If these were installed without authorization, I assume citizens can rip them down without the same.
Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
11–20 of 277 posts
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#12If these were installed without authorization, I assume citizens can rip them down without the same.
Or more likely, make use of the 2nd Amendment on them.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#13Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#14Even though it's become commonplace in the last 20 years, I'm still shocked to see how companies can pretty much ignore the law, do whatever they want, and have everyone involved shielded from any kind of significant consequences. In situations like this, I think the person at the top of the chain that told employees to perform the illegal installations should be arrested and charged. On top of that, the company shou…
They were co-operating/conspiring with CBP as an extension of the federal government.
Most likely the feds said they will tie up whoever challenges them in federal court. They can play jurisdiction fuck fuck games and then flip between it being a search, it being necessary for safety, that the city/county was obstruction a federal investigation, and all other nonsense.
Don't think your company could just put up cameras and post the location of LEO and they'd let you get away with something like that.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#15[dead]
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#16[dead]
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#17So Fun facts about digital cameras like these: Strong infrared leds at night blind them completely. They sometimes even switch into daymode and become useless at night. Also, lasers are usually not enough to destroy the ccd sensor but only cause small dots to appear[0]. But a Spraycan on a stick can be very effective and of course a silenced airgun for those hard to reach places can be very effective. [0] Lab Test he…
Firing projectiles to destroy cameras (it doesn't matter how the slug is thrown) is... oh why bother, people won't change.
spray-chalk on a stick.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#18There is a larger issue that other commenters are missing:
> The city has paid the first two years of that extension but would still owe $145,500 for the final three years if the contract is upheld. The city intends to terminate the contract on Sept. 26 under its notice to Flock, but the company is challenging that termination, and the dispute could escalate to litigation.
The city is trying to terminate a contract with Flock. Under that contract, the city agreed to pay Flock for three more years of service. Flock maintains that the city doesn't have the right to nullify the contract. The linked article says almost nothing about the contract dispute, but another article [1] has some details.
I don't know whether the city is correct about its power to terminate the contract, or whether instead Flock is correct. Either way, I wonder whether Flock is re-installing the cameras out of fear that, if it doesn't, it will be voiding its right to future payment under the contract.
[1] https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/08/28/flock-challenges-c...
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#19So Fun facts about digital cameras like these: Strong infrared leds at night blind them completely. They sometimes even switch into daymode and become useless at night. Also, lasers are usually not enough to destroy the ccd sensor but only cause small dots to appear[0]. But a Spraycan on a stick can be very effective and of course a silenced airgun for those hard to reach places can be very effective. [0] Lab Test he…
Firing projectiles to destroy cameras (it doesn't matter how the slug is thrown) is... oh why bother, people won't change. spray-chalk on a stick.
But airguns are usually much less regulated, much quieter and easier to supress and the legal liability for firing an airgun somewhere vs a firearm is usually much different. And they usually have enough power for that purpose without risking too much colleteral damage.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#20There is a larger issue that other commenters are missing: > The city has paid the first two years of that extension but would still owe $145,500 for the final three years if the contract is upheld. The city intends to terminate the contract on Sept. 26 under its notice to Flock, but the company is challenging that termination, and the dispute could escalate to litigation. The city is trying to terminate a contract w…
I would think the commission of state crimes would have an impact on the contract. If the city does nothing they would be an accessory to those crimes