25 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.
[deleted]
At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025
251–260 of 373 posts
Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025
#252not sure why people are bothering with destruction, just drive around and shut them down wirelessly. some newer models require a button to be pressed for them to start the AP, but still leaves them vulnerable to attacks with a long stick and doesn't draw any attention while hundreds of cameras suddenly stop working, making the city government think they're unreliable.
Pending clarification, I suspect "just" is doing a lot of work!
You just need a really long stick and walk around the city while trying to use the long stick to click the button on camera.
It's important to not look suspicious. You may also need to start lifting weights right now. That long stick is going to be heavy.
Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025
#25325 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.
It doesn't. You are right. For comparison: main area of Richmond (Virgina) as a quick random lookup alone lists 441 Flock cams + 6 Alpr cams.
Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
A browser plugin that scores webpage content based on how likely it is to have been AI-generated would be quite useful. Browser vendors can't build this.
This is virtually impossible to build. Not just because all current "AI detector" systems are fake or outright scams with accuracy comparable to a coin-flip on frontier model output, but because even if someone did build a reliable detector and released it to the public, it could be used for adversarial training and it would become worthless pretty fast.
[flagged]
Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it won't. (Source: got legislation for this, pretty good bead on who the stakeholders are). This is all Internet logic. It's fun to talk about destroying cameras as a vector for public policy, ergo, by the First Law of Message Boards, that must be a viable strategy. Reader, it is not. Nobody's going to blink at these costs, but residents who supported or were on the fence about the cameras are now negatively polar…
[flagged]
Sure, keep calling me a cosplayer. I must be! It's a message board, and I disagree with you. What other explanation could there be? It's definitely not as if I've been talking incessantly about this since long before "deflock" was a thing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41927777
The search bar will avail for the rest of the story.
Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
How different is this from humans? In my experience people fill in the blanks quite the same, they just do it less convincingly and sometimes maliciously. Having the sort of prejudice you describe against AI content doesn't make sense if you consider humans make mistakes and lie all the time, coming from a position of less knowledge than LLMs. You need to approach both with similar caution.
> How different is this from humans? Humans exercise judgement. At least when humans lie they're usually doing it on purpose. When machines lie they don't know they're doing it.
Why does this make it better for you the consumer? You still need to detect the lie and respond to it appropriately. Machines lie more elegantly, I think is the scary part
Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article was written with a premise into a prompt for Claude, which then wrote the whole thing.
What do you think about the contents?
If the contents can be generated, why does the contents matter? They can just distill the blog down to a prompt and skip forcing us to read bullshit.
Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that's why we need more direct democracy. People (correctly) feel like they have very little power over laws which affect them day to day. If someone represents me, then logically I should have the right to vote directly instead of him, or remove him at any point.
That's why planes should be flown using direct democracy. Passengers (correctly) feel like they have little power over the maneuvers planes make and affect them moment to moment. Representational democracy is far superior. Decisions need to be weighed against both their popularity and their effect with input from experts and other affected parties.
The problem with representative democracy arises when it stops being representative. Alas, at least in the US, Congress nearly always votes according to moneyed interests over the desires of its constituent voters.
That isn't to say we should use something other than representative democracy. I believe the best option is to fix the system rather than replace it. However, it does explain why people currently feel they have very little power of the laws that affect them.
Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025
#25925 cameras destroyed over the course of a year, and more than half were destroyed by a single person. This doesn't appear to be a widespread concern the headline makes it out to be.
Flock is only one company. Someone in my town smashed one from a different company and was treated like a hero in Facebook comments. It’s not mentioned in the article.
Re: At least 25 Flock cameras have been destroyed in five states since April 2025
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
How different is this from humans? In my experience people fill in the blanks quite the same, they just do it less convincingly and sometimes maliciously. Having the sort of prejudice you describe against AI content doesn't make sense if you consider humans make mistakes and lie all the time, coming from a position of less knowledge than LLMs. You need to approach both with similar caution.
At least part of it is that we do attribute malice or lack of care (or madness) to people who repeatedly do it, and treat their output differently in the future. For some reason, some people repeatedly defend machines that constantly do the same thing, and claim we should give it the benefit of the doubt.
Why give anyone benefit of doubt when you're just trying to extract true information. If a person BSs you, you don't believe them in the future either. Giving BS the benefit of doubt isn't serving anyone. Giving intent benefit of doubt makes sense, but intent isn't important when it comes to technical information and lying about it