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

21–30 of 60 posts

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

#21

Post by baggy_trough »

tptacek wrote: post #19
baggy_trough wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my area, for example, there are counties where if a thief can escape there, they will not be prosecuted. So I support Flock since it gives a higher chance of interception in my county, which will prosecute them.

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

#22

Post by [deleted] »

vlovich123 wrote: post #20
xyzal wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#23

Post by dole »

stronglikedan wrote: post #12
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.

Flock data retention is defaulted to 30 days, but can vary up to a year or longer depending on the terms of the municipality contract.

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

#24

Post by tptacek »

baggy_trough wrote: post #21
tptacek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my area, for example, there are counties where if a thief can escape there, they will not be prosecuted. So I support Flock since it gives a higher chance of interception in my county, which will prosecute them.

What we found is that the cameras mostly had us enforcing failure-to-appear warrants for neighboring municipalities, which was not an in-kind contribution we wanted to make to those munis, and so we didn't get much value from the cameras, which is a big part of why we shut them off.

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

#25

Post by dole »

vlovich123 wrote: post #20
xyzal wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many police cars now have ghost graphics.

https://gdigraphics.com/police-car-ghost-graphics/

There were laws in many places where you could fight a traffic ticket because you couldn't plainly recognize a police vehicle, especially when a taillight or headlight is out, but now we pay for graphics to make them more invisible. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." I like the plausible deniability angle, myself

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

#26

Post by chankstein38 »

arrowleaf wrote: post #15
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.

Lowe's and Home Depot both seem to be hubs for their cameras. I only know of one in my rural area and it's at the Lowe's entrance.

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

#27

Post by orthoxerox »

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.

Yep, and the overwhelming majority of people using them are not principled cypherpunks, but parking fee dodgers and habitual dangerous drivers.

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

#28

Post by reaperducer »

arrowleaf wrote: post #15
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.

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

Most of the ones in my neighborhood are pointed at parks, playgrounds, and the big transit center. Which makes no sense to me since there's a ton of government buildings around that you'd think would be under Flock surveillance for "safety."

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

#29

Post by pavel_lishin »

tptacek wrote: post #16
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 tha…

At the last public meeting that someone from our household attended, people screamed and loudly booed during people's time to address the local elected officials.

So, I'm aware that the people I live next to are tremendously rude dipshits who hold awful opinions.

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

#30

Post by nceqs3 »

The anti ALPR narrative is not based in reality. I for one support using tech to automatically flag when a stolen car is spotted. With the sky high cost of car insurance in CA, which disproportionately impacts low income drivers, you would think liberal legislators would be in favor of reducing one of the largest reasons insurance is expensive. Restricting tech used by police just means more LE time spent on easily automatable tasks, and forces LE to use their own judgement (which many would argue has bias). The ACLU and EFF are so discredited on tech issues. They simply support criminals. The ACLU is fighting DUI laws in CA right now for instance. SF is a hell-hole because of these crime loving activist groups.

Thank you, Flock!

Post reply on HN