often celebrated act in American history. These people destroying a few cameras here and there aren't solving the problem of invasive and unaccountable government surveillance. But they are speaking their passion about it, not just to the company or the government but to their fellow citizens. And it looks like some people are starting to listen.
- themaninthedark 3mo agoSomeone should start a surveillance company and put up their cameras pointed at the politicians houses. If they then try to get them taken down using legal action they could sue under equal protection clause. Edit add: Make data stream of cameras public for general population but charge if LEO or aggregate data search.
- daytonbuilds 3mo agoI've done a lot of thinking on this, even crowdsourcing the coverage with people standing on sidewalks using their phones with a specific app, which collects similar data. Stand near the court house, politicians homes. However Flock tends to say that the people that contract them own the data to get around a lot of the liabilities, so they themselves "don't own the data". That is the hard part to emulate as a citizen who doesn't have same protections as a cop or city council. I'm going off personal research though so I could be wrong.
- themaninthedark 3mo agoAs a company there may be liability to collecting the data, not sure. But as a private person as long as you are recording in public and not in a restricted space, you have a right to do so. How does the claim that the people whom they contract with own the data square with Flock sharing data with Federal government and not disabling cameras when contract ends. https://youtube.com/shorts/t_ewIN7YhYI?is=08KRHQK3AMYA0FJn https://youtube.com/shorts/t_ewIN7YhYI?is=08KRHQK3AMYA0FJn It would seem that the cities would be able to sue Flock in these cases since Flock is accessing their data without authorization. I am sure that there are some state laws that mirror the CFFA...Google tells me all 50 have something. That would be a fun avenue for someone motivated to pursue. Edit add: You could do the same as Flock. Each person uploads/streams their videos and they own it, data resides in their data bucket. You are only providing extra analysis of their(and everyone's in aggregate) data...
- eth0up 3mo agoSo they knock out Flock. Then Axon comes in and replaces them with superior versions, built into streetlights and municipal infrastructure. The sentiment seems reasonable but any expectations that our overlords will ever abandon total control and surveillance is delusional. Something far more sophisticated than vandalism would be necessary, and I'm not sure anything exists. The value of public opinion is at an all time low and scheduled to continue dropping. Edit: Our society begged for a technocratic rulership. We largely supported the process through our hardware and software purchases, but facilitated it too through decades of indolence and indifference until it got kinda too late. Aside from a few micro victories, mostly more symbolic than effective, I think the future is easily enough foreseen by imagining something a lot worse.
- attila-lendvai 3mo agothe problem with pitching Flock as "the triumph of technology over criminality" is that because of all the bogus edicts, an average american commits three felonies every single day. and whoever picks who gets prosecuted for what, is the owner running the plantation. Three Felonies a Day http://www.harveysilverglate.com/books/ http://www.harveysilverglate.com/books/ In 2006, the Code of Laws of the United States of America: 200000 pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code) with 500 pages/week it's about 10 years just to read it, i.e. to have a chance not breaking it (but this wrongly assumes that it's not growing meanwhile). In 2012: Federal Code: 75000 pages, Tax Code: 72000 pages. The Criminalization of Everyday Life http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=42372 http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=42372 http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175781/ http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175781/ John Stossel's Illegal Everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ John Stossel - Technically, That's Illegal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf-uPAItVtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf-uPAItVtM “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for me to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed or enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.” — Ayn Rand (1905–1982), 'Atlas Shrugged' (1957) Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal: War Stories from the Local Food Front by Joel Salatin https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Want-Do-Illegal-Stories/dp/0963810952 https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Want-Do-Illegal-Stories/dp...
- user00005 3mo agoI'm proud to have mapped an impressive amount of cameras. You see a lot of things on a bicycle. I also add non ALPR cameras. There are multiples more of those. I see no reason those can't detect license plates either.
- arjie 3mo agoYeah it’s quite common it seems. Similar to the ULEZ camera takedowns. And the ULEZ cameras were also supposedly a tool of government control. As were SF’s speed cameras. And so on and so forth. I am not convinced. I am happy with the speed cameras, and I’m happy with the ULEZ cameras, and I’m happy with Flock cameras. The position that we must destroy state function is outrageous to me. We have a path to peace and safety and the ensuing prosperity. The cameras must be preserved.
- pluralmonad 3mo agoHow does a centralized power structure knowing every action millions of people take bring about "peace and safety and the ensuing prosperity"? I guess you didn't mean for most of us.
- vrganj 3mo agoIt's one thing if a democratically legitimized government entity is in control, like with ULEZ. It's another thing entirely if a private oligarch owns the cameras. Flock and ULEZ are not the same.
- Symbiote 3mo agoAlso ULEZ is working, with reduced hospital admissions, reduced pollution levels, and no decrease in economic activity. https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/london-wide-ultra-low-emission-zone-one-year-report https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-...
- arjie 3mo agoULEZ cameras are also run by private contractors: Capita and Yunex. Is the entire objection centered around the distinction between owning vs. operating? i.e. if each city owned their network and used it (as ULEZ cameras are - in addition to their primary reason) for policing and used contractors to operate it then the objections would disappear? I see, I didn't realize this was a question of structuring of the purchase orders.
- blt 3mo agoWhy is the company called Flock? Because the oligarchy and their police/government/tech enforcers view citizens as sheep. It's so flagrant, a sci-fi author couldn't come up with something more on the nose.
- ost-ing 3mo agoThere is a growing counter-tech neo luddite movement forming, and I think its going to get very large. At some point we need to step back and ask - why are we simply accepting technologies that erode freedoms and subjugate the masses
- inigyou 3mo agoWell because the people who control countries (some countries call them kings, others call them billionaires and politicians) said we should.
- paulus_magnus2 3mo ago(in the comments here) there are some very interesting topics touched that would definitely warrant a discussion of their own. One of these topics is how (in many countries) the government become the enemy of it's people - the politicians are aligning willingly (or with help of corruption) towards the rich elites (oligarchy). And they are building a failed state, two tier state - a system where the law only applies to the weak and the strong (plus politicians) can roam unchecked. In theory the government is hired by sofereign to govern the country to the benefit of the people. In practice government can do just about any bad deed and there is noone to stop them. If you ever lived in 2nd or 3rd world country this is nothing new but the 1st world democracies have enjoyed wonderful egalitarian libral state for many decades and many of them are turning into authoritarian states. Or worse. This doesn't conclude all my observations but I will stop myself here to see what other people think
- inigyou 3mo agoSome of the founding fathers were aware of this and wrote about it and what to do about it.
- bertylicious 3mo ago> In theory the government is hired by sofereign to govern the country to the benefit of the people. This kind of suggests that the people ever sat together and decided on a political system that would benefit them. The reality is that even the most egalitarian and liberal system has been put into place by the ruling class and naturally was designed to benefit them. I'd say this is and was true for at least all major western societies. "By the people, for the people" is propaganda to legitimize said political systems after the fact. And we believe it, because it's the ruling ideology.