Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras • Hacker News Board

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#31

Post by bigstrat2003 » Fri, Sep 26, 2025, 6:31 AM UTC

themafia wrote: post #23

privatelypublic wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody is saying "do nothing". The point is that shooting guns into the air is dangerous and you shouldn't do it. If you want to disable the cameras, do so in a way that doesn't recklessly endanger people (i.e spray chalk on a stick).

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#32

Post by thaumaturgy » Fri, Sep 26, 2025, 6:31 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Is there a good public list of Flock Safety cities? Would be particularly interesting to see where they are in blue states.

The best you can get is https://deflock.me/map, which is crowd-sourced, and therefore both incomplete and inaccurate.

Cities tend to resist public records requests for camera locations.

But Flock is currently in ~5,000 communities around the country. They have managed to spread very quickly, and very quietly, and the public has only become aware of it relatively recently.

There is also a good site at https://eyesonflock.com/ that parses data from the transparency pages that some places publish.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#33

Post by dawnerd » Fri, Sep 26, 2025, 6:31 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Is there a good public list of Flock Safety cities? Would be particularly interesting to see where they are in blue states.

They installed some here at a Home Depot parking lot right when the ice raids started. It was weird that only the home deport owned portion of the parking lot got them which lead to some investigation into who put them up and sure enough flock has a contract with HD.

Blue city in SoCal with lots of migrant laborers.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#34

Post by dawnerd » Fri, Sep 26, 2025, 6:37 AM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #11

If these were installed without authorization, I assume citizens can rip them down without the same.

Black trash bags would be a cheap, non damaging way to cost them money removing them.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#35

Post by camillomiller » Fri, Sep 26, 2025, 6:47 AM UTC

Would destroying the cameras be a legitimate act of social disobedience, considering that the company shows a total defiance and lack of respect for the law and society? I would argue it is.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#36

Post by cosmicgadget » Fri, Sep 26, 2025, 6:52 AM UTC

IlikeKitties wrote: post #30

Ancapistani wrote: post #28

Community 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?

Pretty casual about committing federal crimes.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#37

Post by IlikeKitties » Fri, Sep 26, 2025, 6:55 AM UTC

cosmicgadget wrote: post #36

IlikeKitties wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they aren't even hardwired to the net and can easily be jammed with commonly available Jamming hardware?

Pretty casual about committing federal crimes.

Not an american, here in germany you'd barely get a fine if they even bother to prosecute you for using a jammer for a few minutes here and there. But I don't yet have to deal with ai powered surveillance cams by private companies in my city.

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#38

Post by motbus3 » Fri, Sep 26, 2025, 6:56 AM UTC

It would be a shame if people starting to break it

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#39

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 26, 2025, 6:57 AM UTC

cosmicgadget wrote: post #36

IlikeKitties wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they aren't even hardwired to the net and can easily be jammed with commonly available Jamming hardware?

Pretty casual about committing federal crimes.

[deleted]

Re: Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

#40

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 26, 2025, 6:58 AM UTC

euroderf wrote: post #25

mothballed wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]