Welcome to the PMBug forums - a community supported watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.
Register a free account to join the discussions. When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including access to market data/charts and additional members only rooms (including one for trade/barter with the community).
The police are the only ones who should get access to such a system.What I meant is that cops aren't the only one with access to the database. Flock employees, 3 letter agencies, insurance companies and any public/private company willing to pay Flock's price have access. It's not just LEOs. Same will be true for Axon et al.
How about giving access only to judges? The police have to request a warrant and the evidence together. Judge approves the warrant, selects the requested evidence, and gives only that to the police. Or the judge reviews the video, says "no", and the police get nothing. And every access goes into an audit journal.The police are the only ones who should get access to such a system.
.....and even then, only for the aforementioned serious crimes.
How about giving access only to judges? The police have to request a warrant and the evidence together. Judge approves the warrant, selects the requested evidence, and gives only that to the police. Or the judge reviews the video, says "no", and the police get nothing. And every access goes into an audit journal.
What it is, is an opt out for cops and government people.Opt out list: maybe. I suspect they are still tracked in the database, just not reported to LEOs.
Yea, possibly.From an implementation standpoint, it is much easier to filter search results (or AI/analyst access) than to filter an incoming data stream. I bet the data is still tracked and stored and Flock honchos can override the opt-out list filter if/when they want to. I would not trust anything Flock promises people.
If it were only that easy.Here is an important public service message about Flock cameras that everyone in America needs to see.
Not if ya wear a gorilla mask when ya do it.If it were only that easy.
And lets not forget...BEFORE the camera is fried, it will have a facial image of you walking up to it.
And, your body? And gait?Not if ya wear a gorilla mask when ya do it.
It depends on the jurisdiction, who owns the camera, and the exact facts, but hanging a bag over a Flock camera can be treated as a crime. It is not a guaranteed-legal protest tactic.
Flock Safety cameras are automated license plate readers (ALPRs) typically mounted on poles along public roads, often owned or leased by police departments, cities, HOAs, or businesses. They photograph vehicles in public view. Covering the lens with a grocery bag physically interferes with equipment that does not belong to you.
Why it can be charged
Most states have statutes covering vandalism, criminal mischief, property damage, or tampering. These often include “defacing,” “altering,” or interfering with another’s property even without permanent destruction. California lawyers have described covering or blocking without damage as a gray area that can still lead to vandalism, tampering, or trespass allegations; altering the camera without the owner’s permission can be viewed as vandalism.
Other possible charges include:
A plastic bag is cheap and removable, so damage value would usually be low (often a misdemeanor). Prosecutors still have discretion, especially if the act is captured on nearby cameras or the person is identified.
- Interference with public-safety or government equipment (if used by police).
- Trespass (if you leave a sidewalk or enter restricted right-of-way to reach the camera).
- Obstruction-related offenses in some states that specifically protect surveillance devices.
Contrast with other methods
Cities themselves have bagged Flock cameras with trash bags as a temporary measure while exiting contracts. That is authorized because the city controls the devices.
A Florida protester nicknamed the “Flock Blocker” has held a sign on a long pole in front of cameras from a public location without attaching anything. Local police indicated that form of protest was legal because it did not damage or physically tamper with the hardware. Attaching a bag to the camera itself is closer to tampering.
Actual arrests reported so far have mostly involved cutting poles, spray-painting lenses, smashing units, or stealing them—actions that clearly meet damage or theft thresholds. The absence of many publicized “bag-only” prosecutions does not mean the conduct is lawful.
Laws vary by state and even by city. Ownership (police vs. private HOA) and whether you must enter the roadway or climb also matter. This is not legal advice; consult a lawyer in your specific location if you need one. Peaceful, non-contact protest or political advocacy through officials is the lower-risk path.
If you went into a Walmart, and created a non-violent scene to distract security personnel while a friend absconded with merchandise...did you commit a crime?Serious question. If you approached one of these cameras and just put a standard plastic grocery bag over the camera and walked away, did you commit a crime? You didn't damage or vandalize it.
So wear a whole body gorilla suit and mimic a gorillas walk as you approach the cam.And, your body? And gait
Even before reading your AI answer, yes it would be seen a crime.Serious question. If you approached one of these cameras and just put a standard plastic grocery bag over the camera and walked away, did you commit a crime? You didn't damage or vandalize it.
That's called aiding and abetting, and is very much so a crime.If you went into a Walmart, and created a non-violent scene to distract security personnel while a friend absconded with merchandise...
The prob is that they are collecting data that if done without the private company as a middleman, would be illegal for them (the police) to collect on their own without first having gotten a warrant.I get your point, but the presence of a Flock camera doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything or traveling anywhere. It's just logging movements. Hard to argue that disabling a Flock camera is aiding and abetting any crime IMO.
Anyone wanna test that out?I get your point, but the presence of a Flock camera doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything or traveling anywhere. It's just logging movements. Hard to argue that disabling a Flock camera is aiding and abetting any crime IMO.
...
