Privacy, encryption vs. Surveillance state

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

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).

Here is an important public service message about Flock cameras that everyone in America needs to see.


 
pmbug said:
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.
Click to expand...
The police are the only ones who should get access to such a system.
.....and even then, only for the aforementioned serious crimes.

If not, then the cams should go away.


Or conversely, if they insist on keeping them, open the system so that anyone can access it and use it too.

If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander, as they say.
 
Joe King said:
The police are the only ones who should get access to such a system.
.....and even then, only for the aforementioned serious crimes.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Apparently Flock has a secret "opt out" list, and those plates on it are not recorded.

 
Someone_else said:
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.
Click to expand...

If we have to have them, that'd be a good way of doing it too.
 
Opt out list: maybe. I suspect they are still tracked in the database, just not reported to LEOs.
 
pmbug said:
Opt out list: maybe. I suspect they are still tracked in the database, just not reported to LEOs.
Click to expand...
What it is, is an opt out for cops and government people.

They don't want their movements tracked. They want ours tracked.
 
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.
 
pmbug said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yea, possibly.


Point is, they only let gov people do it anyways. It's not for us regular schleps who would want to opt out.

I just thought it interesting that they even have such a thing.

I'd bet that the Nazi that runs flock has his plate on the list.
 
Joe King said:
Not if ya wear a gorilla mask when ya do it.
Click to expand...
And, your body? And gait?

Remember, we're not talking about the human eye making out characteristics. How many points do these facial-recognition programs use? Can they not use them on body profiles and movement characteristics, also?

Would you trust them not to? Would you not expect that the first couple to try it, would be CRUCIFIED in a rigged court proceeding, to send a MESSAGE to the anti-compliance types?
 
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.
 
Grok says:
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:

  • 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.
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.

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.
Click to expand...
 
pmbug said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

Or, if he's not a friend? Or even, you just did it for kicks and someone you don't know, took advantage of the opportunity?

YES, I know what those flocking things are really for. But this is how the kourts will evaluate it.
 
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.
 
Casey Jones said:
And, your body? And gait
Click to expand...
So wear a whole body gorilla suit and mimic a gorillas walk as you approach the cam.

Or make a body sized shield out of cardboard that you could hold in front of you as you approached.

Or approach from behind?

With the shield though, you could write a message on it expressing what you really think of the ones running the flock system.
....and you could be sure that they'd read it. Lol

Use it as an opportunity to tell 'em what you REALLY think about their shit.


pmbug said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even before reading your AI answer, yes it would be seen a crime.

Touch any government device or property in way government doesn't like, and it'll say you committed a crime.


Casey Jones said:
If you went into a Walmart, and created a non-violent scene to distract security personnel while a friend absconded with merchandise...
Click to expand...
That's called aiding and abetting, and is very much so a crime.



pmbug said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
pmbug said:
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.
Click to expand...
Anyone wanna test that out?

County jail isn't fun. And a police record will follow you.
 
pmbug said:
It's not a government device or property.
Click to expand...
New London, CT's Eminent Domain proceedings, were done to help a PRIVATE (and politically-connected pharma-whore) company build a PRIVATE office campus.

What is government and what is private, is now being blurred. The defining question is, what benefits the Elites, the In-Group, and what stands in their way.

Obviously they're desirous of these flocking pieces of guano stuck where they can smear decent, independent-thinking Americans.
 
pmbug said:
This is strictly a thought exercise (for me).
Click to expand...

C'mon now, we all know you are just itchin' to get out there in a gorilla suit and cover one up. Loli

When if you do it, (and posting on here that it's just a thought exercise is a smart move BTW) be sure to get the gorilla suit at a thrift store or maybe garage sale, and use cash, not your card.
Edited to add: if ya can't find a gorilla suit, maybe a giant chicken costume would work too. Or any other full body costume.

Oh, and do not forget to leave your cell phone at home when you don't go out to not put a bag over that flock cam you've had your eye on. Lol
 
I know!

Get one of those inflatable dinosaur costumes.

The flock folks couldn't get too mad about it, as just the sight of of a dinosaur waddling up to the cam and throwing a bag over it would make 'em laugh their asses off.
 
Joe King said:
...
When if you do it, ...
Click to expand...
9d4f893f2af7eea94141c299a81712ab--bart-simpson-our-kids.jpg
 
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.
Click to expand...



... what Snowden risked everything to share with us about the surveillance state.
 
Can I, as a private citizen pay for a Flock cam that I can up in my front yard aimed at the street so I can see everyone who drives up and down my street?
......and get access to the entire system? Ie: so I can type in plate numbers I see and find out where all they go? I used to have to get a PI I used to know to do that for me.
 
From what I see on their website - maybe and maybe. Their "solutions" are aimed at businesses, but you could represent yourself as a small business I suppose. I have no idea what the cost is or if they restrict your access to just cameras that you paid for.
 
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.
...
Click to expand...

abqraw.com

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 abqraw.com

That's impressive commitment.
 
pmbug said:
abqraw.com

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 abqraw.com

That's impressive commitment.
Click to expand...
Impressively stupid, IMHO.

What good does it do to cut 'em down in such a manner to simply get arrested for it?

He goes to jail, the cameras go right back up and nothing changes other than he gets a criminal record and the gov gets to make an example out of him in order to deter others from doing the same.

Would have been much better had he done it in a stealthy manner, so as to avoid getting caught.

He could've been like a masked avenger, or something. Out there stealthily and anonymously targeting flock cam after flock cam.

He could've at least used a good gorilla suit on chicken costume.
 
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.
 
Casey Jones said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand your frustration on all this, but I don't think murder is the answer either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom