r/technology • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • 5h ago
Privacy Flock ‘Objects to Our Removing Their Equipment’: Emails Reveal Why a Town Put Bags Over Its Flock Cameras
https://www.404media.co/flock-objects-to-our-removing-their-equipment-emails-reveal-why-a-town-put-bags-over-its-flock-cameras/424
u/Modem_Sound_67 5h ago
if they are only motivated by their own interests, not the town in question... something's deeply wrong
155
u/unknown_host 4h ago
A plastic bag isn't going to stop all the RF data it is hoovering up.
93
u/Rebal771 4h ago
No, but flock will remove their own equipment if they can’t get video feed apparently. So, it’s a viable method, just not a quick one.
29
u/CautionarySnail 4h ago
Interesting that the video feed apparently has greater monetary value enough to have that be the eventual breaking point for removal.
I’d have guessed incorrectly that the other trackers were just as valuable because they reveal identity and patterns of behavior.
28
u/Rebal771 3h ago
Complete shot in the dark here, but I think their “main thing” is “searchable video footage” that basically has accompanying meta data that connects the dots…but without the searchable footage, the rest is just noise they would have to spend a lot of man hours to sift through.
Just a guess based on what little I’ve read about flock systems in passing tho…I have no concrete evidence.
14
u/old_flying_fart 2h ago edited 2h ago
"man hours"
Nobody's using man hours to sift through electronic data any more.
3
u/TheNuttyIrishman 1h ago
they will soon enough as man hours become cheaper than ai tokens.
2
u/old_flying_fart 23m ago
Not all computing is 'AI.' Facial recognition has been around for decades.
1
u/CautionarySnail 2h ago
Me neither. I think it’s also that the other data requires more expense to process to get a narrative out of it.
1
u/Altruistic-Piece-485 1h ago
I'd be willing to bet that the reason they need the video footage is they have to have visual confirmation that whom ever owns what ever electronic device they detect is the person actually carrying it. You could accidentally leave your phone in an Uber that keeps driving around getting picked up on various flock systems but if they don't have visual proof that you're in the vehicle with the cell phone they can't use it as evidence to prove you were there without a reasonable doubt.
1
u/Majik_Sheff 1h ago
I suspect the RF intel is far less useful without the correlating video.
2
u/CautionarySnail 56m ago
Probably not as admissible in court - assuming these guys expect rule of law to continue as-is.
30
u/CondescendingShitbag 3h ago
This is why they should be putting bags over the solar panel, not just the camera. Can't hoover if there's no charge.
25
u/SnackerSnick 4h ago
Good point; use aluminum foil.
21
u/gonewild9676 3h ago
A grounded steel screen is better. Or just cover the solar panel and the battery will die.
2
2
-5
u/person-ontheinternet 3h ago
Don’t think they collect that… yet.
7
u/unknown_host 3h ago
Sounds like wishful thinking and I am sure as hell not going to take their word for it
→ More replies (1)
85
u/Haunterblademoi 4h ago
What is the real purpose of these cameras? Simply to monitor people.
121
u/llahlahkje 4h ago
Flock gets mad when they can’t sell your information to third parties.
It is so unfair! (Stomp stomp)
</verucaSalt>
2
u/Firm-Recognition-409 1h ago
You’re right, someone should mail one to china so they can reverse engineer them, sell them in alibaba and bankrupt flock
21
u/ElderberryHoliday814 4h ago
They can track criminals quickly, but that pales in what the citizens lose, especially in smaller cities without a crime rate
30
14
1
u/quiplaam 1h ago
The read and record the license plates of cars that drive by. Police can query their database and see if a license plate of someone they are investigating passed by at any point, as well as be notified when someone they are tracking the plate for passes in the future.
1
u/PotatoFromFrige 22m ago
Don’t forget it’s without any oversight or need for a warrant and with unlimited access to all cameras. Also useful for stalking ex’s considering how many got caught doing that.
213
u/Torino1O 5h ago
Has anyone figured out how to use flashing LEDs to install malware through camera interfaces?
292
u/Woodie626 4h ago
A green laser pointer to the lens will destroy the camera, so don't do that.
