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.
Yes, worked for speed camera company. It does have a cellular modem connecting over VPN or some tunneling with cloud infrastructure.
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.
Argumentum ad legem.
Was slavery moral because slavery was legal?
Apart from that,the device's raison d’etre is committing federal crimes, namely violating the 4th amendment rights of private citizens. Previous case law has found mining historical cell phone location data to be a 4A violation requiring a warrant.
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.
Well that is too bad. I am glad it is taken seriously here in the US because wireless jamming is a serious public safety issue.
if the EU maintains it's current trajectory, you'll be dealing with this or a similar problem in the future.
Dog whistle!
I thought I was being pretty explicit TBH.
I’m curious - what dog whistle do you see?
On many forums. Cough reddit. You can barely say anything slightly spicy without a warning/ban so people are constantly talking in riddles to say more sinister stuff especially if there is implication of encouraging direct action. This is like that. At 30khz it says "get your jammers out!"
To a dog the whistle is explicit. (Not using dog as a derogatory or complimentary term here... more the fact the dog can hear the high frequency)
Ah, gotcha. I'm familiar with the term, I just didn't see how it could be interpreted that way.
Thanks :)
I'm playing with a new "AI browser" these days (Dia), so here's an excerpt from its interpretation of how it could be seen as a dog whistle:
> There are a few ways this lands: > • Benign interpretation: it’s a factual note from teardown reports, relevant to understanding capabilities and privacy implications. > • Critical interpretation: in context of posts about jamming or blinding cameras, component details function as implicit guidance for defeating them, which some view as incitement. > • Political reading: emphasizing hidden/“obfuscated” tracking signals an anti‑surveillance stance and rallies opponents of privatized policing
That seems fair to me, but to be clear - I didn't mean to hide that. I wanted to give people who might be considering action a warning of a hidden anti-theft measure that could get them in trouble while stopping short of encouraging it.
I can see the justification to act, and I generally agree. The risk/reward just isn't right for me.