Americans Are Destroying Flock Surveillance Cameras
- Reference: 0180859336
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/02/25/1632246/americans-are-destroying-flock-surveillance-cameras
- Source link:
> Brian Merchant, writing for Blood in the Machine, reports that people across the United States are [2]dismantling and destroying Flock surveillance cameras , amid rising public anger that the license plate readers aid U.S. immigration authorities and deportations.
>
> Flock is the Atlanta-based surveillance startup valued at $7.5 billion a year ago and a maker of license plate readers. It has faced criticism for allowing federal authorities access to its massive network of nationwide license plate readers and databases at a time when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is increasingly relying on data to raid communities as part of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.
>
> Flock cameras allow authorities to track where people go and when by taking photos of their license plates from thousands of cameras located across the United States. Flock claims it doesn't share data with ICE directly, but reports show that local police have shared their own access to Flock cameras and its databases with federal authorities. While some communities are calling on their cities to end their contracts with Flock, others are taking matters into their own hands.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/23/americans-are-destroying-flock-surveillance-cameras/
[2] https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/across-the-us-people-are-dismantling
Title Correction: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Americans Are Destroying Privacy Rapist's Surveillance Cameras"
There FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
> quite a rape fetish you have
As usual, the cowardly Meta[stasize]/Alphabet employee [1]gets triggered again [slashdot.org] (seems like they're feeling guilty about something.....)
[1] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23890560&cid=65922334
Re: (Score:1)
"murdered" lol.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes direct action is the best action.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're always right about it, and not just a pawn.
The likleyhood that Congress will act? (Score:3)
Destroying surveillance camera contracted out to the government by private corporations carries a mandatory $250K fine and 20 years in supermax federal prison for the first offense and for the second offense, death.
I find it concerning that the Federal Government is using private companies to make an end-run around the 4th Amendment. This needs to be shot down by the courts. This is effectively the same as a blanket search warrant against the citizenry. The government should have to specifically name the party that they want to track, and the rest of us should not be tracked.
Re: (Score:2)
> Destroying surveillance camera contracted out to the government by private corporations carries a mandatory $250K fine and 20 years in supermax federal prison for the first offense and for the second offense, death.
Interesting how you advocate for this type of punishment for replaceable hardware (max fine should be replacement cost, period), but none of the current Pedros* in the top offices of the nation get anything even close to this as their punishment.
* the 'r' is slient.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not advocating for such a law, only pointing out how the government tramples all over the 4th amendment.
It isn't the hardware cost, it is the lack of having something equivalent to a blanket search warrant taken away from the government's crime solving toolbox. The government sees this data as more valuable than the cost of the hardware as it saves them on gumshoe salaries and makes policing easier.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm not advocating for such a law, only pointing out how the government tramples all over the 4th amendment.
My bad - misread that (guess they are advocating for such brutal punishments).
Re: 4th amendment? (Score:2)
4th Amendment text: âoe The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violatedâ. The âoepersonsâ part covers tracking of movement (according to SCOTUS precedent) while the âoeand effectsâ part covers what we do when having a reasonable expectation of privacy given historic norms.
Re: (Score:2)
> Destroying surveillance camera contracted out to the government by private corporations carries a mandatory $250K fine and 20 years in supermax federal prison for the first offense and for the second offense, death.
So... free food, housing and healthcare? :-)
If you have a problem with flock (Score:4, Insightful)
And you should, then the only way to deal with them is to ban them at the state level. If you try doing it at the city or even county level they will go in and buy off your State legislature and get laws passed at the state level preventing cities from regulating them.
And of course you're not going to do shit at the federal level especially right now since the vice president is basically best friends with the guy who runs Planitir. The Republican party is all in on surveillance. And the Democrat party is busy trying to get ice to stop deporting American citizens or just shooting them dead.
What's more you probably are only going to be able to do this in places where you can put things directly on the ballot that bypass the legislation because you are looking at hundreds of billions of dollars to force this surveillance on you. Even politicians that oppose it can't really do anything or they will face a big money primary Challenger and unfortunately voters are not smart enough to see through a slick high volume add campaign.
Re: (Score:1)
If it helps to deport the illegal free loaders i'm all for doubling down on the deployment of these cameras.