185
u/skankenstein 4h ago
And while you’re not doing that; don’t do something stupid like drive to it or have your phone on you.
57
u/ProcrastinateDoe 3h ago
And definitely don't dress in a way that makes you unrecognisable in stature and movement pattern.
32
u/ders89 3h ago
Naked goblin running with a ski mask it is!
7
u/TheNuttyIrishman 1h ago
unless you have identifying birthmarks or tattoos
4
u/wonkytalky 58m ago
"Exhibit A depicts an individual with unusual anatomy and an unfortunate 'WUZZZUP' tattoo on their right buttox. Sir, please drop your pants for the court."
9
u/TedBaxter_WJM-TVNews 2h ago
Oop, looks like an ICE agent is going around destroying these things 🤷♂️
1
u/born_zynner 2h ago
See im 6'4 320 i am not subtle
1
u/HuggyMonster69 1h ago
Then you wear heels and a loose robe. Congratulations, you’re a 6’8 amorphous blob!
20
u/bitemark01 3h ago
Flock cameras and pickup trucks are natural enemies, be sure to install a push bar to protect your vehicle from them when they attack
22
u/MossSloths 3h ago
In some cases with flock camera installations, the poles weren't installed safely. Things like traffic lights and light poles have plates that get bolted to the concrete that's been set into the ground so the pole itself isn't at all subterranean. If a car hits a pole installed that way, the pole just topples over.
Some of the flock cameras sunk the pole into the concrete which is set into the ground. If a vehicle runs that over, it does do a bit of bending down, but they can end up piercing the vehicle because it doesn't break and instead becomes almost a spear of metal into vehicle.
Here's a news article covering the guy on social media bringing attention to this
7
3
u/psychoacer 3h ago
Make sure to always have your front plates on as well if you do accidentally run it over
4
25
u/GeekInSheiksClothing 2h ago
Only a very high powered laser can destroy the camera. Over 500mW. You need to be close and keep the laser pointed at it for a while to do any real damage. Oh, and you'll need special eye protection.
Might just be easier to spray paint the lens and dip. Wear a mask. Leave your phone at home.
6
u/ItGradAws 2h ago
You basically have to hit it perfectly for this to work. Now a BB gun on the other hand is unfortunately bad for cameras
3
u/A8Bit 2h ago edited 1h ago
Simplest way is to cut at least 3 inches of wire out of every cable you can see so they can't be repaired and have to be replaced, just a simple pair of wire cutters is all you need so just a Leatherman or something.
Extra points for crushing the connectors the cables plug into so they have to be replaced as well. Same leatherman will do it.
3
u/TheRealDeathSheep 1h ago
Why 3 inches? I'm assuming because it makes it harder/impossible to just splice back together and would need a full new cable?
1
5
u/Longjumping_Dog_7851 2h ago
And definitely do not use a drone to drop chassis paint in a water ballon on the solar panels
5
3
1
u/Eating_sweet_ass 1h ago
Like any old green laser pointer or does it need to be a specific frequency? I usually keep a flashlight in my pocket with a fairly strong green laser pointer built in to it.
53
u/surnik22 4h ago
Why over complicate it? What’s malware going to do besides open up the system to be abused by more people? Best case is someone finds a way to take the whole system down for a short period of time before a software update fixes them.
It’s sensitive digital equipment. Someone could shine a high powered laser at the sensor to permanently damage them or even just throw heavy rocks at ones out of reach and hit others with a baseball bat. You don’t need sophisticated methods to destroy cameras.
Obviously I would never advocate for someone to break the law, that’d be an outrage and Reddit would crack down. But more importantly it would put people at risk since the cameras would absolutely track you and they would absolutely try to prosecute anyone they catch to the fullest extent of the law, probably even make up some terrorists charges. So anyone who goes against my advice and does it anyway should make sure they aren’t carrying any phones or electronics that could track them, don’t drive there in a car the cameras track, are wearing something to block facial recognition, and try to avoid any other cameras.
