• ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    213
    ·
    4 days ago

    If the surveillance cameras can’t even catch the persons who removed all of their cameras, then they have proven to be worthless at catching real criminals, with their only proven worth is stalking police officers ex wives.

    • Janx@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      4 days ago

      People removing surveillance cameras taxpayers didn’t approve aren’t “criminals”. The proper term is heroes.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      83
      ·
      4 days ago

      All Flock cameras do is identify cars. If you aren’t a car, they can’t see you. They aren’t just mindlessly recording everything like an ordinary camera, so police can’t look through the recordings to identify you.

      • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 days ago

        There are face tracking flock cams out there too. Benn Jordan recorded part of his video essay on one that was open to the public on a walking path.

        • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          37
          ·
          4 days ago

          I’m against Flock cameras. I didn’t expect to run into people on the anti side who are in denial about how the things work. Like, Flock truthers.

          • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            34
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            They won’t create a searchable database of faces, assuming they work as advertised. However, the footage is streamed to a server (sometimes publicly accessible) and available for manual review.

            Edit: also BT/Wi-Fi MAC addresses of devices, whether on cars or not, are recorded, and can link drivers to their licence-plate-equipped cars even when they’re walking with the same phone or earpods

            • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              4 days ago

              All the news stories I’ve seen talk about concerns over tracking movement. This is the first I’ve heard about people worried about the actual video.

                • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Correct but Flock’s own system, if their public statements can be trusted, doesn’t do facial recognition itself. The main use is tracking vehicles using license plates and all kinds of visual cues, and Bluetooth/Wi-Fi devices by their MAC address and properties, and linking this huge swath of data together. Still, faces are recorded as video that can be checked manually or processed by third-party tools, including “AI” facial-recognition ones. Therefore, if a pedestrian destroys all Flock cameras and has Bluetooth earpods on them, there will be an easy way to link the events, and then the police will check if their face is visible in surviving footage and check the country-wide database if the person ever used the earphones in a vehicle near the cameras.

              • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                Yes, the searchable DB is the big problem. But they work like regular IP cameras too: do you think police would buy them as much if they didn’t? Or did stream but blurred out anything that wasn’t a vehicle? If a crime happened recently near a Flock camera and they know when, they can absolutely use whatever it saw. Not to mention, third-party “AI” tools can be always used on raw footage from any camera for face recognition, event classification etc. so you’re not safe even as a pedestrian without the police having “probable cause”. And the camera going offline is probable cause*.

                * Here, probable cause would ideally mean legally justifiable reasons to check the recording. However, in practice, it’s just any excuse for a police officer to justify spending time retrieving and watching the footage.

  • Dae@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s called “Flock.” Obviously, they all flew away! But you can’t blame the PD for not knowing that; pigs don’t know much about flying.

  • N0t_5ure@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    This is a city of ~25K people, so quite small. Several articles have pointed out that the city, not Flock, bears the costs of the vandalism, so in this instance the city counsel that enabled the city to enter into the contract with Flock to the detriment of its citizens have now burdened the city with a substantial budget item. If the cameras are replaced, you can bet that they will likely be torn down again. At some point there will be a reckoning with voters, and hopefully the idiots that enabled the surveillance state will be voted out.

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        Probably still paying for them even if not there. Some stupid contract.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yes, but not paying for new cameras to be installed, and the contracts will end.

          My City Council made an agreement to install them early last year when they should have known better, but with all the recent backlash against them they’re pretty much guaranteed not to renew the contract. I’m hoping they decide to cover the cameras for the remainder of the contract, but I’m not sure if the contract allows that.

    • Mediocre_Bard_Redeux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 days ago

      If you wear all black, do not show any skin or indicating marks, and vary your gait with a consistent stumble, then the cameras are useless. Remember to park out of sight of any cameras.

      • blackberry28@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 days ago

        Best thing would be to not use ur car but go by foot or bicycle, but then again, it’s the US, where u are literally trapped in ur home if u don’t have a car lol

      • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        I have to believe he’s a time traveler who hasn’t been born yet. He can’t be I’D because he hasn’t been given ID yet, and he can be in multiple places at once. Of course, if he were to appear beside me, I would have to buy him a drink in appreciation, too.

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Whomever the suspect was they were fucking my mother that night and there is no way they could have done it because it was going on all night long.