Re: (Score:3)
What happens to the cameras afterward, are they switched off and sold?
They're going to get turned on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude don't waste your time replying to shit posters. They don't believe anything they are just trying to get a rise out of you.
There was a left winger who interviewed a right-wing shock jock named Tim pool. After the interview was over Mr pool asked if the interviewer. would hang out with him.
He could not understand why she told him to take a hike.
That's because Mr pool doesn't believe anything he says, he's just saying shit for money and internet points. So to him all the terrible things he spo
Re: If you have a problem with flock (Score:2)
I think we really need to deport the freeloading billionaires, they are the ones sucking us dry and forcing that crap on all of us. But we are stupid and keep giving them more and more power, in the remote chance we might be one someday.
Yes, but the feds could enact a law (Score:2)
which prohibits State governments from banning flock cameras if the federal government is a customer for the data. This would essentially bypass the will of the voters attempting to use Initiative and Referendum to ban flock cameras.
Of course, such a law would get tested in Federal Court.
Re: (Score:2)
They could but generally state law trumps federal law. Now the current supreme Court is extremely corrupt so there's no telling what they would do but it's worth the trouble of flipping that coin.
I look forward (Score:4, Insightful)
I look forward to all the solar panel and other DIY parts that are about to flood eBay. #FUCKFLOCK
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't you heard, solar panels make you woke and gay.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes!
Always amazes me what motivates people to care.... (Score:2)
Camera systems like this literally give authorities the ability to track your whereabouts, every place you choose to travel. And on top of that? It allows them to preserve that info as a historical record. But the reason people are angry enough to destroy them now is because of the hate for Trump's immigration stance; not what it means for freedom for actual American citizens.
Regardless of how you feel about ICE and its enforcement tactics and decisions? It seems to me like people should have been fighting
Re: (Score:3)
That's silly.
The largest objection is the panopticon, and people's nose in others business with out the warrant or need. Remember probable cause?
What about liberty and freedom? Freedom of association? Oh, wait, that must be another constitution.
Speed cameras, red light cameras, cameras in general need to go. Raise taxes, employ competent LEOs to give fat tickets for witnessed offenses. Soon, you're going to be convicted based on AI, which as a non-human, is unable to be challenged in a court because it can'
Privacy is important (Score:1)
I hope people on the left remember that privacy is important even if you don't have anything to hide.
Re: Privacy is important (Score:2)
They do, the people on the right are the ones advocating for the police state
What if... (Score:4, Funny)
someone were to post [1]an image of exactly what a Flock Surveillance camera looks like [googleapis.com] in this very comments section.
[1] https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/ketteringoh/uploads/2023/04/Flock-1024x683.png
Not Really (Score:2)
This story keeps being retold, as if it is some wide spread or growing epidemic. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There have been a slim few -- a handful -- of incidents where Flock cameras have been destroyed. But, not nearly enough have been impacted so as to have any effect. Nor is this a widely growing trend. No matter how much I wish it were.
There are [1]tens of thousands of Flock cameras across the United States [deflock.org]. The limited amount of vandalism being re-reported in this story isn't even a signific
[1] https://deflock.org/map#map=5/39.828300/-98.579500
And ... (Score:2)
> Americans Are Destroying Flock Surveillance Cameras
And nothing of value was lost...
Mostly Harmless.... (Score:1)
"Milwaukee officer charged with misconduct for allegedly using police plate reader to track love interest"
[1]https://www.tmj4.com/news/milw... [tmj4.com]
[1] https://www.tmj4.com/news/milwaukee-county/milwaukee-officer-charged-with-misconduct-over-alleged-misuse-of-flock-technology
Heh (Score:1)
I'm pro-ICE and anti tracking at the same time. It's a win-win either way. There are plenty of things the Left and Right have in common.
Oh the euphemisms! (Score:1)
You know who else was "taking matters into their own hands" a while back? Those dipshits who were torching cell towers because 5gcovidmicroships!1oneeleven!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> where you can rape their kids and they'll die to keep you in the country
Or in one of the red states, where they'll elect you President.
Re: (Score:2)
One of those things actually happened, the other is baseless slander. Do you know which is which?