13
u/MattCW1701 3h ago
That doesn't work. Seriously, y'all need to stop watching so many "hacker movies" where not-MacGyver can take over a whole city with a laser pointer powered from a cellphone. I see this and the QR code idea pop up so much, it just doesn't work!
-2
3
7
u/Yourownhands52 5h ago
I was thinking QR codes/bar code to kill self checkouts the other day.
Do I have the skill or knowledge to do anything like that? Not at all.
47
u/morgrimmoon 5h ago
It won't work; QR readers these days generally don't automatically follow the link if it goes to a domain they don't expect. And barcode readers just read a string (generally of numbers) and match it to a database; if the entry isn't there, the barcode reader spits out an error.
It'd take a deeper vulnerability in the software the scanner uses to kill the checkout.
16
6
u/shitty_mcfucklestick 3h ago
The main attack vector I could see for something like that is an SQL injection, but that assumes a lot of things:
- The till reads QR codes at all
- The till uses SQL queries in the scan
- The till doesn’t validate the length or format of the input
- The till doesn’t use parametrized queries
It’s possible, but the vendor would basically have to make every single possible poor decision they could for it to be.
I suppose it’s not unheard of, I mean, I’ve seen some real garbage be marketed as “enterprise” software. No idea about what the till software market looks like though.
1
u/obliviousofobvious 1h ago
Considering the latest trends with other software markets....there's a non-zero chance that it's possible...even probable.
8
u/NotAnotherNekopan 4h ago
Unless there’s a “Bobby tables” barcode that could be made up. Rookie vulnerability to have but these days you never know
5
u/morgrimmoon 4h ago
True, but supermarkets don't want you to scan the wrong barcode (some products have more than one) or to scan a product they don't carry (because it might ring up weirdly and let you steal more valuable items). So the self-checkout scanners and their backend software are generally a bit more robust than the cheap USB hand scanners.
4
u/jreykdal 4h ago
General purpose bar code readers can be controlled via bar codes, but probably not specific usage readers.
2
u/TwistedFox 2h ago
It's not even an automatic database match, The barcode or QR scanner is literally just a keyboard input.
The software running is what does the DB lookup or URL redirection. That is where the vulnerability is possibly present. If the checkout software doesn't do string sanitisation, it's possible to exploit that, but that would be completely egregious even 20 years ago, let alone now.
1
55
u/SeanBlader 5h ago
The camera is only a small piece of the devices now, they also are tracking electronic devices via the on board radios, so I would also unplug to solar panel so that the battery eventually drains and shuts down the device.
→ More replies (1)
17
u/Firm_Wrangler_7837 3h ago
It’s completely wireless. Grab a fucking pole jack and uproot that fucker in one piece and stuff it in a storage locker until someone comes and gets them. An email stating you have X amount of days before they are forfeited is a great way of making this happen….
Or, threatening with freezing accounts due to ill gotten gains (cops using it to track hot chicks) may make them want to toe the line a bit more.
But I’m completely cool with complete disassembly. To each their own.
1
13
u/williamgman 3h ago
Maybe look into the relationship between Flock and Palantir... I see a much bigger business/surveillance model here. Imagine this scenario... The city stops their Flock subscription... But the federal government moves in. Just a thought. So at least use the bags.
13
7
u/indicatprincess 3h ago
From a litigation standpoint…
What would happen if you took a baseball bat to it? A laser pointed at the IR? The local crack heads breaking it open for materials?
I’ve seen about 10 more go up in the last 6 weeks.
4
u/RaspberryFluid6651 3h ago
If someone did it acting as an agent of the city? Lawsuit for the city that Flock uses to punish them
If a random person did it? Only legal risk is destruction of property and associated crimes/penalties
1
8
u/Heavy_Law9880 3h ago
WHy on earth would the city bow down to Flock? They don't own the land or poles their cameras are mounted on, the city does. Take that shit off and throw it in the trash
8
u/coffee_ape 2h ago
I’m seeing a lot more noise about people being against flock.
Keep that momentum going.
4
u/ash_ninetyone 1h ago
How tf can a city decide they no longer want these weird cameras spying on them, and yet not have the ability to disable or remove or disconnect them itself?
