Relevant video about Flock's ALPRs
https://youtu.be/vWj26RIlN_I [18:56]
Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
21–30 of 277 posts
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#22There 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 wonder whether Flock is re-installing the cameras out of fear that
They are already being accused of breach and the city ordered them to remove them. Reinstalling devices out of "fear" is not a reasonable response.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#23So 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.
Installing cameras to _violate_ peoples rights is.. why bother, corporations won't change.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#24Why sue? Why not impound and fine like they would illegally parked vehicles?
The cameras are not meaningfully worth a whole lot of money.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#25Even 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 camer…
> 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.
This sounds like some sort of legal procedures adopted from the USSR.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#26There 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
The core of the debate is that Flock has "fixed the issue", and hence doesn't think the contract should be escapable, the services provided today are ostensibly legal. Definitely a question for lawyers on how the exact terms shake out, if the city has an out or if Flock met their obligations by fixing the access issue.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#27If 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.
I've given this a lot of thought.
Unfortunately, in addition to being dangerous to others, this approach pretty much always comes with increased exposure to prosecution and increased penalties.
The optimal approach seems to be vandalism - spray painting over the front of the cameras, placing other objects to block their view, or permanently blinding them with lasers. All of these things are still illegal and would likely subject you to the legal system, but they at least require on-site intervention to remedy and keep the actor out of prison (but maybe not jail).
The least risky approach I've found is also the least effective - they're often on public property, so place _yourself_ in front of them. It takes them out of commission for a while and should be legal. Coordinated action would likely get the attention of Flock, law enforcement, and the media. Unfortunately, even that could be construed as "interfering with law enforcement operations" or similar, and/or conspiracy if you're organizing or participating in mass resistance.
If the federal government decides they want to step in on Flock's behalf, they could put you under the jail. :\
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#28Community note: it is my understanding, based on teardowns that I've found online, that Flock cameras should be assumed to contain a cellular modem and at least one GPS receiver. At least some have been found to contain an addition, obfuscated GPS receiver.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#29Community note: it is my understanding, based on teardowns that I've found online, that Flock cameras should be assumed to contain a cellular modem and at least one GPS receiver. At least some have been found to contain an addition, obfuscated GPS receiver.
Yes, worked for speed camera company. It does have a cellular modem connecting over VPN or some tunneling with cloud infrastructure.
Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras
#30Community note: it is my understanding, based on teardowns that I've found online, that Flock cameras should be assumed to contain a cellular modem and at least one GPS receiver. At least some have been found to contain an addition, obfuscated GPS receiver.
So they aren't even hardwired to the net and can easily be jammed with commonly available Jamming hardware?