Re: (Score:2)
HAH! Well damn, you got me there!
Oops.
Re:So can I come to the US illegally...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, a rapist who openly admitted to sexually abusing woman to Billy Bush and the rest of the world is "President" and to date there is no evidence of the other thing ever happening, so it is obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, you can't abuse the willing, and that was the point being made at the time. But that's also completely irrelevant since this accusation was about the rape of children, not whether or not adult women minded it if a famous billionaire got handsy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean these two best buds? [1]https://static01.nyt.com/image... [nyt.com]
Epstein was jailed under Trumps first term and suspiciously died while under 24 hour surveillance.
[1] https://static01.nyt.com/images/2025/12/18/mosaic-1-card-134/mosaic-1-card-134-square640.png?quality=75&auto=webp
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, did you know the guy on the left called the cops on the other one? And when Epstein's victim's lawyers were trying to depose people so Epstein could be taken to court, only the guy on the left was willing to help? Not only willingly, but enthusiastically?
Come on. I know you aren't blind. I know you aren't stupid. But you're acting like the one guy who wanted to help take Epstein down was flying down to the island with him. And I think we both know which President actually did that.
But don't
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to need some context on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Which bit? How public funds went to support and subsidize illegal aliens for years, despite the "public burden" rule and legislation explicitly banning payments to illegal aliens? If we're paying to feed, house, and treat people who came here illegally, we paid for them to come. I suppose that can be argued differently, but has the point come across?
If you meant the second part, well, people died in Minnesota while trying to prevent the deportation of illegal aliens, including a disturbing number of pe
Re: (Score:2)
> Well, you missed your opportunity to get paid to do it. Still, maybe if you come across from Canada into Minnesota, where you can rape their kids and they'll die to keep you in the country.
Did you confuse Minnesota with Washington DC again?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That means you must have solved:
Inflation
Jobs
Healthcare
Education
Infrastructure
What a time to be alive!
After all the people in the country illegally are gone, then what? Has your life situation improved any? Did you get a raise? Are grocery prices lower? Do you get better health benefits?
Re: (Score:2)
Supply and demand my friend. Add a few million people over just a few years, and suddenly demand outstrips supply. Specifically, the supply of housing, education, healthcare, jobs, and infrastructure. And if there's heavy government spending involved, inflation as it borrows to increase the supply of money to meet the new demand.
And let's not forget how that flips around. If the supply of cheap labor rapidly increases, wages go down. First at the low end of the economy, then it creeps up.
Here's an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump can't even hire good MAGA citizens to work at his tacky country club. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/13/trump-organization-foreign-workers-visas
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what. I'll start reading The Guardian when you start watching Fox News.
Re: (Score:1)
(Let me reiterate... [1]https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org])
Better chance of finding jobs (less preferential hiring, due to EEO, of underqualified people), fewer unknowledgeable drivers causing accidents with absolutely no repercussions, fewer 'new arrivals' being given cars, underpriced housing, tax-free everything, all the benefits (General Assistance, SNAP for family of six when five of those kids are actually their friend's kids, insurance), less of the immigrants taking over whole sections of town to become
[1] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23918446&cid=65992232
Re:So can I come to the US illegally...? (Score:5, Informative)
> So can I come to the US illegally...?
> 50 million already have.
Current best estimate (March, 2025) is 18.6 million, against a total 343 million population of the US. Source [1]https://www.fairus.org/issue/h... [fairus.org]
The Department of Homeland Security's most recent estimate was a bit smaller, 11.0 million, but their most recent report was in 2024 reporting on data as of 2022: [2]https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/def... [dhs.gov]
[1] https://www.fairus.org/issue/how-many-illegal-aliens-are-united-states-2025-update
[2] https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024_0418_ohss_estimates-of-the-unauthorized-immigrant-population-residing-in-the-united-states-january-2018%25E2%2580%2593january-2022.pdf
Re: (Score:3)
> So can I come to the US illegally...?
> 50 million already have.
> We need to be dismantling the illegals, not the cameras that are catching them.
And when you succeed, you will find the illegal immigrants were not the cause of society's problems.
Re: (Score:1)
probably, but only if ur brown.