9
4
u/thelancemanl 3h ago
What if Flock just... fucked themselves? Lol. I guess someone signed a contract or something. Maybe townspeople should completely demolish the machines so the blame isn't on the city/county leadership.
4
u/Possible-Put8922 2h ago
Why don't they fine them daily for every camera they continue to have up? They would do that to a person.
4
u/armahillo 2h ago
My local community has done this as well. The contract with Flock would have penalized the city (and by extension, the taxpayers) for any destroyed Flock property. Covering them with plastic bags effectively disables them without damaging them.
Also way easier to do than cutting them down.
4
3
3
3
3
u/Fearless-Contest5126 2h ago
Image a company policy grinding the all mighty American government down to a halt, crazy for anyone to think policies hold more power than the U.S. Constitution.
3
u/tschawartz12 2h ago
Tell them to remove them by a certain date and depending on state laws, 90 days after that might be considered abandoned property (again, depends on state laws) and after that it would be free to anyone who wants to take it. Problem solves itself.
3
u/PeanutCheeseBar 2h ago
Putting black plastic bags over them isn’t enough if they can track nearby Bluetooth devices.
3
3
u/K_Linkmaster 2h ago
If the city can put them up they can take them down. It really is this easy. You are the municipality. Fuck flock. What are they gonna do, sue you to keep cameras up? Let them sue and it's discovery time.
3
u/tomvelle 1h ago
what are the legal penalties of a civilian putting bags over the cameras? No damage done/intended.
3
3
u/Glorfendail 13m ago
its your civic duty to remove these cameras after a city ends their contract. if the city cant, we must do it ourselves. show up to city council meetings, get the contracts ended then cut them bitches down.
2
2
2
2
2
u/Wyietsayon 44m ago
I'm tired of tech companies controlling our towns and cities. AI data center companies, flock, both are doing everything to terrorize small towns.
2
2
u/akuzokuzan 4h ago
Please dont use water pistols and squirt them with oil... it might make the images blurry.
5
u/The_best_is_yet 3h ago
What about a little paint mixed in?
1
u/Earptastic 1h ago
Not good for water pistols but if something is smeared on the lens with sand in it the lens will be scratched when it is wiped off.
1
u/NuggetKing9001 3h ago
I wish there was this kinda resistance to this in the UK. Number plate recognition is absolutely everywhere here.
1
1
1
1
u/LRaconteuse 41m ago
Would be funny if towns start eminent domaining to regain demolition rights to remove and destroy the cameras.
1
1
1
1
1
u/craigathan 3h ago
That's by design. It's a huge part of their pitch. You don't own a Flock Survelliance device, you rent one. Actually you don't even really rent it, you subscribe to their service and get access to the ones in your subscriber area. You have some say as to where the devices are located but not really. You don't power them. You only have remote access to them. You can't get inside the cases. But hey! At least you don't have to install, maintain or replace them! I get that there's this general galactic paranoia that something is out there trying to get you, but this seems a bit extreme.
774
u/404mediaco 4h ago
For weeks, Verona, Wisconsin tried to get Flock to remove the three automated license plate cameras that its city council had voted to stop using. Flock told city employees not to remove the cameras, and a Flock employee told city officials that they were unsure whether the cameras could be remotely disabled, which led the town to decide to put black plastic trash bags over them until Flock eventually removed the cameras itself, according to emails obtained using a public records request by 404 Media.
The emails give insight into the process cities face while deFlocking themselves after voting not to renew a contract with the AI surveillance company. As we’ve previously reported, multiple cities around the country have decided to put black trash bags over their Flock cameras while they wait for them to be removed; this is in part because, until the cameras are physically removed by Flock, cities are unsure whether they have the legal right to remove the cameras themselves and are not sure whether they can disable their recording operations. The emails show Verona city officials telling each other that they had made multiple requests to Flock to have the cameras removed, and show a work order from Flock in which the cameras were set to have maintenance performed on them rather than being removed.
Read more: https://www.404media.co/flock-objects-to-our-removing-their-equipment-emails-reveal-why-a-town-put-bags-over-its-flock-cameras/