Touch any government device or property in way government doesn't like, and it'll say you committed a crime.
...
Anyone wanna test that out? ...
True, but it is only there due to a government contract. Therefore to cover one would be interfering with government operations.It's not a government device or property.
New London, CT's Eminent Domain proceedings, were done to help a PRIVATE (and politically-connected pharma-whore) company build a PRIVATE office campus.It's not a government device or property.
This is strictly a thought exercise (for me).
...
Whenif you do it, ...
RHL said:Below, I have collected every bad faith argument in favor of the surveillance state, handed out to influencers during this paid op, and why each one is retarded. I put my heart and soul into this. Please enjoy.
1.) “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”
•This is retarded because it continues to treat a nationwide, searchable movement log as harmless even after officers have used it to stalk ex-girlfriends and the system has produced armed stops of innocent drivers.
2.) “They only catch criminals and find stolen cars or missing kids”
•This is retarded because it ignores that the default is photographing every passing vehicle, not a targeted warrant, and that alerts have already sent police after the wrong people.
3.) “Cameras are already everywhere so Flock is no different”
•This is retarded because it pretends a privately operated, AI-searchable national network with inter-agency lookup that bypasses due process, is the same as a local traffic cam or your neighbor’s doorbell.
4.) “Cities own the data and Flock is just a vendor”
This is retarded because audits showed federal agencies searching local plate data and Flock toggling national lookup without cities knowing.
5.) “Audit logs and purpose fields prevent abuse”
This is retarded because it is offered as a complete answer after officers typed “investigation” and still ran plates of girlfriends, and after the company itself later added tools because the old ones failed. The “safeguards” are just mandatory discipline for making their tyranny look bad.
6.) “It’s just a snapshot at a fixed point, not tracking”
•This is retarded because it is the legal talking point even though the product stitches those snapshots into paths, heat maps, and person-level files. It is warrantless dragnet, and it’s been unconstitutional for 60 years.
7.) “Critics just want to defund the police or normalize lawlessness”
•This is retarded because it recasts bipartisan privacy pushback and contract cancellations as a partisan conspiracy instead of answering for the actual access and misuse record.
8.) “Retention is only a few days and we don’t sell data”
•This is retarded because the selling point of the product is a shared national lookup of those same records and any civilian can walk off the street and get a job with access to that data.
9.) “It doesn’t collect personally identifiable information”
•This is retarded because not only were plates matched to owners, but the company built tools to jump from LPR to person.
10.) “It isn’t a search because it doesn’t open your door”
•This is retarded because logging every car into a queryable database is the modern version of a general warrant: rummage first, invent a reason later, and the 4th amendment was the answer to general warrants.
11.) “Phones already track you so Flock is fine”
•This is retarded because the state building a warrantless dragnet is not excused by the existence of private, voluntary apps and contracts that you can refuse or self regulate.
“12.) “It’s constitutional because courts like ALPRs”
•This is retarded because warrantless dragnet is not constitutional.
13.) “Flock just helps catch real criminals”
•This is retarded because selling a total location archive as enforcement is how you launder a dragnet. It’s trading our essential liberty for temporary security without our consent.
14.) “Opponents are just being dramatic or paid to hate tech and America and missing kids.”
This is retarded because the coordinated “Flock op” of identical accounts is insisting a warrantless catalog of every vehicle is the same thing as voluntary cameras while appealing to emotion, and that is anti-American redcoat shit.
In a series of live Facebook videos, Jevon Martinez of Rio Rancho, New Mexico, is seen driving around the Bernalillo County proper and taking down Flock Cameras. He stated in the video that he is not stealing them and he will return them to the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office.
The Facebook account of Martinez indicated he has been arrested in front of Bernalillo County Sheriff Headquarters. He showed up to the Main Headquarters with the cameras in the back of his pickup truck. BCSO detectives and deputies made contact with him.
...
Martinez went “viral” a few months back when he took down cameras in Rio Rancho. In that case, the Rio Rancho Police charged him 9 felonies with criminal damage, larceny, and tampering evidence.
...
Impressively stupid, IMHO.Man Takes Flock Cameras Down in Bernalillo County, Shows Up to BCSO HQ with Them in Back of Truck - ABQ RAW
Albuquerque - In a series of live Facebook videos, Jevon Martinez of Rio Rancho, New Mexico, is seen driving around the Bernalillo County proper and taking down Flock Cameras. He stated in the video that he is not stealing them and he will return them to the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office...abqraw.com
That's impressive commitment.
I understand your frustration on all this, but I don't think murder is the answer either.How about finding out who services and maintains these things?
Snatch the crews; then put them into car trunks, parked out in the sun, away from...from sight, and from Flocking cameras.
Let them come to a natural end. Slowly. Lots of time to contemplate their sins.
Eventually, people will equate working for Flock, with, repossessing BMWs in the ghetto. Dangerous and not worth the pay.
You don't answer tyranny with moral qualms.I understand your frustration on all this, but I don't think murder is the answer either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?