Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We put Flock under surveillance: Go make them behave differently [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: We put Flock under surveillance: Go make them behave differently [video]

#11

Post by infecto »

topspin wrote: post #6
kotaKat wrote: post #3

Quiet red areas rolling over to Flock are what’s going to cause us all to lose in the end. Another quiet little village in rural New York just signed on for 11 cameras, and it sounds like the county itself (2800 square miles(!)) is also playing around with them. The locals won’t raise the hard hitting questions - they’ll just roll over with the bullshit answers from Flock reps. https://northcountrynow.com/stories/vil…

> Quiet red areas rolling over to Flock What is funding all those Flock reps jetting around BFE to dazzle and kickback the boomer city managers and county commissioners of deep red littleville America? Is it the 2 cameras in Big Rapids MI or the 2425[1] cameras in Detroit metro? The "roll over" that mattered has already been secured. [1] https://deflock.me

Do flock reps even need to fly out? They have massive contracts with the Walmarts of the world and the underlying commercial property owners. You don’t need to have a rep when it’s already in your area.

Re: We put Flock under surveillance: Go make them behave differently [video]

#12

Post by stronglikedan »

robszumski wrote: post #8

Same author talked about adversarial license plates that trick these cameras with a sequence of black blocks, discussed here in original form [1]. He is interested in breaking both the plate detection (ideal) and character recognition (good). The examples are pretty cool looking. [1]: https://youtu.be/Pp9MwZkHiMQ?&t=1428

Get it while it's hot, cuz it's already illegal in some states, and will be in more soon!

You will be tracked and you will be happy about it.

Re: We put Flock under surveillance: Go make them behave differently [video]

#13

Post by smokel »

robszumski wrote: post #8

Same author talked about adversarial license plates that trick these cameras with a sequence of black blocks, discussed here in original form [1]. He is interested in breaking both the plate detection (ideal) and character recognition (good). The examples are pretty cool looking. [1]: https://youtu.be/Pp9MwZkHiMQ?&t=1428

In most countries, this is prohibited by law. While it might be interesting from a technical perspective, it does not help in practice.

Re: We put Flock under surveillance: Go make them behave differently [video]

#14

Post by xyzal »

smokel wrote: post #13
robszumski wrote: post #8

Same author talked about adversarial license plates that trick these cameras with a sequence of black blocks, discussed here in original form [1]. He is interested in breaking both the plate detection (ideal) and character recognition (good). The examples are pretty cool looking. [1]: https://youtu.be/Pp9MwZkHiMQ?&t=1428

In most countries, this is prohibited by law. While it might be interesting from a technical perspective, it does not help in practice.

Instead of a sticker like in the video make a stencil and spray diluted mud through it. Plausible deniability!

Re: We put Flock under surveillance: Go make them behave differently [video]

#15

Post by arrowleaf »

dole wrote: post #5

https://deflock.me/ deserves a mention for its crowdsourcing of ALPR camera data on https://openstreetmap.org and on the site. Recording even one camera may be the only notice a resident has that Flock and ALPRs are operating in their municipality.

Interesting. All the Flock cameras around me are stationed around the entrances to Lowe's parking lots.

Re: We put Flock under surveillance: Go make them behave differently [video]

#16

Post by tptacek »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #2

If you want to save yourself six minutes' of video, this is about https://alpr.watch/ and their new feature that can alert you by email if your local municipal officials are going to be discussing Flock in upcoming meetings, based on published meeting agendas. The video also links you to a wiki with some nice counter-arguments to the standard pro-Flock arguments: https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,_Argume…

Even in my local community, which is likely among the 10 most progressive in the country (we're either the first or second most progressive in Chicagoland, itself one of the most reliably blue major metros in the country), support for Flock was pretty evenly divided.

I think it's good to engage this way, but I have a lot of thoughts on things to do that are more effective than giving public comment, and a caution that if you have strong opinions about ALPRs and you choose to pay attention to this issue you're going to be confronted with a lot of opinions that may surprise/discomfit you.

Re: We put Flock under surveillance: Go make them behave differently [video]

#17

Post by tptacek »

kotaKat wrote: post #3

Quiet red areas rolling over to Flock are what’s going to cause us all to lose in the end. Another quiet little village in rural New York just signed on for 11 cameras, and it sounds like the county itself (2800 square miles(!)) is also playing around with them. The locals won’t raise the hard hitting questions - they’ll just roll over with the bullshit answers from Flock reps. https://northcountrynow.com/stories/vil…

Forget "quiet red areas". Every suburb surrounding mine, in Chicagoland(!), has expanded their use of ALPR cameras. People want them, not just in red areas.

Re: We put Flock under surveillance: Go make them behave differently [video]

#18

Post by baggy_trough »

tptacek wrote: post #17
kotaKat wrote: post #3

Quiet red areas rolling over to Flock are what’s going to cause us all to lose in the end. Another quiet little village in rural New York just signed on for 11 cameras, and it sounds like the county itself (2800 square miles(!)) is also playing around with them. The locals won’t raise the hard hitting questions - they’ll just roll over with the bullshit answers from Flock reps. https://northcountrynow.com/stories/vil…

Forget "quiet red areas". Every suburb surrounding mine, in Chicagoland(!), has expanded their use of ALPR cameras. People want them, not just in red areas.

Blue areas have often failed to do a good job suppressing crime (e.g. California), so people seek alternatives.

Re: We put Flock under surveillance: Go make them behave differently [video]

#19

Post by tptacek »

baggy_trough wrote: post #18
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget "quiet red areas". Every suburb surrounding mine, in Chicagoland(!), has expanded their use of ALPR cameras. People want them, not just in red areas.

Blue areas have often failed to do a good job suppressing crime (e.g. California), so people seek alternatives.

I have my complaints about this, but "blue areas" over the last several decades have meant "all major metros", and some forms of crime are just endemic to density, and in some sense all crime simply tracks population.

But we don't have to agree on that; people everywhere care about crime, and the promises ALPR vendors make, while arguable, are not ludicrous.

Re: We put Flock under surveillance: Go make them behave differently [video]

#20

Post by vlovich123 »

xyzal wrote: post #14
smokel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most countries, this is prohibited by law. While it might be interesting from a technical perspective, it does not help in practice.

Instead of a sticker like in the video make a stencil and spray diluted mud through it. Plausible deniability!

Are you also going to spray your car with mud too? Going to have a hard time explaining a spotless car that only has mud on the license plate.
Post reply on HN